Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:52 AM
bridgeport bridgeport is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Burbank
Posts: 699
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default 7th Circuit Win, Posner ruling stands

http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=423
__________________
"These truths we hold to be self evident".
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:55 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is great. It affirms what I've been saying all along. I have no doubt that Illinois will have shall issue before California.

Congratulations to Illinois.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:07 AM
not-fishing's Avatar
not-fishing not-fishing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Folsom next to Dyke 8 launch
Posts: 1,810
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Sometimes I'm a little slow, it just hit me.

Free speech but only in the home.

Freedom of religion but only in the home.

Freedom to assemble but only in the home.

Due Process but only in the home.

Ruling against Judge Posner's Decision would have a few hurdles (unless they are ignored like in Chicago and DC).
__________________
Spreading the WORD according to COLT. and Smith, Wesson, Ruger, HK, Sig, High Standard, Browning
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:09 AM
LoadedM333 LoadedM333 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Mira Mesa
Posts: 827
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This is a great news indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:12 AM
ll-Rafael-ll ll-Rafael-ll is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:13 AM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Preiotstan, Commiefornia
Posts: 4,188
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:16 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
QFT

just ask Kachalsky
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:17 AM
Nor Cal Guy's Avatar
Nor Cal Guy Nor Cal Guy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Chico
Posts: 145
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

good job SAF

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:27 AM
rsacks rsacks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 307
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

F*** Yes! Feels good to win, doesn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:35 AM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,374
iTrader: 128 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?
Year and a half
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate.

It's not illegal to tip for PPT!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:39 AM
Damn True Damn True is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Great news....now, let's git-er-done in CA!
__________________
My personal blog: The Damn True Experiment
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:39 AM
ll-Rafael-ll ll-Rafael-ll is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but 2 weeks for what exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:42 AM
goodlookin1's Avatar
goodlookin1 goodlookin1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,462
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
Quote:
"It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.
There's so much WIN in this! Amazing!

Self Defense = Good Cause in CA, here we come!
__________________
www.FirearmReviews.net
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:46 AM
jorgyusa jorgyusa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but 2 weeks for what exactly?
We should be seeing the ruling of the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit on the multiple challenges of May Issue. I don't know if it is in 2 weeks but certainly hope so. They now have some cover to do the right thing with this confirmation of the ruling from the 7th circuit.

Last edited by jorgyusa; 02-22-2013 at 10:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:53 AM
goodlookin1's Avatar
goodlookin1 goodlookin1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,462
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgyusa View Post
We should be seeing the ruling our of the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit on the multiple challenges of May Issue. I don't know if it is in 2 weeks but certainly hope so. They now have some cover to do the right thing with this confirmation of the ruling out of the 7th circuit.
They're not looking for cover to rule in favor for Shall Issue.....they are looking for an excuse to rule against it.

This didnt help their cause one iota
__________________
www.FirearmReviews.net
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-22-2013, 9:58 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,949
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Now we just have to sit back and wait to see how onerous a process they will concoct to actually GET a CCW. And once they make it suitably onerous no one will bother to get and keep such a permit and the process will be constitutionally unassailable.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:01 AM
rootuser rootuser is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?
The ruling is very welcome and not surprising. Illinois having no law on the subject at all (basically not allowing it) is what got them in to trouble. My concerns with the Posner ruling is what is considered "Reasonable". There isn't a hard litmus test defined as to what is reasonable from what I read.

I don't personally know what this will mean for CA, but I get the personal feeling it will have very little meaning in the short run. In the long run, one could argue CA doesn't have a reasonable method, and thus the only reasonable method is shall issue, but I don't see how we get from the Posner ruling to that in CA in the next 5+ years. There will be a lot of delay tactic and no way to enforce compliance regardless of what the rulings are (again in a short to near term, long term this is a good win).
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:02 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?
I would expect a Supreme Court ruling on carry in June 2014. Depending on the exact wording, shall-issue could start the next day, but I would assume more likely 90-180 days after that.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:04 AM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 9,430
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but 2 weeks for what exactly?
"Two weeks" is a old joke around here.

It was originally said by an anti-gun LEO who did not like the idea of Off List Lowers for ARs...when he found out about them he promised they would be added to the ban list in two weeks...which never happened.

It currently means an indeterminate amount of time (with a dash of both humor and exasperation implied).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:06 AM
voiceofreason's Avatar
voiceofreason voiceofreason is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,781
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but 2 weeks for what exactly?
TWO WEEKS

is a running joke on Calguns meaning pretty much never or a really, really long time

from the Tom Hanks movie "The Money Pit"
__________________
"You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."
John Quincy Adams

"You will never know how little my generation has traded away our freedoms and rights for. I'm sorry and ashamed for what we've left to the following generations."
voiceofreason
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:10 AM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

There's definitely going to be SOMETHING in the SCOTUS as a result of this latest round of "go for broke" bans.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:11 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,890
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
The ruling is very welcome and not surprising. Illinois having no law on the subject at all (basically not allowing it) is what got them in to trouble. My concerns with the Posner ruling is what is considered "Reasonable". There isn't a hard litmus test defined as to what is reasonable from what I read.
There is now a confirmed "circuit split." This ruling goes way beyond what happens just in IL or CA. It's a strategic piece that all but guarantees the SCOTUS takes a "carry" case very soon.

The "reasonable" and most of the details will come directly from SCOTUS, not circuits. They will, as usual, rule in a minimalistic way, but it will provide a completely new framework for any law regarding "carry." If the antis overreach *again*, we'll have even more rulings from the SCOTUS.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:15 AM
Bsandoc40's Avatar
Bsandoc40 Bsandoc40 is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Norcal
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Great job, SAF!!!

Another reminder that people might not agree with the 2nd Amendment. But you can't ignore it or dismiss it, either!!
__________________

Auto-Ordnance 1911-A1 .45 ACP
Česká Zbrojovka CZ-75 SP-01 Tactical 9mm
Heckler & Koch VP9 9mm
Kimber 1911 "Raptor II" .45 ACP
Remington 870 Tactical Express 12gauge
Sig Sauer P226 MK25 Navy 9mm
Springfield Armory 1911 "MC Operator" .45 ACP
Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:28 AM
Wildhawk66's Avatar
Wildhawk66 Wildhawk66 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,089
iTrader: 182 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
"Two weeks" is a old joke around here.

It was originally said by an anti-gun LEO who did not like the idea of Off List Lowers for ARs...when he found out about them he promised they would be added to the ban list in two weeks...which never happened.

It currently means an indeterminate amount of time (with a dash of both humor and exasperation implied).
Best explanation yet.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:31 AM
drd drd is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Delays

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
I would expect a Supreme Court ruling on carry in June 2014. Depending on the exact wording, shall-issue could start the next day, but I would assume more likely 90-180 days after that.
I've been wondering about this quite a bit. It's easy to understand why a lower court would stay their own decision to give time to appeal or even time to implement.

It's difficult for me to understand how the Supreme Court would go about such a stay or delay.

If the Supreme Court upholds a ruling granting carry outside the home then they would, in effect, be saying that any law that bars carry outside the home is unconstitutional. I can't imagine the Supreme Court writing an opinion where they find a law unconstitutional and then delaying the ruling for any period of time so those who were in violation of the constitution can continue to violate the constitution while they get their act together.

On when shall-issue starts, I expect the very first case to be filed will be one that challenges the time it takes to get a permit. Every delay in getting a permit, for whatever reason, is prior restraint of the right.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to come out and say "shall-issue" but you states take as long as you need to process the back-log or sudden influx of permit applications you receive tomorrow.

Assuming a Supreme Court ruling goes our way, and I expect it will, it's not going to be just the discretionary-issue states that will have a serious problem. Any state that doesn't allow unlicensed carry of some sort and has a delay in issuing licenses will have an issue.

Those states that allow unlicensed carry will have no issue if they take time to issue a license because the people still have the ability to carry in some manner.

Those states that don't allow some type of unlicensed carry and have a waiting period for a license will be restraining the right. Perhaps there will be a "balance" struck with strict scrutiny that a small delay is permissible but that's kind of a stretch.

When comparing to permits for a demonstration remember that such permits are applied for in advance, i.e., I want to hold a demonstration at some future date.

Licensing for carrying a firearm is for now, not because I want to be licensed in the future.

This will get very interesting and even more so for non-residents. Will California require California-issued licenses for out-of-state residents? What happens then when I have a personal emergency and have to be in the state before California can issue me my license - do I lose my right to carry a weapon in California?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:32 AM
NewGuy1911's Avatar
NewGuy1911 NewGuy1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 548
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Best explanation yet.

Agreed!
__________________
"Speak kindly to me, beloved master. Revel in my unconditional love, and give me every minute that you can spare, for my time with you is short."---Your faithful dog

1911Tuner (That one's my own. I'm a rescuer. It's What I do.)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:40 AM
Stonewalker's Avatar
Stonewalker Stonewalker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Moore v Madigan is such a solid win. It's huge. I still get excited when I think about its implications.
__________________
member: Electronic Frontier Foundation, NRA, CGF

Deer Hunting Rifles? "Let's get rid of those too" - Adam Keigwin, Chief of Staff for Senator Leland Yee
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:54 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?
CA will go shall issue just shortly after the sweeping gun confiscations are complete. So you're be able to get a CCW....you just wont be able to own a gun to actually carry.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:58 AM
rootuser rootuser is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
There is now a confirmed "circuit split." This ruling goes way beyond what happens just in IL or CA. It's a strategic piece that all but guarantees the SCOTUS takes a "carry" case very soon.

The "reasonable" and most of the details will come directly from SCOTUS, not circuits. They will, as usual, rule in a minimalistic way, but it will provide a completely new framework for any law regarding "carry." If the antis overreach *again*, we'll have even more rulings from the SCOTUS.
Thank you IVC. I understand the split and thanks for reminding me. This gives more cause for the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

The Supreme Court can go several ways at this point:

1. Not hear the case and let the rulings stand, however they may be. The SCOTUS doesn't HAVE to take the case even with a split in the circuit.

2. Judge that the plantiffs have no standing, but I would think this is not one of those situations, particularly because it is a pretty clear constitutional issue.

3. Decide that Illinois does not have to have a carry law at all, and may be rights of the states opt to have one or not.

4. Decide very narrowly that Illinois must come up with a law that imposes reasonable regulation (basically affirm the original ruling) but leave open for definition the effect of Shall Issue vs May Issue by leaving latitude as is customarily afforded to states in many issues, but not as much latitutde when the constitution is involved.

5. Decide broadly that Illinois must offer carry permits on a Shall Issue basis, with proviso that there will be a class of people (Felons for example) that will be disallowed.


If I had to guess right now, in light of Heller, we will get a decision that is something between 4 and 5. I doubt it will be broad enough to suddenly override all May Issue statutes. It may very well extend the right to protection outside the home, but I have a feeling that is as about as far as the court will go in a single ruling. Simply allowing protection outside the home won't be enough to change May Issue states to Shall Issue.

What a ruling like this would do however, is now bring cause to challenge the may issue states as being too restrictive to allow for protection outside the home and thus force a battle directly between May Issue provisions and Shall Issue. This is where I see the 5+ years in total coming in.

I hope that I am wrong, but I always prepare for the long fight because I know I am fighting for my children's right to protect themselves, not only my own, so patience is key.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:00 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drd View Post

This will get very interesting and even more so for non-residents. Will California require California-issued licenses for out-of-state residents? What happens then when I have a personal emergency and have to be in the state before California can issue me my license - do I lose my right to carry a weapon in California?
Will likely have to be some follow-up litigation on things like that based on things like "full faith & credit" and "right to travel", etc. You dont have to surrender any other of your rights under the BoR just because you cross state lines. Why should the 2A be any different? Are not tourists often specifically the targets of crime?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:09 AM
billofrights's Avatar
billofrights billofrights is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SFV
Posts: 2,058
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildhawk66 View Post
Best explanation yet.
I always thought it was from that scene in Total Recall when the 'fat lady' mask went haywire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17duGlHEYY
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:13 AM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,147
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

GREAT NEWS!

__________________
.
.
COTEP #227



SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:16 AM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll View Post
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?
Don't hold your breath!
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:18 AM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djandj View Post
Now we just have to sit back and wait to see how onerous a process they will concoct to actually GET a CCW. And once they make it suitably onerous no one will bother to get and keep such a permit and the process will be constitutionally unassailable.
And that same 7th Districk Court will kick'm right in the azz.
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:24 PM
Tripeaks69's Avatar
Tripeaks69 Tripeaks69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 941
iTrader: 9 / 91%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
CA will go shall issue just shortly after the sweeping gun confiscations are complete. So you're be able to get a CCW....you just wont be able to own a gun to actually carry.
^^^ This ^^^ CA Socialist (democrats) are doing exactly this. They will have shall issue after they confiscated out firearms hahahahahah


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:37 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,665
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

This is big for the Kachalsky case, because if this judgement was thrown out it would have undercut Gura's chances at cert.

What I wonder is if Illinois will themselves appeal to the SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:39 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,949
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus View Post
And that same 7th Districk Court will kick'm right in the azz.
Don't count on that. There is a HUGE legal difference between having a NO ISSUE policy and a policy that imposes "reasonable restrictions and requirements".
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:47 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drd View Post
I've been wondering about this quite a bit. It's easy to understand why a lower court would stay their own decision to give time to appeal or even time to implement.

It's difficult for me to understand how the Supreme Court would go about such a stay or delay.

If the Supreme Court upholds a ruling granting carry outside the home then they would, in effect, be saying that any law that bars carry outside the home is unconstitutional. I can't imagine the Supreme Court writing an opinion where they find a law unconstitutional and then delaying the ruling for any period of time so those who were in violation of the constitution can continue to violate the constitution while they get their act together.

On when shall-issue starts, I expect the very first case to be filed will be one that challenges the time it takes to get a permit. Every delay in getting a permit, for whatever reason, is prior restraint of the right.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to come out and say "shall-issue" but you states take as long as you need to process the back-log or sudden influx of permit applications you receive tomorrow.

Assuming a Supreme Court ruling goes our way, and I expect it will, it's not going to be just the discretionary-issue states that will have a serious problem. Any state that doesn't allow unlicensed carry of some sort and has a delay in issuing licenses will have an issue.

Those states that allow unlicensed carry will have no issue if they take time to issue a license because the people still have the ability to carry in some manner.

Those states that don't allow some type of unlicensed carry and have a waiting period for a license will be restraining the right. Perhaps there will be a "balance" struck with strict scrutiny that a small delay is permissible but that's kind of a stretch.

When comparing to permits for a demonstration remember that such permits are applied for in advance, i.e., I want to hold a demonstration at some future date.

Licensing for carrying a firearm is for now, not because I want to be licensed in the future.

This will get very interesting and even more so for non-residents. Will California require California-issued licenses for out-of-state residents? What happens then when I have a personal emergency and have to be in the state before California can issue me my license - do I lose my right to carry a weapon in California?
I do not think the court will go that far, I would expect they require states pick from a minimum of open carry or shall-issue CCW. States that wish to do CC, or both shall-issue and unrestricted OC may do so at their own choice.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-22-2013, 12:49 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,865
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post

What I wonder is if Illinois will themselves appeal to the SCOTUS.



You can bet on it !
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-22-2013, 1:06 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,104
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the state legislature. I'm sure that democrats will demand high licencing fees, massive expansion of defined sensitive places to include 80% of Chicago, keeping the FOID law intact, and continuation of Chicago's home rule. The question is whether the Republicans there will hang tough or cave. If they can't get an end to FOID and home rule then they should just refuse to pass anything because Chicago will throw up a never ending series of roadblocks, restrictions, and taxes each requiring years of litigation much as they have for those trying to buy a handgun. The real key to Illinois politics is "what's in it for me" and from local officials to the state house it's as corrupt as Mexico.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:36 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.