san diego en banc = route to nationwide reciprocacy

[caburian]

If it reaches SCOTUS, my prediction would be a nationwide ruling on CCW shall issue which could probably lead to nationwide reciprocity. maybe 1-3 years?




what do you all think?
discuss.

[solanoslough]

No. The federal government will not force conceal carry on the states because open carry is the right. In other words, if a state allows open carry and does not want to allow concealed carry it will be said that they satisfy the Second Amendment Right.

[CAL.BAR]

If the vast majority of Californians could get CCW's we wouldn't need or care about reciprocity. That was mainly a dodge to try and get around the fact that 90% of Californians live in counties where they can't get CCW's

[Tarn_Helm]

If it reaches SCOTUS, my prediction would be a nationwide ruling on CCW shall issue which could probably lead to nationwide reciprocity. maybe 1-3 years?




what do you all think?
discuss.

. . . um, yeah . . .

. . . in

[monk]

What's your reasoning? I can't see how the court would jump from requiring a leo agency to remove the good reason requirement to national reciprocity.

[hvengel]

What's your reasoning? I can't see how the court would jump from requiring a leo agency to remove the good reason requirement to national reciprocity.

I agree it's not going to happen as the direct result of this case.

But if SCOTUS affirms this then is has then ruled that carry MUST be allowed for law abiding adults since it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. They have already ruled in other rights/privileges cases that states have very limited authority to treat non-residents differently than residents with regard to how these rights/privileges are treated by the state. For example, California can't restrict the free speak rights of someone from Nevada to a different extent, either more or less restricted, than they do for a California resident. Why would carry rights be any different from these other rights? So there is the potential to force reciprocity by way of a non-California resident suing to have carry rights while in California since the current regulatory scheme makes this impossible IE. the regulatory scheme destroys the 2nd Amendment right to bear of out of state residence while they are in California and that likely will not stand up to a court challenge.

[caburian]

Reading past the good cause statement on the ruling, the case also made it clear that to keep and bear arms applies to outside your home. I was thinking should it reach SCOTUS I would think it would be clear that it's every citizens right and not just a state residents right.

Just thinking

[monk]

I agree it's not going to happen as the direct result of this case.

But if SCOTUS affirms this then is has then ruled that carry MUST be allowed for law abiding adults since it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. They have already ruled in other rights/privileges cases that states have very limited authority to treat non-residents differently than residents with regard to how these rights/privileges are treated by the state. For example, California can't restrict the free speak rights of someone from Nevada to a different extent, either more or less restricted, than they do for a California resident. Why would carry rights be any different from these other rights? So there is the potential to force reciprocity by way of a non-California resident suing to have carry rights while in California since the current regulatory scheme makes this impossible IE. the regulatory scheme destroys the 2nd Amendment right to bear of out of state residence while they are in California and that likely will not stand up to a court challenge.

CA9 didn't say the sheriff has to issue a permit; it said the sherriff can't require good cause. Unless I read that wrong I don't see how this ruling could lead to that.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse.

[caburian]

CA9 didn't say the sheriff has to issue a permit; it said the sherriff can't require good cause. Unless I read that wrong I don't see how this ruling could lead to that.

Sorry if I'm being obtuse.

CA9's opinion made it clear that a sheriff requiring a good cause statement is unconstitutional, why is it unconstitutional? because the right to bear arms is your right as a citizen.

So on the back end of things, it does require your county sheriff or PD to accept your application, and process it without a good cause statement but rather proof of good moral character which should be your background check - that I agree that no felons/criminals should be allowed CCW.

[usmcchet9296]

CA9's opinion made it clear that a sheriff requiring a good cause statement is unconstitutional, why is it unconstitutional? because the right to bear arms is your right as a citizen.

So on the back end of things, it does require your county sheriff or PD to accept your application, and process it without a good cause statement but rather proof of good moral character which should be your background check - that I agree that no felons/criminals should be allowed CCW.

In other words since I have no prior convictions, traffic violations, not even a jay walking ticket the sherrifs department would have no reason to reject my application.

[press1280]

If it reaches SCOTUS, my prediction would be a nationwide ruling on CCW shall issue which could probably lead to nationwide reciprocity. maybe 1-3 years?




what do you all think?
discuss.

It'll take a new Senate and President to get national reciprocity, regardless of what happens at SCOTUS. Even with a win wiping out may-issue, it's doubtful the NYs and CAs will voluntarily enter into any reciprocity agreements.

[Norsemen308]

apples and oranges


reciprocity is NOT what you think it is... CA is never going to accept AZ or NV OR TX, just isnt going to happen. They will always politicize the whole thing and make an individual take a mandated test with certain questions.

CA having to go SHALL ISSUE, is all we want. for the moment

[RobertMW]

If it reaches SCOTUS, my prediction would be a nationwide ruling on CCW shall issue which could probably lead to nationwide reciprocity. maybe 1-3 years?

Well, if all states approved concealed carry in one form or the other, yes I could see that as a good time for US representatives to put forward national reciprocity. But it's not something the court is going to tell them to do.

[Funtimes]

apples and oranges


reciprocity is NOT what you think it is... CA is never going to accept AZ or NV OR TX, just isnt going to happen. They will always politicize the whole thing and make an individual take a mandated test with certain questions.

CA having to go SHALL ISSUE, is all we want. for the moment

Once we are shall issue, it becomes even harder to argue against reciprocity imo!

[caburian]

In other words since I have no prior convictions, traffic violations, not even a jay walking ticket the sherrifs department would have no reason to reject my application.

that and meet the 16 hour CCW class requirement.

yes once we become a shall issue state, actually I even see no reason for sheriff or local PD to be involved if we go shall issue.. like other states it would be the court clerk who will be signing the CCW permit after background check goes through, lets take it slow tho.

lets give the sheriff and PD officials the money for now.