View Single Post
Old February 25, 2013, 10:29 PM   #40
smoking357
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
It occurs to me that there has to be a near-absolute right SOMEWHERE. It seems that according to this court, that would mean open carry is it.
Possibly, but perhaps the court is saying that there is no Second Amendment right to concealed carry and no Second Amendment right to open carry. There's merely a Second Amendment right to carry, in some fashion, that the state cannot entirely foreclose. As Gray never put the other option in play, we truly don't know where the Tenth stands.

Quote:
If true, that would certainly conflict with the philosophy and strategic approach by the CalGuns foundation.
Indeed. The CalGuns bunch doesn't like open carry; they're embarrassed by open carry, and they know open carry in Venice Beach or Haight-Ashbury would scare the tar out of the locals. The CalGuns bunch also really likes permits, and they don't have much use for those of us who want constitutional carry, because they know they're so far from ever seeing that in California that seeking that does them no practical good. Knowing that loaded open carry wouldn't play well at home, or that they just wouldn't want to do it, even if legal, the CalGuns gang set this case up to give them a concealed carry win they could repatriate to California.

As I said earlier, that was a dangerous game of brinksmanship that placed the rights of gun owners across the country at stake and will be a permanent drag on full and unfettered exercise of the Second Amendment beyond the borders of California.

I read the aspirations of the posters in this thread with disappointment. They look at this case and blame the judge or hope plaintiffs will win on appeal or hope that the legal strategy will be burnished and prevail at an en banc appeal or the Supreme Court.

What they don't realize is that this case is not being fully and zealously prosecuted seeking every available argument. Gray and Gene set this case up to try to get a concealed carry permit win they could export to California. This case is only about concealed carry permits in California, not permit-less open carry in Denver. Gray never really convinced the court that his contact with Denver were all that substantial, and he entirely and conspicuously omitted the remedy of open carry in Denver from the case.

It's very likely the Tenth Circuit realized they weren't dealing with honest traders and didn't want to allow their court to be used for tainted motives. Posters here can think the court gave Peterson a raw deal, but I suspect that the court's antennae went up when dealing with him, and I further suspect that this case dies right here.

We gun owners need cases prosecuted with the purest, most passionate and most fully committed parties and lawyers. There are many such cases out there to which gun rights supporters would be better served directing their suggestion and assistance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Dandy
Most of us likely prefer Concealed of course.
Really? I'd think most gun owners would, of course, prefer open carry.

Last edited by smoking357; February 25, 2013 at 10:34 PM.
smoking357 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.05392 seconds with 7 queries