Quote:
For example, I happen to believe, unlike some in leadership positions at Calguns and elsewhere, that if we got open, loaded carry first, that the CA legislature would RUN, not walk to shall issue licensing policy.
|
It seemed to have worked in Ohio, but California's a whole different place. Let's not forget that open carry was part of the cause of the problem back in 1967.
If you followed the
Richards case, Judge England's logic was that, as long as one form of unlicensed carry (at the time, UOC) was permitted, then the right to carry was not violated. AB 144 took even
that off the table. That leaves certain parties a window through which to file litigatin with a real chance of succeeding.
Those parties have a plan. This is about chess, not checkers. Now, if it's to be an either/or choice between legal open carry or legal concealed carry, concealed carry is a better choice.
Maestro, good point about private establishments and GFZ's whittling the effective scope of the right down in a non-permissive culture.