View Single Post
Old March 18, 2012, 09:23 AM   #19
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake View Post
So it's a state's right, unless the state doesn't want to allow carry?

Or it's an individual right, supposed to be protected by the federal government?
That's putting a spin on things that isn't correct.

2A jurisprudence (the contours of the right) is in its infancy. It is an individual right. What all the carry cases are striving for is a recognition that it is our right to go about our daily business, armed for self defense.

The States are converting the carry argument to one of concealed carry. So far, the majority of courts are saying one or both of two things:

1. You do not have a right to concealed carry (a mischaracterization of our arguments).
2. The right to carry stops at the threshold of your home (the fact specific holding of Heller as opposed to the general holding).

The Peruta Court (SD CA) got it somewhat correct, in that this court found that since people are allowed to openly carry an unloaded handgun, then concealed carry could be regulated however the State wanted. In Richards v. Prieto (ED CA), this court held with Peruta.

The Ezell Court (CCA7) held that banning practice/target ranges, an activity that occurs outside the home, was unconstitutional.

Now we have the Woollard Court (D MD) and the Weaver Court (D WV) point blank saying that carry outside the home is lawful and part of the core individual right to carry for self defense.

Quote:
It seems that some want to have it both ways at once.
Misplaced.

We are saying that the right to carry is central to the right to self defense. We are saying that the States may regulate the manner (Time-Place-Manner = TPM, ala 1A jurisprudence) of carry, but it cannot deny the right (regulate it into a non-right) altogether. We are saying that if the States wish to regulate all forms of carry, it can not do so in a discretionary manner, nor can it (the permitting process) be so onerous as to impede the right.

What I'm saying is that if the State wants to forbid open carry, it may regulate concealed carry, but not in a manner as to preclude the average citizen from the act of carry. If such regulations attach to concealed carry, then open carry must remain unfettered. There are any number of permutations that can be seen, using this as the standard.

Once we get this as settled law (via the SCOTUS, still 1 to 3 years away), then I wouldn't be opposed to the feds saying that states that have a permitting system, must accept other States permits.

It's not so much a matter of having our cake and eating it too, as it is one of setting the basic ground rules first. Until then, I oppose federal intervention in such State issues.
Al Norris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03983 seconds with 8 queries