The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

maestro pistolero · December 11, 2010, 11:11 PM

I am a former San Diegan and a Calgunner. Ironically, I was in SD when the decision came down. Extremely disappointing, and even more so because it seemed like the judge 'got it'.

It is bad enough for a judge to be so blinded by ideology that she can't see beyond it. But it's entirely another matter when the they do 'get it' then rule according to their personal philosophy anyway. It's very hard not to lapse into dark cynicism. The ruling is an intellectual embarrassment. The dots simply cannot be connected.

This is the conclusion I have come to, as posted at Calguns:

A direct attack on California's unloaded requirement for open carry might be the fastest path to shall-issue, for all the reasons you can probably guess. (if you don't already know this, Californians must carry unloaded, thus: UOC=Unloaded Open Carry. Thanks, Al)

Because Heller clarified a right to carry a functional firearm, defeating the unloaded requirement rests on a single question: Is carry protected outside of the home, or not?

Once the anti-gunners have to actually LOOK at loaded guns in public, shall-issue will be a gigantic relief for them, instead of something to resist.

Imagine if 1 out of 100 or even 1 out of 500 people encountered by California anti-gunners was legally carrying a loaded weapon, and there was nothing they could do about it?

That, as they say, is a game changer. I believe the legislature would be stepping over themselves to get them out of sight.

Another hurdle with going after CCW first is that, with caveats, such laws are 'historically constitutional', according to Heller. Open carry is historically protected, and a clearer path, IMO. Either way, we are going to have to fight it all the way up the line, so why make the path more circuitous than it needs to be? Throwing concealment into the the pot adds a hurdle we don't need.

I say we get carrying a functional firearm outside the home protected by the courts, then use the political and social pressure to force shall issue. Realize we may not get CCW from the courts, and without protected LOC (Loaded Open Carry), we won't get it from the legislature either.

It then boils the issue down to a single, basic question that, except for location, has already been answered in Heller and McDonald.

December 11, 2010, 11:11 PM	#7
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	I am a former San Diegan and a Calgunner. Ironically, I was in SD when the decision came down. Extremely disappointing, and even more so because it seemed like the judge 'got it'. It is bad enough for a judge to be so blinded by ideology that she can't see beyond it. But it's entirely another matter when the they do 'get it' then rule according to their personal philosophy anyway. It's very hard not to lapse into dark cynicism. The ruling is an intellectual embarrassment. The dots simply cannot be connected. This is the conclusion I have come to, as posted at Calguns: A direct attack on California's unloaded requirement for open carry might be the fastest path to shall-issue, for all the reasons you can probably guess. (if you don't already know this, Californians must carry unloaded, thus: UOC=Unloaded Open Carry. Thanks, Al) Because Heller clarified a right to carry a functional firearm, defeating the unloaded requirement rests on a single question: Is carry protected outside of the home, or not? Once the anti-gunners have to actually LOOK at loaded guns in public, shall-issue will be a gigantic relief for them, instead of something to resist. Imagine if 1 out of 100 or even 1 out of 500 people encountered by California anti-gunners was legally carrying a loaded weapon, and there was nothing they could do about it? That, as they say, is a game changer. I believe the legislature would be stepping over themselves to get them out of sight. Another hurdle with going after CCW first is that, with caveats, such laws are 'historically constitutional', according to Heller. Open carry is historically protected, and a clearer path, IMO. Either way, we are going to have to fight it all the way up the line, so why make the path more circuitous than it needs to be? Throwing concealment into the the pot adds a hurdle we don't need. I say we get carrying a functional firearm outside the home protected by the courts, then use the political and social pressure to force shall issue. Realize we may not get CCW from the courts, and without protected LOC (Loaded Open Carry), we won't get it from the legislature either. It then boils the issue down to a single, basic question that, except for location, has already been answered in Heller and McDonald. Last edited by maestro pistolero; December 12, 2010 at 12:27 PM.