California; Open carry / CCW

[kenhwind]

Found this link at Outdoors unlimited:
http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=z048pvbv6p5ts7&xid=z03k54zggit1vf&done=.z048pvbv6puts7

[Aguila Blanca]

There may be some precedent for that view, especially if California courts are willing to consider what other states have done/said (unlikely). It was only a few years ago that Ohio had no provision (whatsoever) for concealed carry, and although the Ohio state constitution supposedly guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms, police in Ohio routinely arrested people who were seen carrying openly.

Somebody took it to court, and the Ohio Supreme Court (in a fit of judicial sanity) ruled that the constitution guaranteed a right to carry, so if the legislature chose to prohibit concealed carry, then citizens in Ohio MUST be allowed to open carry. Based on that decision, Ohioans began holding "carry-ins," rallies of large numbers of people all visibly carrying/wearing sidearms. The legislature got spooked, and a couple of years later Ohio miraculously had a concealed carry law.

It will take awhile for the courts to sort it out, but now that it has been settled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, the same logic can be used in any state, even those whose state constitution does not protect a right to keep and bear arms.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

While the expansion of Shall Issue CCW across the country is mostly to be aplauded, one facet concerns me. Before it was criminalized, primarily by racists who wanted to make sure newly freed slaves had no means of fighting back, it was much closer to being a right. Now gun owners have been very successful in restoring the legal ability to carry, but it's reinstatement has been in the form of a privilege which the state may confer upon those it finds suitable. Additionally, they've been empowered to stick their nose farther into our business and compile MORE improper information about which rights we avail ourselves of than before the [re]legalization of CCW.

[kenhwind]

Unfortunately this is so. Concealed Carry Laws are a double edged sword IMO. On the one side we get to acquire a license and carry a weapon.
On the other side of the issue, and I'm sure that THEY have thought about it. CCW permits are also gun owner registration. So if they make it law that you need the license to buy, then we would have firearm registration

[Frank]

...Before it was criminalized, ... it was much closer to being a right. Now gun owners have been very successful in restoring the legal ability to carry, but it's reinstatement has been in the form of a privilege which the state may confer upon those it finds suitable. Additionally, they've been empowered to stick their nose farther into our business and compile MORE improper information about which rights we avail ourselves of than before the [re]legalization of CCW. ...Concealed Carry Laws are a double edged sword IMO. On the one side we get to acquire a license and carry a weapon. On the other side of the issue, and I'm sure that THEY have thought about it. CCW permits are also gun owner registration... Nonetheless, it is what it is. And in many case, the trade off would have been not being able to legally carry a loaded gun in public at all.

In a few States, the political climate has permitted doing away with permit requirements (i. e., Vermont, Alaska, and now Arizona).

And now with Heller and McDonald on the books, someone might want to challenge permit requirements. But I doubt that would be worth the time or money. I suspect that CCW licensing would pass even strict scrutiny, as long as it's "shall issue" and as long as the requirements aren't too onerous (i. e., an 8 to 16 hour class would probably be okay, but six weeks of required SWAT type training would not).

[Aguila Blanca]

And now with Heller and McDonald on the books, someone might want to challenge permit requirements. But I doubt that would be worth the time or money. I suspect that CCW licensing would pass even strict scrutiny, as long as it's "shall issue" and as long as the requirements aren't too onerous (i. e., an 8 to 16 hour class would probably be okay, but six weeks of required SWAT type training would not).
You may be right in the context of today's political climate, Frank, but I hope you are not right for the long term. Think about what you wrote. Would it be okay if citizen's had to pass an 8- or 16-hour class before they were allowed to vote, or before they were allowed to attend the religious service of their choice? A right is a right. Regulation in the sense of "Yeah, you can carry your gun but you can't shoot out the streetlights on Saturday night" is one thing. Making one jump through hoops to obtain the permission slight changes a "right" into a "privilege."

Now ... if you are referring solely to concealed carry, and not all modes of carry -- then perhaps I could go along. What I am leaning toward is the precedent set by the Ohio supreme court. Ohio's constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, guarantees the RKBA. A very few years ago, Ohio was one of those states with no provision at all for (legal) concealed carry. But Ohioans were getting busted for things like "disturbing the peace" when they carried openly.

Someone took it to court. However it played out, it ended up at the state supreme court, and the justices applied faultless logic. They said, in essence: "The constitution says the citizens have the right to bear arms. The legislature made it illegal to carry arms concealed. Therefore, they MUST be allowed to exercise their right, and the only way they can do so is to carry openly. Open carry is legal in Ohio."

That led to the series of "carry-ins", which persuaded the state legislature to enact a concealed cartry law so there wouldn't be as many soccer moms being terrified by the sight of peaceful people carrying GUNZ! around on their hips.

One might hope that the same logic will eventually extend to the national level. Okay, if you want me to get a license to conceal, fine ... but if I have a RIGHT to carry, then there should be some legal mode of carry that doesn't require any permission slip from the overreaching state.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

One might hope that the same logic will eventually extend to the national level. Okay, if you want me to get a license to conceal, fine ... but if I have a RIGHT to carry, then there should be some legal mode of carry that doesn't require any permission slip from the overreaching state.

Agreed, so long as "no permission" means "not even any notice or signing up in advance to exercise".

[Frank]

...You may be right in the context of today's political climate, Frank, but I hope you are not right for the long term. Think about what you wrote. Would it be okay if citizen's had to pass an 8- or 16-hour class before they were allowed to vote, or before they were allowed to attend the religious service of their choice?... But voting or going to church isn't quite the same as walking around in public with a lethal weapon capable of spewing death at a distance and the misuse of which can cause immediate and catastrophic injury to innocent people.

I suspect that there will be places in this country where the public will accept folks lawfully carrying loaded guns in public only if as a condition of doing so such individuals have first demonstrated (1) a clean record; (2) a basic understanding of firearm safety; (3) basic proficiency; and (4) a basic understanding of the applicable laws. And I think that appropriate "shall issue" standards along those lines would be sustained by courts, even applying strict scrutiny.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

But voting or going to church isn't quite the same as walking around in public with a lethal weapon capable of spewing death at a distance and the misuse of which can cause immediate and catastrophic injury to innocent people.

You're right. You can do a lot more damage with a ballot than a bullet. It's voters who should have to sit through classes (on the Constitutional limitations of proper government)

[Frank]

You're right. You can do a lot more damage with a ballot than a bullet. It's voters who should have to sit through classes (on the Constitutional limitations of proper government)Don't be silly. You're one voter among many, and any damage potential is ameliorated by the system of checks and balances.

On the other hand, if you shoot when lethal force isn't justified, or if you handle your gun negligently in public, or if you miss the criminal you're shooting at, an innocent person may get seriously injured or killed right there and then.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Same logic applies in reverse. As an individual there's a limit to how many people you can shoot negligently or maliciously. It takes more negligent, uninformed, entitled voters to do damage, but they can mess up the entire country.

[kenhwind]

As an individual there's a limit to how many people you can shoot negligently or maliciously.
It only takes one gun in the wrong hands, to mess up the entire country.

[Frank]

It only takes one gun in the wrong hands, to mess up the entire country.Indeed World War I was started with a single bullet fired by one person.

...Same logic applies in reverse. As an individual there's a limit to how many people you can shoot negligently or maliciously. It takes more negligent, uninformed, entitled voters to do damage, but they can mess up the entire country.... And no, it's not the same in the reverse at all. The damage caused by the shooter is immediate and very real to the people shot. Possible damage caused by voters is speculative.

If someone is shot, there can be no doubt that he has been injured. But while you may think that those voters who elected Obama damaged the country, they probably think they helped save it.

[kenhwind]

It only takes one gun in the wrong hands, to mess up the entire country.
Serious and restrictive GUN CONTROL did not exist on a National level in the United States, except for automatic weapons, etc, until the assassination of JFK.

[Patriotic]

Another interesting point kenhwind is that JFK was shot with a bolt action rifle that had a 6 round magazine. RFK was shot with a revolver as was Reagan yet the gun control freaks call for the banning on semi-automatic pistols and rifles, guns with more than 10 round detachable magazines, flash suppressors etc.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Possible damage caused by voters is speculative.

It's the farthest thing from speculative. Stop hanging out with attorneys so much! ;-)

[Dial 1911 for Help]

If someone is shot, there can be no doubt that he has been injured. But while you may think that those voters who elected Obama damaged the country, they probably think they helped save it.
What they think is irrelevant unless they're right, except that they're allowed to vote, which reaffirms my premise.

[Frank]

Another interesting point kenhwind is that JFK was shot with a bolt action rifle that had a 6 round magazine. RFK was shot with a revolver as was Reagan yet the gun control freaks call for the banning on semi-automatic pistols and rifles, guns with more than 10 round detachable magazines, flash suppressors etc.So do you want bolt action rifles and revolvers banned too?

Actually, the AWB didn't come along until 1994. The assassination by gunfire of three well loved figures (JFK, RFK and MLK) in the '60s resulted in the comprehensive gun regulation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. And at that time, under the circumstances, there was no way to prevent its passage.

Possible damage caused by voters is speculative. It's the farthest thing from speculative. Stop hanging out with attorneys so much!..Try studying some real history instead of listening to Talk Radio.

If someone is shot, there can be no doubt that he has been injured. But while you may think that those voters who elected Obama damaged the country, they probably think they helped save it. What they think is irrelevant unless they're right, except that they're allowed to vote, which reaffirms my premise.And they are saying exactly the same thing about you. And who appointed you arbiter of what is right?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Try studying some real history instead of listening to Talk Radio.

Actually, I'm in a couple US history books at the moment and rarely listen to talk radio. But thanks for your concern.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

And they are saying exactly the same thing about you. And who appointed you arbiter of what is right?Obviously I believe there to be an absolute truth independent of what I believe or what those guys believe.

[Frank]

Obviously I believe there to be an absolute truth independent of what I believe or what those guys believe.Of course there is. As the cognoscenti know, the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything is 42.

[Aguila Blanca]

I suspect that there will be places in this country where the public will accept folks lawfully carrying loaded guns in public only if as a condition of doing so such individuals have first demonstrated (1) a clean record; (2) a basic understanding of firearm safety; (3) basic proficiency; and (4) a basic understanding of the applicable laws. And I think that appropriate "shall issue" standards along those lines would be sustained by courts, even applying strict scrutiny.
Agreed -- but that's bowing to the current political climate. As one member frequently posts over on The High Road forum, "Where does it say any of that in the Second Amendment?" When the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, I am quite certain they did NOT intend for the RKBA to be predicated on taking and passing a multi-day class in firearms safety, firearms proficiency, and/or legal issues. Quite the contrary, they wrote, "The right ... shall not be infringed."

Yes, I know you are an attorney and I know about common law and precedent and all that ... but that all boils down to the "political climate" rather than the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous, unequivocal, and leaves NO wiggle room to argue that the intent was to allow for "reasonable" regulation. It does not. The Founders knew the word "reasonable." They made provision for "reasonable" in the 4th Amendment. They did NOT make provision for "reasonable" in the 2nd Amendment.

Regulation = infringement. We need to keep that firmly in mind.

[Aguila Blanca]

Obviously I believe there to be an absolute truth independent of what I believe or what those guys believe.
"Obviously"?

Why and how is this in any way obvious?

[Frank]

Agreed -- but that's bowing to the current political climate. As one member frequently posts over on The High Road forum, "Where does it say any of that in the Second Amendment?" When the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, I am quite certain they did NOT intend for the RKBA to be predicated on taking and passing a multi-day class in firearms safety, firearms proficiency, and/or legal issues...Perhaps, but it's also real life. Could there conceivably come a time when enough of the body politic embrace the most expansive possible view of the Second Amendment resulting in the repeal of all gun laws (even those that would pass muster under now established standards for the regulation of constitutionally protect rights)? Is it realistically possible?

...I know you are an attorney and I know about common law and precedent and all that ... but that all boils down to the "political climate" rather than the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. "Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous, unequivocal, and leaves NO wiggle room to argue that the intent was to allow for "reasonable" regulation. It does not....Sure, but we live in a political world. Politics is "the art of the possible", not "the art of the impossible."

[Dial 1911 for Help]

"Obviously"?

Why and how is this in any way obvious?
That chain of responses originated when I said "What they think is irrelevant unless they're right, except that they're allowed to vote, which reaffirms my premise."

[Aguila Blanca]

That chain of responses originated when I said "What they think is irrelevant unless they're right, except that they're allowed to vote, which reaffirms my premise."
None of that in any way makes it "obvious" that you believe in an absolute truth that is independent of what anyone believes. In fact, it doesn't even hint at such a belief.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I apologize for any confusion, but I don't see any inconsistency. I'd think that anyone who talks about something being "right" or "wrong" (not morally but factually) IS espousing believe in absolute truth. That's what those words mean to me.

[Aguila Blanca]

I apologize for any confusion, but I don't see any inconsistency. I'd think that anyone who talks about something being "right" or "wrong" (not morally but factually) IS espousing believe in absolute truth. That's what those words mean to me.
"Right" and "wrong" are moral and legal issues, not factual. The only thing "factual" about whether or not any action is "right" or "wrong" is whether or not it is against a law. Beyond that, all discussion is a matter of moral belief and/or judgment, not fact.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I kind of debated on using "right" and "wrong". Fine, we'll use "correct" and "incorrect". That should be unambiguous enough. I contend that people who think they saved the country by electing Barack Obama are objectively INCORRECT, independent of my opinion or that of anyone else.

[Frank]

...I contend that people who think they saved the country by electing Barack Obama are objectively INCORRECT, independent of my opinion or that of anyone else. I'm no fan of Obama, and fully believe that his policies and approach are not helpful. But questions about one person saving or destroying the country are a lot more complex than anyone's notion of objective absolute truth.

We know as a matter of objective truth that the New York Yankees won the 2009 World Series. But as questions get more complex, notions of true and false of necessity get much murkier.

[Aguila Blanca]

Fine, we'll use "correct" and "incorrect". That should be unambiguous enough. I contend that people who think they saved the country by electing Barack Obama are objectively INCORRECT, independent of my opinion or that of anyone else.
That is still not unambiguous. The problem is, whether they are objectively correct or incorrect in believing they saved the country depends entirely on whether one believs that Obama is doing a good job. The current polls show his approval rating is below 50 percent, but it isn't zero, so there are millions of people out there who DO seem to believe he's doing a good job. So there is not agreement, and thus there is no "factual basis" for an opinion.

You can't base an objective statement on a subjective belief.

I agree completely that those who think they saved the country by voting in Obama are incorrect, but I accept that as a subjective value decision, not as an objective truth that exists outside of anyone's frame of belief.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

That is still not unambiguous. The problem is, whether they are objectively correct or incorrect in believing they saved the country depends entirely on whether one believs that Obama is doing a good job.No, it's not. It's dependent on whether his policies are congruent with Constitutional principles and with policies that have produced results in line with Constitutional values, in the past. Nothing subjective about it, or at least very little.

[Frank]

...That is still not unambiguous. The problem is, whether they are objectively correct or incorrect in believing they saved the country depends entirely on whether one believs that Obama is doing a good job....No, it's not. It's dependent on whether his policies are congruent with Constitutional principles and with policies that have produced results in line with Constitutional values, in the past. Nothing subjective about it, or at least very little.How do you quantify subjectivity? Now what was once purely objective becomes "a very little subjective." Is there anything subjective about how subjective it is?

[Aguila Blanca]

No, it's not. It's dependent on whether his policies are congruent with Constitutional principles and with policies that have produced results in line with Constitutional values, in the past. Nothing subjective about it, or at least very little.
That IS subjective. That is your definition, with which 309,882,635 are free to disagree. There is nothing objective about that whatsoever. Certainly it can't be accepted as a universal belief that is independent of anyone's belief. It is entirely DEpendent upon one's belief.