CA Permit flood

Yet, many sheriff's continue to deny

My county is rabidly anti gun and the sheriff has a group called the "Sheriff's Advisory Board". They contribute funding towards things not covered by the Sheriff's annual budget. The only people that continue to get CCW are those with ties to the District Attorney's office and those that hold positions with this 'Advisory Board'. Can you say 'corruption'?

Many, many Sheriff's will continue to defy the law until they get smacked down by further litigation.
It is a start, but we have a long way to go.
 
Martin J. Mayer, the counsel to the California Police Chiefs Association, which also appealed the decision, said, “We all know a proliferation of weapons will increase the potential of them being used, whether you are talking about a domestic violence dispute, a road rage situation or a barroom brawl.”
Click to expand...
Really? We all know that? Perhaps Mr. Mayer could point to data showing where and when that has ever happened in relation to expanded carry rights.
 
Tomorrow we find out if the US Supremes are going to hear Drake out of NJ. If they do, and we get a right-to-carry decision later in the year as a result, it will make for a sudden change that Cali, NY and others are not at all ready for...because once the US Supreme Court rules, that is binding on every court in the country, and immediately effective.

The real kicker in both California and New York (and possibly others) is that people from out of state have no possible way to get a carry permit...and are also barred in those states from open carry.

Because discrimination against out-of-staters has been banned by the Supreme Court since 1870 (Ward v. Maryland) and the logic repeated in Saenz v. Roe (1999), arguably that discrimination is illegal now. But with a right-to-carry decision it would be dead clear that a statutory ban on carry by out-of-staters is unconstitutional.

The most likely format of a decision will be "states can choose concealed carry or open but cannot deny both, and it's loaded carry in both cases". This would be in line with the six cases positively referenced in Heller's footnote 9, and identical to the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling in Klein in 2003. If that's what happens, out-of-staters barred under California or New York law from both concealed permit application and open carry could choose either.

I think there's going to be some pretty outrageous gatherings of ex-pats from those states once the US Supreme Court speaks, within days of the decision once we've sorted out the actual meaning.
 
If the case goes the way we hope. As a resident of PA that lives about a mile from NYS and visit there on a regular bases. I would be more than willing to join a suit that is being handled by a recognized 2A attorney like someone from the SAF or NRA.

ADD: I don't think Albany could work fast enough to change their laws thus the laws would be unenforceable. A fun thought that is.
 
I don't think Albany could work fast enough to change their laws thus the laws would be unenforceable.
Click to expand...

My point exactly.

When the 7th Circuit struck the IL carry ban they put in a six month delay of game to let the state come up with a carry law - and if the state didn't then the existing laws against carry would just die and you've got "Vermont carry". (That's a big part of why we got a shall-issue law - in the resulting wrangling the antis were screaming bloody murder but we had enough votes to make sure nothing at all passed if it wasn't decent.)

But if the US Supreme Court does basically the same thing, striking unconstitutional carry bans, well then boom that's all she wrote boys...no "stay", no "delays", just "govern yourselves accordingly".

Can you say "open carry rally in Times Square"? Or at least two, one in NYC, one in Frisco, maybe one in LA, maybe a bunch.

I think this will be necessary to get the word out to the public (and especially law enforcement) that things are different.
 
proliferation of weapons
Click to expand...
That is the key. If you could ban all WEAPONS violent crime, or at least the severely injurous type MIGHT fall. Several countries HAVE seen drops in gun crime following bans. The problem is they edged and blunt object weapons have filled the void such that VIOLENT crime does not drop.
 
Almost genuine journalism! I guess it's the best we could possibly expect from the NYT when it comes to guns.

I notice they just couldn't help themselves, and had to characterize the increase in permit requests as "fevered" (did they actually take anybody's body temperature? Did they get an interview with someone exhibiting a high level of emotion? Nope, they got a blase contractor who said, " I don’t feel as safe as I used to." Wow, definitely 'fevered'!)

I also notice they went and got two quotes from organizations opposing the right to carry, but none from the pro side. I guess they NYT only has so many column-inches they can dedicate to a given story, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top