I don't follow all the legal gun stuff very closely because I'm generally satisfied with my states gun laws. I'm not satisfied with the gun laws of California though. My states CCW permit isn't recognized there, and it bugs me because I'd like to drive through the state sometime and visit some of its attractions -Napa Valley, etc. I haven't been back there since about 25 years ago, I went there unarmed with my then wife. One night near Salinas, California we were badly scared by a motorcycle gang, one member of whom rented a room next to us in our motel, then piled about 12 gang members in there and proceeded to have a drug party. Not realizing who was making the racket, I knocked on their door and politely asked them to quiet down so we could sleep. Needless to say, it got pretty scary. In the end, nothing happened thank God, except we spent a very tense, sleepless night in Salinas California. Never Again.
So, after the McDonald decision, is it going to be legal now to carry a gun through California? If not, and if I carry one anyway and am arrested, would I now have a shot at winning a lawsuit against California on Constitutional grounds? (Hey, I could use a million $ of californias money).Seriously, This is a question - I'm not a lawyer and don't know, but it seems to me like I would have grounds for a lawsuit, since the Supreme Court now apparently agrees that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, and I legally own my gun in my state of residence, have a CCW permit from my state that's recognized by most other states, and am a US citizen of good character (and a veteran) and have no criminal record, don't drink more than an occasional drink, and even have a good driving record. But that's not been good enough for California. I don't think California recognizes ANY other states permits. Since meeting other states requirements is never going to satisfy California, doesn't that mean CCW reciprocity with California is impossible? And doesn't that automatically mean that California is denying non-Californian US citizens rights that are guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution? I don't know. Like I said, this is a question, not an answer. What do you think?
So, after the McDonald decision, is it going to be legal now to carry a gun through California? If not, and if I carry one anyway and am arrested, would I now have a shot at winning a lawsuit against California on Constitutional grounds? (Hey, I could use a million $ of californias money).Seriously, This is a question - I'm not a lawyer and don't know, but it seems to me like I would have grounds for a lawsuit, since the Supreme Court now apparently agrees that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, and I legally own my gun in my state of residence, have a CCW permit from my state that's recognized by most other states, and am a US citizen of good character (and a veteran) and have no criminal record, don't drink more than an occasional drink, and even have a good driving record. But that's not been good enough for California. I don't think California recognizes ANY other states permits. Since meeting other states requirements is never going to satisfy California, doesn't that mean CCW reciprocity with California is impossible? And doesn't that automatically mean that California is denying non-Californian US citizens rights that are guaranteed to them by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution? I don't know. Like I said, this is a question, not an answer. What do you think?