The NEXT volly to fire.......CARRY

B

Bruxley

New member
The first step being acomplished in the Heller victory what should the NEXT step be to push back the line? I believe CARRY is the best choice.

The next step should be going after juridictions that outlaw BOTH open AND concealed carry and/or only allow ‘bearing arms’ in a condition making them unusful in case of confrontation (locked in trunk, separate storage of gun and ammo, etc.) laws that do this directly infringe upon the now affirmed 2nd Amendment right. The quote from the Heller v. DC majority opinion below alone should be enough to challenge those laws. Remember, we don’t have to get laws passed, just laws struck down as the 2nd Amendment Codifies an EXISTING right, it is not right GRANTED by the constitution. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.

The majority opinion is actually the Opinion of the Court and I believe in creates an air of being less then definitive by reffering to it as the Majority opinion by implying the dissenting opion has comperable weight.

(from p.19 of the Opinion of the Court)
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v.
Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right
granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner
dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The
Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
Click to expand...

Illinois and Wisconsin law(s) should be immediately challenged due to their ‘rights denied’ laws. No open, concealed, or permits to do either. Those laws are now directly unconstitutional prima fascia in light of the the Heller decision and the portion of the majority opinion quoted above.

Next should be California, New York, NY City, Massachusetts, New Jersy, et al named directly for their ‘may issue’ laws as they infringe on the right.

This approach needs immediate action while the iron is still hot.

This would be step two (the affirmations in Heller being step one) to establish the right to BEAR arms enforceable by Heller. After actually carrying a gun is deemed and accepted (like it or not) then WHAT can be carried and what can be KEPT have their foundations.

From p.58
“Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to
the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban. And
some of those few have been struck down. In Nunn v.
State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition
on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a
prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at
251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court
likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a
pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or
place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the
state constitutional provision (which the court equated
with the Second Amendment). That was so even though
the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid.
See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A
statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts
to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be
so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose
of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible
to ban the possession of handguns so long as the
possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It
is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American
people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential
self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a
citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier
to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;
it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by
an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody
strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed
at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the
police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popu-
lar weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the
home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
We must also address the District’s requirement (as
applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Click to expand...

The above clearly states that restricting the carry of the firearm OR regulation the WAY it is carried by requiring it “be rendered and kept inoperable at all times (requiring it be in a case, disassembled, stored separate then ammo,etc.) “This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

As for ‘responsible gun laws’ or ‘reasonable restrictions’ being argued…….

(from p. 62&63)
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right
whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding
“interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of
the right takes out of the hands of government—even the
Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting
upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future
judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with
the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes)
even future judges think that scope too broad. We would
not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition
of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43
(1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the
freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,
which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure
of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely
unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second
Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very
product of an interest-balancing by the people—which
JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And
whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely
elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and
home.
Click to expand...

This follows with the virtual instruction manual Scalia wrote for us in the Heller Opinion of the Court. Note the frequency Scalia makes analogies with the 1st Amendment. It is as if he is suggesting the same course of action be taken with the Second Amendment as was taken with the First regarding the SCOTUS. Let’s take his advice!

(continuation from above)
JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications
of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for
not providing extensive historical justification for those
regulations of the right that we describe as permissible.
See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this
Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment,
one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
(1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be
time enough to expound upon the historical justifications
for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
exceptions come before us.
Click to expand...

Let’s end the infringement on bearing (carrying) our handguns on or person and in our vehicles by striking down the laws that the Courts Opinion of DC v. Heller calls unconstitutional. Justice Scalia not only makes future challenges to laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment by THOUGROUGHLY defining to words and grammer on it so as to end the strained interpretations. He goes on the discredit points made in the Dissenting opinions with vigor. He then subtly instructs us on what future challenges would be successful be almost presenting the case for carry and carrying in an operable condition in the event of confrontation. Finally he suggests that the path the 1st Amendment took has parallels and enjoys like principles. He even seems to be inviting them with the "And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
exceptions come before us." line.

I believe carry laws are the next logical, strongest, and most impactive challenges to take.

Remember, from here forward we aren’t protecting our right to keep and bear arms as that was an existing right before the Constitution was written, it’s infringement upon that right the 2A protects. INFRINGEMENT to KEEP and BEAR arms is AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL as infringement on free speech. After all SPEECH was once considered SO DANGEROUS that people were (and still are in places of the world) killed for their words.
 
Agreed. The incorporation issue intersects this; for a detailed look, see the file attached at this link:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301054

One piece of "low hanging fruit" is situations where a state gives more RKBA rights to in-state residents than they do visitors. Even without delving into incorporation, any such cross-state-border discrimination is already understood to be under Federal control, and lawsuits can be filed in Federal court with no arguing over incorporation needed.

That's covered in Appendix A of the file.
 
As Jim suggests, the very next issue to tackle is incorporation. As it is now, the 2A literally does not apply to state and local governments, giving them the freedom to do anything their state constitutions allow, which, in California, is nearly anything they want.

Since Heller says that firearms may not be banned (unless they are not in common use or are unusually dangerous, whatever any of that means) the next attack should come there--other cities that have banned handguns, "assault weapon" bans, etc.

If you live in a free state, please don't forget that there are shooters in this country who live in places where it's difficult just to keep your head above the water. First things first.

Tim
 
Except that California's constitution self-incorporates the entire Federal constitution, 2nd Amendment included:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...
 
"Except that California's constitution self-incorporates the entire Federal constitution, 2nd Amendment included"

Interesting. Are there any California court cases where provisions of the Federal constitution were held to be valid there because of the "self-incorporation" statement?

Tim
 
I don't know.

In three cases so far (Fresno Rifle, Hickman and Nordyke, all 9th Circuit 3-judge panels, 1992/1996/2003) the courts said that the 2nd doesn't apply to the states. But I'm not sure anybody made the claim that California self-incorporated the 2nd.

It didn't matter until now, because the 9th Circuit held that the 2A was a collective right.

Post-Heller, this California constitutional clause could become a really big deal.
 
I have a Concealed carry permit. I am going to go against the grain and say I don't really want open carry. Not in big cities so I guess that would be not anywhere. I don't want to live in a society where we openly brandish guns on our hips like mad max in thunderdome.

Some people might get a short and stubby just thinking about everybody walking around openly armed. I DON'T. I don't want my kids raised like that.
If you feel unprotected by the police, fine, get a concealed permit.

I really don't need everyone in the restaurant and gas station showing off their magnums. Then we will have bumper stickers for holsters. :rolleyes: Neon lights for holsters sold about Walmart.
No thanks. An armed society ok, but Tombstone Az in the 1880's doesn't translate real well to Philly 2008. Keep your gun concealed, at least we can the illusion we are a normal society.
 
I have a Concealed carry permit. I am going to go against the grain and say I don't really want open carry. Not in big cities so I guess that would be not anywhere. I don't want to live in a society where we openly brandish guns on our hips like mad max in thunderdome.
Click to expand...

Then you're ignorant of the history of firearms legislation.

OK.

FIRST: pre-civil-war, the prevailing notion was that concealed carry could be regulated (or banned) where open carry can't be. It appears the court in Heller was taking us back there, citing cases from that period (Nunn in Georgia) with apparent approval.

SECOND: this is exactly what happened at the Ohio Supreme Court: our guys sued to get concealed carry, the court said "no right under the state constitution to conceal, however everybody knows the state const. RKBA clause allows open carry".

Oh really now?

Because until that point (2001 decision I *think*?) city PDs such as Toledo, Cleveland, etc. were busting people for open carry. The decision maintaining the CCW ban also ended that harassment. So our guys did open-carry marches including right around the state capital building(!), basically harassing the anti-gun legicritters into passing a CCW bill.

Again: this was a 21st century series of events.

Open carry can lead directly to concealed carry. That's now proven fact. So I'm not going to ask you why you don't want open carry, that's your business. I DAMNED WELL will ask: why do you want to block CCW reform in states that don't already have decent CCW laws? Because in your ignorance, that's exactly what you're doing when you don't support open carry.

Rethink your position.
 
Jim first of all you are RUDE. I won't put it in 75 font and in all in red. I will leave that to you. If you have a point make it, the 4 inch red screaming is uncalled for.

I am sorry you live in a crappy state like Ohio if that is the case. But it is not necessary to have open carry to allow concealed carry. If your point, which was kind of hard to understand with the 8 inch letters, is that the only way to get concealed carry is to picket and fight for open carry. That is a lie.

I get the whole never give an inch crap, it's definitely prevalent, and I am sure you would like to have every man woman and child strapping on their 44's, however I think I'll pass. I have concealed carry here in Florida, have had it for years and years. It aint going away. I don't have to thank radical nutcases with bazookas for it. It was passed by hunters and concerned citizens that saw a need and lobbied for it. It wasn't packaged with open carry. Open carry didn't make it pass. The case for concealed was not built on the back on open carry. So don't make a case that people in Ohio are helping my cause. My state was allowing concealed carry from way back in the 80s. The rest of the northern states have gradually followed suit, but I don't owe crap to you or your picket lines.
Now be a gentleman and not yankee rude if you want to discuss normally.
 
I spent considerable time and thought on the OP. The goal being a discussion on what a logical and easily attainable goal would be guided by what I perceived as subtle hints in the SCOTUS DC v. Heller Opinion of the court.

I can accept that incorporation is the ultimate goal. I would hope that others see that after going after the prima fascia unconstitutionality of laws against carry that incorporation would then become prima fascia itself.

What I see in Jim March's post is what those against carry would point to immediately in their rebuttal, overzealousness. They will argue that carry by gun owning zealots will leave the streets flowing in blood shed by vigilantes.

Given that carry is now established as a right (the bearing of arms) jurisdictions are no longer deciding whether or not to permit carry, they are faced with whether to permit open, concealed, or both. I believe most would prefer concealed for the reasons GatorHugger articulated.

Lets try to turn down the heat a bit Jim. It truly is counter productive in making your point.
 
I'm confused, Gator. Why should law-abiding citizens be forced to hide their firearms? Should we be ashamed of the decision to defend ourselves? Why should peaceful people have to hide their property?

Also, please refrain from stereotyping and insulting people based on where they live. The "damned yankee" style insults should have been left in the 1800s.
 
For all of you who might pay attention, I've been saying this over and over: start hamming CA's attorney general with calls, faxes, emails, and letters demanding CCW reciprocity. Those who haven't been pitifully beaten into submission in CA or exiled out of it are doing what little they can to nudge it along in fractions of a milimeter, basically trying to fill an 18 wheeler's fuel tanks with a medicine dropper. We need the whole country beating down the door.
 
Sorry about the stereotpying, but when I AM BEING SCREAMED AT with the biggest font I have ever seen I don't really like that either!

This has nothing to do with 'being ashamed" dont be ridiculous. This isn't about your ego or gay rights. It's about protecting yourself in the a non threatening and non intrusive way as it relates to how we live now. We don't have people running around with m16's strapped on their back at starbucks. It is too radical. Sorry militia guys, not going to happen.

What a lot of gun rights people don't quite get is there are millions of people like me. A lot more probably than like you. We want to be protected. We like our guns. I have more than a few guns, carry one in my car, carry one in my pocket everyday. We just don't feel the need to flaunt it to old ladies and kids and everyone else in the world by strapping a glock on our hip. I don't take out my lcp and flash it around and make people nervous, and it doesnt make me feel like a big shot to carry it. So why would I feel "ashamed" to have it in my pocket. It's not my face I am concealing, it's something that can end someones life in a second, that does tend to freak people out just a bit. I can respect that. It's called having some COMMON SENSE.

I think my ideas are in the majority, that is proven by how many states have concealed carry versus open carry. Very, very few people want open carry except a small minority on gun boards, And we can have progressive concealed carry laws, that will allow law abiding citizens to carry, without allowing open carry. That has been proven in state after state. You want to carry open, go somewhere there is not a lot of people, but to argue for inner city open carry, just makes the entire gun rights cause seem nutjob. Don't shoot the messenger for telling you how your views make your seem to the majority. Work with the system, being as non threatening and as rational as possible and great things can be done.
 
Jim first of all you are RUDE. I won't put it in 75 font and in all in red. I will leave that to you. If you have a point make it, the 4 inch red screaming is uncalled for.
Click to expand...

I don't like gun owners who fight against our rights. Argue against OC and you're doing so. I'll never apologize for complaining about that because I've seen too much of it.

I am sorry you live in a crappy state like Ohio if that is the case.
Click to expand...

At the moment I'm in Tucson AZ. I've never lived in Ohio. But I'm capable of grasping the lessons learned in another state.

But it is not necessary to have open carry to allow concealed carry. If your point, which was kind of hard to understand with the 8 inch letters, is that the only way to get concealed carry is to picket and fight for open carry. That is a lie.
Click to expand...

You miss the point: it's definitely one way of getting there. I beat my head against the CCW wall in California for seven hard years...1997 to 2005. I put my soul into it. Didn't happen. Trust me: if we'd had open carry in California, we'd have had CCW many, many years ago.

I get the whole never give an inch crap, it's definitely prevalent, and I am sure you would like to have every man woman and child strapping on their 44's, however I think I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Again: I described OC as a way to get to CCW.

Now with that said, yeah, sometimes you run into a need to strap and don't have time to score the permit. What's your preferences: be disarmed against a known threat while waiting for bureaucrats, or strap up right away?

More to the point, do you want to make that choice for me?

If so, what separates you from Chucky Schumer or the like?

I have concealed carry here in Florida, have had it for years and years. It aint going away.
Click to expand...

Correct.

I don't have to thank radical nutcases with bazookas for it. It was passed by hunters and concerned citizens that saw a need and lobbied for it.
Click to expand...

Slight clarification: you can thank people who fought HARD for it, starting with Marion Hammer.

Just curious: did you do anything yourself to get that law passed?

It wasn't packaged with open carry. Open carry didn't make it pass. The case for concealed was not built on the back on open carry.
Click to expand...

The political situation in FL, Ohio and Cali are all radically different. In Cali, the ONLY two routes to CCW are litigation or the Ohio-style "annoy 'em with OC". It's not going to happen in the legislature.

So don't make a case that people in Ohio are helping my cause.
Click to expand...

Now you're deliberately misunderstanding.

It's YOU personally who are hurting California's cause.

My state was allowing concealed carry from way back in the 80s. The rest of the northern states have gradually followed suit, but I don't owe crap to you or your picket lines.
Click to expand...

You owe us enough not to actively hurt our causes.

Now be a gentleman and not yankee rude if you want to discuss normally.
Click to expand...

Be a gent yourself and stop being an activist for the other side.
 
Not being a "activist" at all. You made broad brush strokes that picketing for open carry was a prelude for concealed, then when I point out it is not true necessarily like in florida, you said two different states. Well you can't have it both ways. Either it's necessary to argue for open carry or its not.

Obviously its not, that is proven by my very state.

And if you "will never apologize" to the enemy or whoever argues against your narrow viewpoints, then by very definition you would be an arrogant, arguementative know it all Arse, who is rude to boot. It really won't get you very far Jim. It's called DISCUSSION Jimbo. You listen respectfully and then give your take. Try it some time.

The Naacp learned to wear suits and talk normal. The KKK wouldn't give up the sheets and coneheads. You would still be a conehead.
People are not stupid and can see radicalism. The majority can spot extreme views instantly. What I am saying is you are so far from majority thought it's scary. And your views of open carry have as much chance of passing as a snowballs chance in hell.
You're wasting your time arguing for extreme liberalization with open carry laws. NEVER GONNA HAPPEN SPORT. Fight a fight that can and need be won. Or at least be respectful and dignified in the sure defeat of your cause.
 
Also, Mr. March has more experience in promoting the RKBA and other civil rights than most members of this forum. Painting him as some form of tinfoilhatting "radical" does not do your argument any justice.
 
And the reason I've not been all that active in RKBA since 2005 is that I've had even bigger fish to fry...

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/8556.html?1122679073

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/9425.html?1124737282

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/73271.html?1207949937

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/75144.html?1213729519

http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/75820.html?1213722308

...etc.

I've been an official election observer for the Democratic, Green and Libertarian parties. Sometimes two at once. I've been a consultant for a GOP chapter in TX. I'm registered Libertarian...but I'm an election systems consultant for the Pima County Democratic Party (AZ). Sigh.
 
"It didn't matter until now, because the 9th Circuit held that the 2A was a collective right.

Post-Heller, this California constitutional clause could become a really big deal."
<p>
<p>
Even tho I don't live in your state, this is facinating, Jim. Keep up the fight!
 
Jin may be a perfectly nice guy, but when you start telling everyone they should have M16's on everyones shoulder walking down the street,that kind of garbage only hurts the gun rights cause. It plays and sounds good on a gun forum where you have a certain lunatic fringe. For the rest of the world, it looks like wierdo world.

I DO APPRECIATE someone taking the time, expense, and effort to further gun rights, if Mr.March is active as he says. But for me that is concealed carry. That is my opinion and the one the majority of people have since there are only a couple of states with open carry. Sorry, most gun owners don't want open carry. It just will not go over, and if it's being lobbied for then it's a waste of dollars.
I don't appreciate egomaniacs who cannot discuss anything but their view without screaming, and everytime someone has a view that is not stepford NRA or Michigan Militia, we are called traitors. I am not a traitor, just not stupid to argue and fight for something absurd that only a small miniscule minority want. This is a fight the open carry people will never win. IF you think it is achievable you are delusional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top