Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: William Tell
It does seem as if the historical analysis, using the same methodology as Heller, establishes that the core right is to carry defensive arms openly.

That would be consistent with both the nature of the weapons at the time and the idea of a citizen militia.

It will be a giant win for us if the core right of open carry is restored and the public prefers concealed carry. For the most part we will be able to have our cake and eat it too.

I don't like CCW laws because they are equivalent to gun-owner registration, but with a magnetic effect.

24 posted on 02/15/2014 3:20:45 PM PST by Carry_Okie (0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take everything you own to pay for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Carry_Okie
Carry_Okie said: "I don't like CCW laws because they are equivalent to gun-owner registration, but with a magnetic effect."

Kalifornia has been registering every new handgun purchased for as long as I have been a gun owner. Even private party transfers of handguns are registered. At such time as I apply for a CCW, I intend to inquire as to what arms I have that are already registered with the state.

I have just finished reading Peruta. The dissent is actually pretty compelling in many of its points. Most convincing, I think, is the following:

"If carrying concealed firearms in public falls outside the Second Amendment’s scope, then nothing—not even California’s decision to restrict other, protected forms of carry—can magically endow that conduct with Second Amendment protection."

The only argument I can muster against the evidence that there is a long-standing tradition of various jurisdictions banning concealed carry, is that, if our Founders had wanted such restrictions, they could have said so. They certainly weren't shy about detailing how reasonable searches and seizures can be carried out.

The majority opinion seems to ignore the fact that their decision effectively eliminates the protection of the Second Amendment for the bearing of non-concealable arms.

The dissent also does explicitly claim that the state was not afforded its opportunity to defends its regulatory "scheme", given that the majority found the way it did because of the outlawing of open carry.

I fear that we have not heard the end of this by far. I can easily imagine an overturning of this decision en banc and the Supreme Court refusing cert due to the non-involvement of the state.

Much disagreement has been generated by the "open-carry" crowd. Those most interested in getting concealed carry permits considered the open-carry demonstrations to be counter-productive. The truth may turn out to be that only open carry is protected and only an open-carry suit will arrive at the proper resolution. Once open carry is protected, I believe that "shall-issue" concealed carry will follow quickly.

26 posted on 02/15/2014 4:48:27 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson