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.
Sadly so.
This is a very insightful paragraph, one that distills what I have long felt to be the correct path to redressing the systematic violation of the right to armed self-defense in California:
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.
No doubt, the OC crowd have been jerks about it, and there is nothing to be gained politically in rubbing people's noses in their baseless fears. Yet it does represent the truest interpretation of civilian law enforcement as echoed in the combination of the Second and Third Amendments. Effectively, the three million unionized LEOs we have in this country operate to the contrary, effectively constituting the standing army internal to the US the Founders feared.
If you haven't read Balko's book on the topic, it's worth the time.
When California effectively banned open carry, I called my SO about the following problem: I live in a rural area. I wear my pistol for self-defense against coyotes, mountain lions, and wild boar. My property line goes down the center of the County road. If I walk back to my house carrying my loaded pistol on my side of said public road while still on my property, am I in violation of this law?
They got a good chuckle out of it and told me that the spirit of the law supported my interpretation.
This is how we should be educating people, not what the OC crowd was doing.
Now, to your main point...
"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 original Constitution placed firearms regulation completely at the discretion of the States. There was to be no Federal protection for the individual preexisting right. The States would rightly have feared the Feds exerting such a preemptive power of enforcing the right against the States. It is only since the 14th Amendment that gun owners, desperate to deal with outrageous State violations of their civil liberties, sought Federal protection against their States, to which I am on record saying, 'Be careful what you wish for.' "A well regulated militia" was to be the equivalent of a State army, where the men in said militia received "regular" practice and drill under the command of the governor. Effectively, the leftist, 'that's the National Guard' does have historic merit but for its systematic exclusion of any acknowledgement of the right to self-defense as pertaining to those not so regularly engaged. But remember, said right to self-defense is not mentioned in the Constitution. Accordingly, I have felt that Natural Law competition and Federalism was a better answer in the long run than going to SCOTUS, particularly because I fear what the Feds will do pursuant to the treaty power as it is currently interpreted. I think you've considered what I've had to say about that, but if not, they're here and here.