The case is considering the rights of a U.S. citizen WHILE IN THE U.S.
Should there be some requirement that a person have a permanent residence in the U.S. in order to exercise fundamental rights while in any of the states?
It's only the federal government's attempt to control what I can do in states other than my state of residence, which permits Kalifornia to enforce their many infringements of the right to keep and bear arms.
If I am traveling in Nevada, for example, and have the need to purchase a firearm, the federal government mandates that I cannot do so. I can only have the firearm transferred to me using a Kalifornia FFL and I would have to appear in person in Kalifornia to do so.
If the FFL system were eliminated, then I could purchase a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip in any state which permits such a purchase. Then I could challenge the Kalifornia law which prohibits me from "importing" such a rifle into Kalifornia. Today, I don't have the right, under federal law, to purchase such a rifle ANYWHERE, despite that such a rifle may be perfectly legal in the state in which I am located.
The FFL system is basically barring me from getting "standing" to challenge some of Kalifornia's laws without breaking federal laws.
The FFL system is basically barring me from getting "standing" to challenge some of Kalifornia's laws without breaking federal laws.
Well said. A lot of the posters on this thread have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at hand with this case, which I think is an excellent one, and I wish the plaintiffs luck with it.