I never heard of this case before today, but I wonder if people aren’t over-reacting a bit. Did this plaintiff try to claim that CC should cross state lines as a national right? That CC law should be uniform everywhere? If so, then why have we been fighting for it state by state all this time?
Again, not having had a chance to review the case, it seems an attempt to nationalize an issue that should be left to the states. This is what the left does all the time and I complain about it vehemently.
Please correct me if you know more about this that I do because I’m confused by the reaction to it.
Again, not having had a chance to review the case, it seems an attempt to nationalize an issue that should be left to the states. This is what the left does all the time and I complain about it vehemently.
Please correct me if you know more about this that I do because I’m confused by the reaction to it.
If the impact was limited to just California, that would be one thing. But as the maps above show, the court's jurisdiction is the western US. If a state, such as Washington or Oregon decides to restrict concealed carry, those affected would not have relief in the Federal court. Further, if another Federal court in another part of the country, rules that concealed carry is legal, the issue goes to the US Supreme Court for resolution. With Scalia's death, it is no longer friendly to the 2nd amendment. A couple of liberal appointments by Hillary would mean overturning of the individual right to carry a handgun nationwide. That's why this decision is so important - it opens the door wide for the anti-gun crowd.