Action has been taken on AB357

[RDF]

Originally Posted by onlyaudio

Harry Carry: "The lawsuits in progress right now are designed to define 'self defense' as part of the Heller decision. As it stands, despite what we all believe, there is no precedent or case law which say 'CCW is protected under 2A'.
A bad case and a bad decision could set things back years."

Am I the only one who notices that the Second Amendment says "...keep AND BEAR arms..."? The disagreements I've seen concentrate on the "keep" part and do not broach the "bear" argument. It seems to me that this one element would make ANY attempt to regulate the carry of legal firearms unconstitutional.

Just a thought, but definitely my opinion ... and I'm stickin' to it!

HarryCarry, have you read either D.C. v. Heller or Nordyke v. King?

The way I see it is if the "issuing authority" denies someone a CCW because that "issuing authority" determines that self-defense and self-protection under the 2nd Amendment are NOT good cause, then the "issuing authority"
is in violation of the denied person's Constitutionally guaranteed Rights/Liberties/Immunities, pursuant the rulings in D.C. v. Heller and Nordyke v. King, and that "issuing authority" should be sued in federal court.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom the reasoning behind the apparent majority opinions here that we should wait for fear of making bad law!!! I said it before and I'll say it again: He who hesitates is lost.

D.C. v. Heller and Nordyke v. King are replete with references to "self-defense" under the 2nd Amendment and I will quote just these instances, which I believe I have properly externally and internally quoted:

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right." (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. _____, Slip Opinion, p. 56)

"In addition to these civic purposes, Heller characterized the right to keep and bear arms as a corollary to the individual right of self-defense. Id. at 2817 ('[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.'). Thus the right contains both a political component—it is a means to protect the public from tyranny—and a personal component—it is a means to protect the individual from threats to life or limb." (Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2009, D.C. No. CV-99-04389-MJJ, 4465, 4485)

"The County does little to refute this powerful evidence that the right to bear arms is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the Republic, a right Americans considered fundamental at the Founding and thereafter. The County instead argues that the states, in the exercise of their police power, are the instrumentalities of the right of self-defense at the heart of the
Second Amendment. This argument merely rephrases the collective rights argument the Supreme Court rejected in Heller." (Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2009, D.C. No. CV-99-04389-MJJ, 4465, 4494)

"The County also claims that Heller 'nowhere concludes that an individual right to possess firearms for personal self-defense is a fundamental right.' But that misses the point. If Heller had indeed held that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right as we use the term in substantive due process doctrine, then the issue would be foreclosed. The
point is that language throughout Heller suggests that the right is fundamental by characterizing it the same way other opinions described enumerated rights found to be incorporated. (Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2009, D.C. No. CV-99-04389-MJJ, 4465, 4495)

"Next, the Court connected the statute's operation to the conduct the Second Amendment protects: 'the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.'" (Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2009, D.C. No. CV-99-04389-MJJ, 4465, 4497)

"Heller tells us that the Second Amendment's guarantee revolves around armed self-defense." (Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2009, D.C. No. CV-99-04389-MJJ, 4465, 4498)

"[W]e conclude that although the Second Amendment, applied through the Due Process Clause, protects a right to keep and bear arms for individual self-defense, . . .." (Nordyke v. King (9th Cir. 2009, D.C. No. CV-99-04389-MJJ, 4465, 4499)

[OCResident]

Originally Posted by RDF

HarryCarry, have you read either D.C. v. Heller or Nordyke v. King?

The way I see it is...

Have YOU read D.C. v. Heller? Exactly where does it say CONCEALED carry is the required method to bear arms?

The closest you're going to come to that is in a footnote...but that's not going to address CCW - arguably it could cause a court to require that states allow some sort of loaded carry but that still doesn't mean concealed - of course it would probably be a legislative preference to open carry, but we're further away than you seem to think.

Heller was but a stepping stone for things to come, but hell it was just ruled that it even applies to states at all...and that is not even 100% done yet.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by RDF

HarryCarry, have you read either D.C. v. Heller or Nordyke v. King?

The way I see it is if the "issuing authority" denies someone a CCW because that "issuing authority" determines that self-defense and self-protection under the 2nd Amendment are NOT good cause, then the "issuing authority"
is in violation of the denied person's Constitutionally guaranteed Rights/Liberties/Immunities, pursuant the rulings in D.C. v. Heller and Nordyke v. King, and that "issuing authority" should be sued in federal court.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom the reasoning behind the apparent majority opinions here that we should wait for fear of making bad law!!! I said it before and I'll say it again: He who hesitates is lost.

Harry has read Heller... And Ive read it a few times myself (To be fair, I've memorized most of it).... But it seems from the language you use, you haven't read Nordyke (or at least you don't understand a major portion of it)....

The fact that you bring up "Rights/Liberties/Immunities" (aka "Privileges and Immunities") shows you don't really understand the reasoning for incorporation at the 9th circuit (and thus, have no idea what the Supreme Court may do with it).

Mind you, I'm not faulting you for this. Most laymen DON'T understand this particular issue... There's no real reason for you to.

But... I do...

And the fact that you don't makes me question some of your other legal reasoning and strategies.

Let me put this in terms you might understand... Maybe you're a doctor. I myself have taken some extensive first aid training. I could splint a broken bone and probably even set it if I had to.... But if you were having open heart surgery, and saw me walk in the operating theater with a scalpel, please.... Do yourself a favor, snap out of the anesthesia and run from the room, because although I know enough medicine to act like I know what Im talking about in limited circumstances, YOU DON'T WANT ME DOING SURGERY ON YOU. Im not an EXPERT at medicine... And when the stakes are high, THATS what you want... AN EXPERT.

What I know, and what Im good at is LAW.

And in my expert opinion of the law, your legal prescription is bad. Really bad.

I know how frustrating all this is.... It seems like this will take forever... Ive been at this for well over a decade now myself. But we are VERY close to success. But all it would take is ONE BAD CASE, brought by ONE BAD LAWYER (or worse) that would give the Judges who might be biased against us anyways AN EXCUSE to rule against us, effecting ALL OF OUR RIGHTS.

This is a ONE SHOT DEAL.... We get ONE BITE at this apple... After that, we've shot our wad. The cases are in the works. They will be decided LONG beofre you get into the Court house and they will make your subsequent case moot....

So relax. Pull up a seat and watch the show. If you care about this stuff and have invested the time and energy people like myself and harry have, this is going to be a very interesting show.

[Harry Carry]

What he said.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

What he said.

Youre always riding my coattails....

[protectmine]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

What he said.

yup. can't argue with RD. Da man knows what he is talking about

[Quietpi]

RDF, I've read Heller and Nordyke, too, specifically looking for anything that would produce a nexus between the 2A and concealed carry. It isn't there, but the kernel that can lead to "shall issue" is. But it's a kernel only, and needs to be developed in the proper way.

If everybody who was turned down started suing, alleging that concealed carry was incorporated in the 2A, there might be some wins, but there would be more losses. And every case, especially the losses, would create, then reinforce, precedent. That kind of precedent is our enemy.

But here's another problem: My best guess is that an attorney willing to take such a case would charge you probably around $20K, and that might not include a trial. And all that would happen before the cases could be consolidated in a class-action suit. I don't know about you, but I can't afford to lay out that kind of bucks.

The proper cases, though, properly argued, can overcome all those issues.

[spc]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Youre always riding my coattails....

Than you for your well stated response. I was trying to format a response that would express what you just communicated. I would have never found such a brilliant way to say it though.

I'll take a ride on those coattails as well.

spc

[RDF]

OK. I give up!!!

I find it useless to beat a dead horse. Therefore, I will go my way on this subject and you may do the same. I will post no further on this (and maybe all other subjects, as I find it an exercise in futility). You are welcome to take your "wait and see" attitude.

I am NOT trolling on this subject. I have studied the Constitution for the past 25+ years. This once-great, former Constitutional Republic is dear to my heart and it sickens me to see the sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

So, I say to you "So long."

[Harry Carry]

Originally Posted by RDF

OK. I give up!!!

I find it useless to beat a dead horse. Therefore, I will go my way on this subject and you may do the same. I will post no further on this (and maybe all other subjects, as I find it an exercise in futility). You are welcome to take your "wait and see" attitude.

I am NOT trolling on this subject. I have studied the Constitution for the past 25+ years. This once-great, former Constitutional Republic is dear to my heart and it sickens me to see the sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

So, I say to you "So long."

RDF, the reality is, we agree with you. But, unfortunately, the process in our system requires a court to say 'Hey, you know what, Heller actually does mean that the right to armed self-defense doesn't end at the front door.' That is what the current cases are designed to do.

[spc]

Originally Posted by RDF

OK. I give up!!!

I find it useless to beat a dead horse. Therefore, I will go my way on this subject and you may do the same. I will post no further on this (and maybe all other subjects, as I find it an exercise in futility). You are welcome to take your "wait and see" attitude.

I am NOT trolling on this subject. I have studied the Constitution for the past 25+ years. This once-great, former Constitutional Republic is dear to my heart and it sickens me to see the sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

So, I say to you "So long."

Don't get us wrong. Many of these options are just around the corner and have been being worked on in preparation for some of these cases that have been heard and decided. We have already had 2 incorporation cases decided since Heller.

There is great opportunity for the pace to pick up dramatically in the very near future. There has been a lot of effort and planning put into place. I am a layman but have followed the issues closely and have had much explained to me by those in the know and folks with great legal knowledge. I have good expectations for the near future and so should you.

spc