Jump to content

Rail

Members
  • Posts

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Rail Claimore
  • MSN
    railclaimore@hotmail.com
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    railclaimore

Rail's Achievements

Member

Member (5/24)

  1. The Peruta case out of California is different: it was ruled that "may issue" was unconstitutional BECAUSE California banned the practice of open carry of both handguns and long guns, both loaded and unloaded. Therefore, it gives its citizens no legal way of carrying firearms other than a discretionary permit issuance system for concealed carry in all counties. If en banc is denied in the Peruta case, what would probably happen is that the state would be ordered to make their concealed carry permit system shall-issue or repeal their current ban on open carry, just like Illinois was given 180 days to craft a concealed carry law after Moore. This assumes that California's AG, Kamala Harris, is as risk adverse as Lisa Madigan was last year when she faced the same decision of whether to petition SCOTUS or not.
  2. The "substantially similar" clause was supposedly a drafting error in the original bill. Hopefully that part is struck out in a clean-up bill. Otherwise I will be very unhappy as a non-resident unable to apply. I want more than car-carry.
  3. If I were a betting man, the case SCOTUS grants cert to will come out of California, either Richards or Peruta. If the 9th Circuit actually rules in favor of shall-issue, then SCOTUS will take Drake. I told a friend late last year before the 7th Circuit ruled on Moore that of the three largest cities in America, I'll first be able to legally carry in Chicago, then Los Angeles, then finally New York. I'm still sticking to that prediction.
  4. If SCOTUS allows it then the door is open to re-institute the poll tax. Poll tax is not the same thing. The 24th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly prohibits poll taxes, clear, cut, and dry. This case has to do with whether or not a nominal fee for owning a handgun passes whatever scrutiny is appropriate via the 2nd Amendment. I agree that in the long run, it's better to challenge the whole concept of user fees rather than simply unreasonable fees, but the two most important things right now in securing the core of the RKBA is getting "bear" to mean indiscriminate carry outside the home (shall-issue) and features-based self-loading rifle bans in various states tossed under the "common use" interpretation from Heller. IANAL
×
×
  • Create New...