CA CCW lawsuit initial victory

[headcase]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's pretty simple. A state doesn't have the authority to deny someone the right to free speech, or restrict it in any way--CA is an excellent case in point--so why would they have the authority to restrict any other Constitutionally guaranteed right?

Because nowhere near enough of a stink is made about it when they do. In fact, the loudest noises they hear are the anti's and media's hands clapping in thunderous applause.

[LittleRedToyota]

I don't think any restriction outside can be deemed "reasonable" because of the "sensitive areas" of Heller. It wouldn't make any sense for SCOTUS to say schools and government buildings are sensitive areas when a state could simply say anything outside the home is a sensitive area. By the way Palmer v. District of Columbia was heard in Federal Court just yesterday, and deals with "bear arms" and what is and is not sensitive. DC is trying to argue the whole city is "sensitive," which is frankly insane since they did issue carry permits, although very few just to retired police and probably some "connected" individuals.

i would not at all be shocked to see the courts rule that any place where more than two people gather can be considered a "sensitive area"...sidewalks can be considered a "sensitive area" because children use them, etc. etc.

they will not rule "all areas outside your home are sensitive areas", but, as those areas come up one by one, they may well rule that each of them is a sensitive area. that's kinda how our courts operate in general when it comes to the constitution.

for example, consider the nor**** v. king case from california. the judges held that the the 2nd was incorporated, but a prohibition against carrying a gun on country property was upheld--as it somehow does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms. all public property (including roads, sidewalks, etc.) is either county property, state property, federal property, or a local municipalities property. if a county can ban firearms on its property in spite of an incorporated 2nd amendment, then so can a state and so can a municipality and so can the federal government.

therefore all public property could be subject for a ban on firearms. this could mean no carrying on streets, sidewalks, public squares, public parks, public libraries, etc. etc. yeah, you can carry at your house, at your buddy's house, at gun friendly businesses, at the range, etc. but not in between any of them.

if you read the nor**** opinion, you will see what i mean. they heavily on the idea that heller only applies in the home...and they used that logic to uphold a ban on carrying on public property in spite of incorporating the 2nd.

if the 2nd gets incorporated in the way it was in nor****, it will end up being a net loss for us. it will give states the go ahead to ban the possession of guns on public property...and will allow states that want to to give that go ahead to counties and municipalities. the 2nd will essentially not apply except on private property.