Interesting post Heller case

That was fantastic! The commentary on the previous concealed-carry cases was fascinating. And when California’s greed for tax on income not earned within the state came back to bite them in the rear, I applauded!

Oh man...a Supreme Court validation of such an analysis would give us all we could ever hope for!

Interesting analysis by Judge Gonzalez. Any ideas on how the constitutionality of concealed weapons bans (in light of Chandler and Nunn which allow prohibition of concealed carry as long as open carry is allowed) would hold up in Illinois, where both concealed and open carry are prohibited? Since we don't have alternative ways to exercise our Second Amendment rights, what would give one standing to sue for that right?

Presuming _McDonald_ goes the way we think it will, total bans on carry in public will likely be struck down, and I'd argue that requiring a permit to carry in public would be unConstitutional, but permits to carry concealed might pass be allowed by the courts (although I personally feel that they are unConstitutional). As for standing, anyone arrested or even harassed for carrying would have standing automatically, but I'm not sure what the courts would require as far as standing when not facing charges.

James who posted at 8:37: Not so fast! Heller was a *keeping* case. At this point, that is all that has been determined to be an individual right that may not be infringed by the federal government. The object of McDonald is to get THAT right (keeping) incorporated against the states so that states may not infringe on the right to KEEP in one's own home (for self protection).

Things are several steps away from carry in public.

And it's unlikely carry in public ever would be the universal standard across all jurisdictions in the USA. Different states. Different cities.

That's actually a really good analysis on CCW and open carry by the Judge. I like how the judge basically tells San Diego that they didn't even try, and therefore they are getting their motions smacked down.

Periwinkle - _Heller_ was just about keeping arms, true, but "keep" is also part of the Amendment, the Supreme Court can't really claim that you can keep arms but you can't bear them when they're both in the same amendment, which the Court effectively admitted when they stated that even ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right did not mean there wouldn't be CERTAIN specifically protected places where carrying arms could be barred, such as schools, government buildings, etc. That implies that EVERYWHERE ELSE citizens would be free to exercise their rights.

The judge really nailed it, especially that he discussed outlawing CCW is only valid where open carry is permitted.

I found it interesting, though, that there was no mention, or even hint, of incorporation. Apparently defendant never raised that issue, or if he did the judge never addressed it. After all, Heller probably will be incorporated but it has not been yet.

@James, right now, any non-LEO caught carrying a readily accessible handgun in public in the state of Illinois is breaking the law. For someone to try to get the law overturned, they'd have to be arrested, tried (and likely found guilty based upon the facts of the situation), and then work the appeals process upto the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I think Periwinkle is right, that several more cases must firmly establish separately the right to keep and the right to bear.

However, once those two rights are affirmed, I think we may yet see states begin to recognize each others license to carry in a similar fashion to driver's licenses today. (It would be great if other states treated Vermont's and Alaska's driver's licenses as a LTC, since they don't require any!)

@Jim, in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, Judge Irma Gonzales is female.

The holding in Heller also applies to bearing arms because the court explicitly overturned DC's prohibition against bearing a loaded unlocked pistol in the home for self-defense. However Heller's holding didn't explicitly extend outside the home, though the dicta seems to.

Could someone please explain how a "federal constitutional right" can mean different things in different jurisdictions. What ever that "fed bear Right" is wouldn't it be the same from sea to sea post incorporation and so many follow up cases? We are dealing with THE FEDERAL RIGHT, what ever that is, and not the various state rights after all.

How is one to get "permits" technically from all 50 states (except AK/VT) to be able to carry and travel freely.

Must one stop at the first "welcome" station in each state to apply for it's "shall issue" temp. emergency visitor carry permit and pay the "reasonable" (SCOTUS set) $25 dollar/5 year rice paper permission slip before exercising the 2A while traveling in ones motorhome?

Because "permits", as exemptions to prohibited activity, need to be checked am I, while exercising my permitted "Right", subject to detention and my property seized as possible evidence IF the state's agent can't confirm my "permit" in a timely maner? How many such detentions by different agents of the state are allowable in one day or for that matter in one hour?

Four of the Supreme Court justices lied entirely about the meaning of the Second Amendment. The other five told the truth in part, but then lied when they made up the absurd "in common use" test, so they could ban machine guns. All nine of the justices will ignore your constitutional right to carry if they dislike it enough.

Whoa, a lotta luck here.

The worry about the case is and was that the plaintiff does have quite a bit of 'color' to his background (involuntary separation from LEO job in the 1970s, with DV+gun allegations and issues of maturity mentiond). Plus there was a nolo plea to securities fraud in the 1980s (Florida). These are Googleable. Certainly not the 'perfect plaintiff' for an RKBA case.

Peruta/attorney also told CGF earlier on that this was an equal protection case - but magically it turned into an RKBA case, which worried us greatly until we found they (Peruta+attorney) essentially duplicated our material in Sykes v. McGinniss.

Bill Wiese
The Calguns Foundation

There was no smoke and mirrors in the fact that my issue was about the denial of a CCW application by a person who possesses permits from three other states.

My background is what it is, and contains no Federal or State disqualifying incidents which prevent me from acquiring, possessing or carrying a handgun for purposes of self defense.

Mr. Wiese seems to forget that some of the most important American appellate case law has involved appellant’s who have color in their backgrounds.

Unlike Calguns, I believe that the Second Amendment protects all American and not just those with squeaky clean backgrounds.

The attitude of and public demeanor shown in the postings of Mr. Bill Wiese who appears to be the Internet spokesperson for the Calguns Foundation clearly demonstrates that he/they only intended to offer assistance and represent squeaky clean citizens.

The group’s policy and legal strategy of CHERRY PICKING individuals to represent was NEVER disclosed in any conversations with me or my attorney and would have obviously had an effect on how my attorney proceeded.

Calguns had absolutely no obligation to be upfront with me or my attorney, but must think we are stupid if they believed I would file a case without raising the Second Amendment as a claim.

I only hope that any future contact with Calguns is open, honest and in the best interest of all involved..

Mr. Bill Wiese has clearly demonstrated his and possibly his foundation’s POMPUS, ARROGANT ATTITUDE AND ALSO SHOWS HIS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE FINANCIAL OR LEGAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO ME IF NEEDED.

Unlike Mr. Wiese, my mind is still open as are the lines of communications with the organization he seems to speak for.

His posted attacks and comments and those from others at Calguns have now made me very glad that I made the decisions I did.

Just a citizen

Edward - the reason gun right's organizations want as squeaky-clean of plaintiff's as they can find is that the courts, historically, have used any excuse they could find to dodge the Second Amendment issue. The last thing we want is MORE bad case law where the courts find a way to weasel around the wording and intent of the Second Amendment by claiming "oh, this guy is a troublemaker, we can't decide in his favor".