Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Win on attorneys' fees in Chicago case | Main | More on "Project Gunwalker" »

SAF, Calguns amicus in California permit case

Posted by David Hardy · 5 June 2011 12:14 PM

Pdf here. It's by Alan Gura. Its main theme is VERY interesting. The central questions are standard of review, or as the brief phrases it, the means-end relationship. But, it suggests, requiring permits to carry should be compared to prior restraint of speech rights. Here, the permit system gives the issuer complete discretion. That should be invalidated, period. Only after a jurisdiction comes up with a permit system that is not arbitrary can or should a court get down to determining the means-end balance between the specific conditions and the problems supposedly addressed.

· Chicago aftermath

4 Comments | Leave a comment

Jeff | June 5, 2011 3:59 PM | Reply

Wow. Conceivably, this could be a game changer!

Jeff

Critic | June 7, 2011 12:58 PM | Reply

Gura's amicus seems to assume the main issue in question. If the courts recognize that concealed carry is a constitutional right, then prior restraint would be an issue. But the courts haven't yet recognized that concealed carry is a right. Many judges will require considerable persuasion that it's a right before they get to the question of whether prohibiting prior restraint is appropriate.

Ken | June 8, 2011 7:36 AM | Reply

Since California doesn't allow open carry, the issue isn't concealed carry, but carry in any form, as in keep and bear arms.

Matthew Carberry | June 9, 2011 1:23 PM | Reply

Ken's got it.

California law currently allows (but heavily impairs in most urban areas) non-discretionary (for non-prohibited persons) unloaded open carry; but for loaded carry, the only effective form for self-defense, which per Heller is central to the RKBA, it only offers discretionary concealed carry licenses.

If "Bear" has any meaning (which it does, as both Heller and McDonald show regardless of several lower Court's attempts to ignore the totality of the decisions to exclusively and improperly focus on the "particular importance of 'in the home'") then states must allow some form of effective carry as part of the fundamental right.

Requiring unloaded carry, OC or CC, without another option flies in the face of Heller's dismissal of DC's unloaded storage requirement. It was plainly stated in the opinion there is not time to load a gun under stress, and that is within the protection of walls and doors which buy time. It's not like there's more time without such protections. There's another amicus brief on that subject already submitted.

This becomes more acute if CA passes the OC ban, at that point you have only the discretionary concealed carry permitting system and no non-discretionary carry option available at all.

Leave a comment