Next step post-Heller: the 14A Incorporation issue. Details :)

[cyclist]

Going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out in Wisconsin.
Also, once you get the CCW reciprocity figured out then you can consider how to get reciprocity to states that do not have CCW.
Does anyone think Vermont will incorporate a CCW system?

 

[Jim March]

Vermont residents can always score a non-resident permit from another state.

 

[NukemJim]

Vermont residents can always score a non-resident permit from another state.

That will work for some states not for others. I believe Michigan is a case in point. Michigan will only honor your permit from your own state. So if you live in Illinois and get a non-resident permit from Florida they will not honor it even though they will honor a Florida permit if you are a Florida resident.

IIRC there are some other states like that.

I also understand that is why Alaska does not require a permit but still issue permits so their residents can get reciprocity from other states.

IANAL and as always I could be wrong.

NukemJim

PS Jim, thank your for your posting of the history of incorporation. Most interesting and usefull. NukemJim

 

[Jim March]

That will work for some states not for others. I believe Michigan is a case in point. Michigan will only honor your permit from your own state. So if you live in Illinois and get a non-resident permit from Florida they will not honor it even though they will honor a Florida permit if you are a Florida resident.

The absolute simplest, most sure-fire possible post-Heller courthouse challenge will be to that sort of situation.

Jim, thank your for your posting of the history of incorporation. Most interesting and usefull. NukemJim

You didn't read Appendix A, didja?

 

[LAK]

CatoII

I don't see SCOTUS doing a Post Heller "OC or CC" decision where the state chooses the method of carry. I see the court finding Loaded OC as the 2nd A protected right (I wish it was Vermont style) and then allowing a WI. or IL. ban on CC.

I just can't see a patchwork of "state choice" allowing:

1) OC ok as a 2nd A. Right (unlicensed) with CC banned (a la Wisconsin)

OR

2) CC a Right (but licensed/taxed) with OC banned (a la Texas).

Something has to be the core protected right. And if CC is the Right in some but not other states then were does longarm carry fall in the CC states?

Has this "state's choice" method ever been followed in other SCOTUS decisions or constitutional jurisprudence?

Unlicensed loaded open carry is what we should all be supporting at least as a core right and as a litigation issue. We have it right now based on past SCOTUS' decisions and obviously in Heller; ie. CC not protected. Shall issue CCW will, like in OHIO, and soon I hope in WI. and IL., then follow.

I have to agree with this; and OC is the only reasonable baseline.

I do not see anything wrong with CC - as a practice. As a special category requiring hoops and hefty fees, it makes no sense in the same State one can OC without any of that. And OC where legal should definately not be literally traded off the statute books for regulated and fee'd CC.

And as long as CC is not priced out of reach for many people, or for that matter is even burdensome at all. The databases that are used to verify FFL gun buys are already operational, and maintained. There is no reason that a background check should run past a few dollars. We are talking about a phone call or computer terminal prompt, and a clerk typing in the particulars in seconds, to pull up the info, and shoot a reply back that says "clear", or "not clear". Special cases aside. Plastic cards are already mass produced on an easily changed format called a driver's license; substitute the heading and some graphics and we can call it a CC ID. Or it could simply be a coded endorsement on a DL. Why should a plastic card cost more than $10-$20?

Mr. March made the point that it appears that poor blacks were the target of actions in New Orleans; lower income people in general become the defacto target of CC permits, because of hoops and costs. Even one day off comes at a price to someone working six days a week, add "training" certifications, background checks, and some ridiculous state fees for the actual "card" and in TX for example you are looking at over $200.00. For a couple that is well over $400.00. Then is are the "renewals". You have to be dirt poor to qualify as an indigent in TX.

This would make a mockery of the any claim that the current Texas CC system does not infringe the right based on income alone.

 

[publius]

Another choice: walk in with a friend, state at the front desk that you're applying for CCW, present your app and $20, if they deny you you have a witness. Note that they'll likely want to *verbally* deny you with no paper trail. Best bet is if the witness is (unknown to them) a lawyer or maybe a notary.

...

WARNING: California is a "two party recording" state. To record the conversation, you have to have permission of everyone present. The "wear a wire" gag is a really bad idea. Most states ("one party recording" states) you can do that...AZ for one. Not Cali.

Can they stop your lawyer friend from just blatantly videotaping the whole conversation out there? Public building, public official performing public duty, nothing to do with the individual at all. Where is the expectation of privacy, or how could they stop you from doing that and using the tape?

 

[NukemJim]

Jim

You didn't read Appendix A, didja?

Yes, I did, just did not remember it last night.

I should not post while on opiates and sleep deprived.*


NukemJim

*Both due to medical condition, not a problem just a condition. No surgery, No metastasies, No problems .

 

[Jim March]

Can they stop your lawyer friend from just blatantly videotaping the whole conversation out there? Public building, public official performing public duty, nothing to do with the individual at all. Where is the expectation of privacy, or how could they stop you from doing that and using the tape?

Dunno what they would do, or can do. It would make the conversation tense, that's for sure .

Can't hurt to try. Only a *hidden* audio and/or video system can screw you.

 

[Rogue6]

US v. Cruikshank

Mr. March: It looks like you've researched Cruikshank a lot more in depth than I have so I'll defer to you on the defendants being government agents of some kind. I had read that the three primary defendants were simply part of the "white mob" involved in the "Colfax massacre" (or "Colfax riot" depending on the viewpoint of the writer at the time) and therefore it was an issue of enforcing the 1870 civil rights act against private individuals, not against state actors. I understood that to be the reason for the "14th Amendment [adds] nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another" language in the holding.

I agree that the Heller ruling seemed pretty critical of the continuing value of Cruikshank.

On another note: I wonder how the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) restrictions on firearms and ammunition ownership are going to be impacted by Heller? There seems to be very little if any rational relationship between the almost perfunctory restraining orders arising from divorces nowadays and the federal prohibition on firearms possession that goes with it.

 

[Jim March]

On another note: I wonder how the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) restrictions on firearms and ammunition ownership are going to be impacted by Heller? There seems to be very little if any rational relationship between the almost perfunctory restraining orders arising from divorces nowadays and the federal prohibition on firearms possession that goes with it.

Good question.

There appears to be two variations on this issue:

* One class of people pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence BEFORE the Lautenberg law and found themselves with a retroactive penalty on top of the penalties they knew about when they pled guilty. I think this class of people will get their guns back. This group contains very few people who still have restraining orders out as the orders normally expire after a while...most of these people will have convictions, not continuing ROs.

* The other group were affected post-Lautenberg, includes people convicted (or pled) plus RO cases. No idea what happens here.

 

[Sam Adams]

Mr. March made the point that it appears that poor blacks were the target of actions in New Orleans; lower income people in general become the defacto target of CC permits, because of hoops and costs. Even one day off comes at a price to someone working six days a week, add "training" certifications, background checks, and some ridiculous state fees for the actual "card" and in TX for example you are looking at over $200.00. For a couple that is well over $400.00. Then is are the "renewals". You have to be dirt poor to qualify as an indigent in TX.

This would make a mockery of the any claim that the current Texas CC system does not infringe the right based on income alone.

I sure hope that something can be done about this nonsense. I was pretty hacked off about the fee for the license plus the fee for the course plus the (unstated) requirement of taking a day out of my life to take the course...and you have to do it every time you renew. Absurd. I, fortunately, could and can afford it, but that is hardly the point: do I have to apply for a permit of the same type, and with similar course work, to carry a bible under my coat?

 

[anarchris]

are there any lawsuits against CA yet?

or the cities?
(for SF ccw for instance?)

 

[Jim March]

My understanding is that no CCW suits have been filed yet. Which surprises me a bit, but then again people (some on our side) aren't 100% sure Heller covers gun CARRY outside the home. I'm going to post more on that tonight, it's a separate problem.

Right now a suit has been filed over San Francisco's handgun ban in public housing. That's supposed to test whether or not the 14th Amendment incorporates the second.

Also coming up: one of the Nordyke appeals.

The Nordyke family runs gun shows and has been filing suit against counties that do gun show ban ordinances. They lost one at the 9th Circuit in 2003 but attorney Don Kilmer has had multiple cases juggling all along - per one source, hoping something like Heller happened. One (nicknamed "Nordyke4") is headed for the 9th Circuit in a month or so(!) and it'll be REAL interesting to see what happens post-Heller, esp. with the Heller court giving such dire warnings about trusting Cruikshank.

 

[bogie]

What I don't want to see is people diving right into trying to legalize the "most evil looking" types of hardware...street sweepers, 50BMGs, M4geries with big mags, Class3 stuff, etc. I'm not against these, please don't get mad at me, I'm saying these aren't the starting point.

I definitely have to agree with this... Gun control didn't happen overnight, and it's not going to go away all at once. Let's take a LOT of tiny steps forward, which will be a LOT harder to reverse than one giant leap...

For instance, regarding an eventual MG amnesty/opening of registration, etc., etc... Go for something like "C&R" type guns first... worry about an AK or M16 after you get the foot in the door.

 

[REB]

Jim,
First I would like to thank you for the effort you have put into educating those of us who a not as nearly knowledgeable on this matter as you are.

I would also like to ask a favor. Can you compose a letter concerning states that discriminate based on state of residency that could be sent to the AG. In particular Kansas is one of the states that recognize other states license only for residents of that state. Unlike some of the other states on that list this is not based on a state law. Kansas law gives the AG the power to set reciprocal requirements so in this case the only thing we need to do is convince the Kansas AG to change the policy.ex

Thanks Again
Rex

 

[Jim March]

I would also like to ask a favor. Can you compose a letter concerning states that discriminate based on state of residency that could be sent to the AG. In particular Kansas is one of the states that recognize other states license only for residents of that state. Unlike some of the other states on that list this is not based on a state law. Kansas law gives the AG the power to set reciprocal requirements so in this case the only thing we need to do is convince the Kansas AG to change the policy.

I like that. Are you connected with a Kansas RKBA group we could work with? It would be better if it was on an org's letterhead.

 

[anarchris]

I know there are NRA members in SF

Can't a NRA member get help from the NRA to sue SF for CCW?
Could you help Mr March?

 

[REB]

No, I am a resident of Alabama with a nonresident Florida license. I frequently travel to Kansas on business and have sent several letters to the AG in the past. I will try to find a group in the state to help.

 

[ctdonath]

To record the conversation, you have to have permission of everyone present.

That has been satisfied in other cases by persuading the target recordee to call a number which starts with a standard voice menu ("Thank you for calling Fubar Co., for Mr. Fubar press 1...") which, when transferring upon selection, duly informs the caller in a very common and dismissable way: "This call will be recorded, please hold while we connect your call...".