And now some news actually related to open carry in California

[ConditionThree]

Three judge panel hears Baird v Bonta.

 

[color of law]

What a waist of time. Arguing if the state should get a second chance to prove a negative.

 

[ConditionThree]

We could expect movement on this in September.

 

[cato]

Plaintiff’s attorney under performed and the judges threw her some life-preservers. She still didn’t capitalize well of the opportunities and now the matter is back to square one with at least an instruction from the panel for the district court to ‘expedite’ the process since it’s been FOUR YEARS of waiting.

 

[Gypsy47]

( Norton VS. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442 ) and look up also
( 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec177 late 2d. Sec 256. ) so far as I can see the ones who are committing the Felonies
and should be arrested are the ones who are enforcing these unconstitutional laws, by taking tax payers money
under false pretenses, and that is afederal crime onder Title 5 Sections 7311 &1333 under breach of oath of office.
then look up the penalty.

 

[color of law]

( Norton VS. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442 ) and look up also
( 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec177 late 2d. Sec 256. ) so far as I can see the ones who are committing the Felonies
and should be arrested are the ones who are enforcing these unconstitutional laws, by taking tax payers money
under false pretenses, and that is afederal crime onder Title 5 Sections 7311 &1333 under breach of oath of office.
then look up the penalty.

Norton does not necessarily apply.

While acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, the acts of a person assuming to fill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law.

Was the office vacant or did it not exist? That is all Norton stand for.

 

[Gypsy47]

Well here's a couple more to research out ! Marbury VS. Madison 5 US ( 2 Cranch ) 137, 174,176, ( 1803)
AND Miranda VS. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
Then there's the protocol for how the laws are carried out !
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 Late 2d, 256
Check um out Bro ! Thanks for the response

 

[color of law]

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008) said:

“At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1990)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.”

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen 142 S.Ct. 2111 (June 23, 2022) reaffirms Heller’s holding by stating:

“Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. As we explained in Heller, the “textual elements” of the Second Amendment’s operative clause— “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—“guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U. S., at 592. Heller further confirmed that the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”’

Bruen made clear that Open Carry is protected, but the 9th. Circuit of Appeals could care less. We will see what they rule.

 

[Gypsy47]

Thanks Color of Law, for the good info, but how could this work in California ? I see there "Law" is in big conflict with the 2A, and no one is doing anything to get it set right ! Here you either have to buy a ccw permission slip or just carry in the National Forest or some places like maybe unincorporated areas but you can't carry on roads even walking on them.
I like my home State Iowa, they have fought back and restored there right, just as good as Wyoming another great State Love it

 

[color of law]

Look, Kalifornia is run by fascists/communists. And no, fascists and communists are not from the far right. It is the complete opposite. For the most part fascists and communists cannot see the forest through the trees. They believe totally in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Once the worker bees wake-up to the fact that they are being duped, nothing will change.

Iowa does not have an equivalent Second Amendment phrasing in their constitution as such. But Article I, Section 1 does cover your right to keep and bear arms. "All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights - among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." Heller, McDonald and Bruen affirms those inalienable rights, and the method in how to protect those rights.

There is only one way to fix Kalifornia and this is not the forum to explain how and what needs to be done to accomplish that.