Messages
8,959
Reactions
18,224
Only problem with your hope.
Several times it has been found that requiring concealed carry permits is not an "infringement on 2A; because open carry is (theoretically) legal in 50 states":rolleyes: as long as its "shall issue", as opposed to "may issue/no issue". Although certain places like Los Angeles have come up with ridiculous "benchmarks/reasons"(in true Statist ways) to essentially deny permits to citizens.
List of firearm court cases in the United States - Wikipedia

List of firearms cases in Courts, including one very notable case that said Fed govt can't prevent rights of citizens from being deprived by other citizens, that its up to State govts to protect them :rolleyes:
 

PiratePast40

Messages
3,023
Reactions
4,111
I got the impression that it was only illegal because of the requirement to have a FOID on your person, in the home, and while a firearm was present. From what I read, the rest of the issue about requiring a FOID outside the home is not in question in this lawsuit. Not that it shouldn't be an issue, just that it doesn't appear to be so in this case.
 

arakboss

Messages
16,206
Reactions
25,626
I got the impression that it was only illegal because of the requirement to have a FOID on your person, in the home, and while a firearm was present. From what I read, the rest of the issue about requiring a FOID outside the home is not in question in this lawsuit. Not that it shouldn't be an issue, just that it doesn't appear to be so in this case.
There was mention of having to pay taxes/fee to excercise your right being unconstitutional as well.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

Upcoming Events

Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top