The problem with that argument is that 'Open Carry" is actually only.legal if it is "Unloaded Open Carry". If it is unloaded, then can it actually be considered a functional "arm". Since it isn't legal to open carry a fully functional arm, I would arrgue that my right to bear arms has in fact been infringed. An inoperational firearm is just a piece of metal - no different than a rock, book, block of wood, etc. It needs ammunition to to function as a weapon or defensive arm.I belive the ruling follows previous rulings in California in that the courts ruled that May Issue is legal since Open Carry is legal. Therefore, ones right to bear arms is not infringed. That is what I get out of reading some of the posts concerning the ruling and prior rulings. While yes if Open Carry is struck down as illegal then they could sue to get Shall Issue. Since then the right to bear arms would be infringed.
To get mugged by all the criminials that DON"T follow the laws in the first place and hope you survive to call 911.It's also true that Open Carry only applies to unincorporated areas and certain municipalities which allow it.
So, if you can't openly carry, and you can't get a CCL, what are your (legal) recourses?
more legal crap... I guess founding fathers should have been more clear... "the right to bear LOADED arms"I belive the ruling follows previous rulings in California in that the courts ruled that May Issue is legal since Open Carry is legal. Therefore, ones right to bear arms is not infringed.
I definitely think our founding fathers saw the current state of affairs, and assumed we wouldn't stand for it. Seems to bear repeating, our republic stands on three boxes, the soap box, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. If any of those are taken away, we are on the road to tyranny.