“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” ― John Adams
"Fire can be our friend; whether it's toasting marshmallows, or raining down on Charlie." - Principal Skinner.
The law was always on shaky ground from the inception where the state could mandate default weapon prohibition on private property without first consulting the property owner.
The sensitive areas prohibition still stands.
In the end, at most, private property owners can post conspicuous signs prohibiting weapons and if they do find someone with one, they will be trespassed.
I've only seen one sign in CA but I'm guessing that most CCW holders would just ignore it because concealed means concealed.
Posts: 4488 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005
Almost every liberal dissent from this court falls into one of two categories. It's either ideology over law or stupidity over logic. Pretty much every time, and often a mix of the two.
Posts: 6132 | Location: FL | Registered: March 09, 2009
Originally posted by Flashlightboy: I've only seen one sign in CA but I'm guessing that most CCW holders would just ignore it because concealed means concealed.
It is interesting that in CA it is only trespass if you are “caught” carrying and refuse to leave if asked. As antigun as the commies in Sacramento are, this is a welcome surprise. In some other states, it is actually a crime to carry on private property posted against carry. It is interesting (and important to research prior to travel) how the laws are different in different states, not always as expected.
quote:
Originally posted by Lineman101: Signs have no force of law here. But, that might be the next shoe to drop… A law just like Arizona
Interestingly, Arizona ARS 4-229(C)2(b) reads “(b) At the time of the violation the person was not a resident of this state.” Seems to exempt nonresidents from some prohibitions on carry. Wanna bet this will be missing should the folks in Sacramento decide to adopt something similar?
Posts: 7801 | Location: Lost, but making time. | Registered: February 23, 2011
In the spirit of Aloha, I say "Aloha" to this stupid restriction.
I get the idea Hawaiians had that "Hawaii is different", I mean I lived there for five years, it IS different. But the Constitution is THE SAME. Judge Barrett's analogy (in her concurrence) to banning wearing a hijab is exactly on point. Freedom is freedom no matter what Amendment you are talking about.
___________________________________________ Life Member NRA & Washington Arms Collectors
Mistake not my current state of joshing gentle peevishness for the awesome and terrible majesty of the towering seas of ire that are themselves the milquetoast shallows fringing my vast oceans of wrath.
Velocitas Incursio Vis - Gandhi
The good thing is that if Plan A fails, there are 25 other letters in the alphabet.
Posts: 2389 | Location: T-town in the 253 | Registered: January 16, 2013
Originally posted by abnmacv: Those who support the clear language of the Second Amendment are most fortunate to have the current conservative Supreme Court.
Mark Brown explains how even Katanj Brown Chirp Jackson's dissent supports plain text interpretation of 2A, placing the burden on the State and not The People. It's been a pretty good week.
