A Quixotic Endeavor Blog CCW

A Quixotic Endeavor

Hear me now, oh, thou bleak and unbearable world

 

Thou art base and debauched as can be

 

And a knight with his banners all bravely unfurled

 

Now hurls down his gauntlet to thee!

 

I am I, Don Quixote

 

The Lord of La Mancha

 

My destiny calls and I go

 

And the wild winds of fortune

 

Shall carry me onward

 

Oh, whithersoever they blow

 

Whithersoever they blow

 

Onward to glory I go!

 

 

 

Yes… I do like to think of myself that way.  (Forget the fact the original character created by Cervantes was certifiably insane.)

 

 

The State is my windmill, and with metaphorical armor donned, me, LTC Taormina, and this time, LTC Colaninno as co-counsel, marched into court to defend our pure client against the infernal machinations of the State.

 

 

(Yes, I have learned that it is always better to surround yourself with two comrades that are higher rank than oneself… the fact they are both Catholic is an added bonus… as W.C. Fields, the noted atheist, said while lying on his deathbed and reading the Bible:  “I’m always looking for a loophole.”)

 

 

I have talked about this case before, but today we officially put the lance to the windmill and prevailed for our client… another win for L&T.

 

 

When NYSRPA v Bruen was first handed down by the Supreme Court, I turned to LTC Taormina and said, “Colonel, I believe we now have national reciprocity.”

 

 

Let me explain.

 

 

In the opinion authored by Justice Thomas, he articulates that the Second Amendment exists outside the home.  This should come as no surprise to anyone… but there have been several legal scholars who have opined that it does not.  In the landmark 2008 ruling of DC v Heller (the case that now stands as the recognition that the Second Amendment is a specifically enumerated fundamental right… thereby incorporating it into state Constitutions via the Fourteenth Amendment), the court restricted its study to keeping arms inside the home.  The anti-gun jurists argued that as a result, the Second Amendment ONLY existed inside the home.

 

 

Justice Thomas quashed that concept completely in Bruen.  He stated the Second Amendment does, in fact, exist outside the home, and as such, people need to have some sort of mechanism to exercise that right.

 

 

This can come in several forms:  a state allowing open carry, a state allowing concealed carry via a CCW that is issued on objective criteria with the presumption that the applicant should be granted one (we call this “shall issue”), or full-on Constitutional carry, in which the state basically ops out of the regulatory scheme altogether.

 

 

My theory was that if a Constitutional right to bear arms exists outside the home, that right cannot be abrogated simply because you have crossed state lines.

 

 

In California non-residents cannot be granted a CCW because there is no statutory mechanism for non-residents to apply for a CCW.

 

 

They can come to California and “keep arms” in their hotel room… but there is no legal way for them to “bear arms” outside on their journeys.

 

 

To quote Judge Carney…”This is noxious to the Second Amendment.”

 

 

Now comes our client… a young man from Idaho who came to visit California.  Thinking that his CCW from Idaho would be recognized by California, he brought his firearm on his trip.  During a traffic stop (he failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign), he freely stated to the officer that he had a gun in his center console.

 

 

He was arrested for carrying a concealed firearm without a permit.

 

 

He hired us, and we went to battle.  We asked him if he was prepared to become a little famous.  We wanted to take this case all the way to the Supreme Court and get formal recognition that the Second Amendment does not become bifurcated when coming to California.  We wanted judicial notice that national reciprocity does, in fact, exist.  Hell… I just wanted to argue in front of the Supremes.

 

 

He was not so excited.  He just wanted this case killed so he could go on with his life.

 

 

Today we argued our motion to dismiss.  We made the argument that the law as applied to our client was unconstitutional, and secretly I hoped the judge would disagree allowing us to proceed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

 

 

To our client’s relief (and somewhat to my chagrin), the judge agreed with our position.

 

 

The motion to dismiss was granted and the case was killed… much to the bafflement of the DA.

 

 

So… while we have a client popping champagne tonight in Idaho… national reciprocity will have to wait a bit.

 

 

That said… one windmill will think twice before terrorizing the citizens again.

 

 

Recent Posts

Saint Alive! Blog - Catacombs

Saints Alive!

The sounds of dripping were muffled by the hiss of the torch.  I could feel the oil-laden rag at the end of the truncheon burning

Read More »
PAGA(Private Attorneys General Act) Blog

PAGA

One of the most infuriating aspects of Constitutional Law is the need to remain philosophically consistent, even when… especially when… outcomes on specific cases seem

Read More »
Cain Abel & the Vote Blog

Cain, Abel, and the Vote

Why did Cain kill Abel?     Seriously… what was the real motivation?  Jealousy?  That seems like a spectacularly one-dimensional excuse frankly.  I think it

Read More »

Comments (7)

  • Jeff Tucker Reply

    Well done, Captain.

    03/27/2024 at 08:15
  • Gary Ford Reply

    Bravo sir! One of these days I shall read Don Qui… checking the spelling…. Don Quixote.

    Oh, those dreaded mills, thank you for the link. I realized none of those things and just thought he was a romantic hero.

    03/27/2024 at 09:59
  • Paul Fieberg Reply

    Atta Boy Stephen. You are my hero ! paul Fieberg

    03/27/2024 at 10:16
  • John Denney Reply

    I tilt in your favor; well done. IANAL, but doesn’t that establish case law?

    Additionally, “[Justice Thomas] stated the Second Amendment does, in fact, exist outside the home, and as such, people need to have some sort of mechanism to exercise that right.
    This can come in several forms: a state allowing open carry, a state allowing concealed carry…”

    What is this “allowing” nonsense? The 2A clearly says the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. Does a state “allow” 1st Amendment rights?

    The notion of the people being “allowed” seems backwards to me, elevating The State above The People, turning public servants into masters of the public. The Bill of Rights says the government is the one not “allowed” to violate the people’s rights!

    03/27/2024 at 12:33
  • Jeff Mathews Reply

    Stephen, great article! And highly germane (to myself). I am a former CA resident – previously held a CCW in CA. You and your organization assisted me with my CCW training and renewals (which I appreciate). I am now a Utah resident (Constitutional Carry). I frequently travel back to CA for various purposes. I always carry my preferred firearm. Before crossing into CA, with great annoyance, I stow the firearm (unloaded) in a locked container within my car. However, more recently I have been thinking that, based on the aforementioned Rulings (and 14th Amendment), I should technically have the right to carry (i.e. reciprocity). At this point, next time I travel to CA I will not unload and lock the firearm. Meaning, I would be a willing subject for a second lawsuit if I should be cited or arrested for this so-called “offense.” (The very notion now of an arrest in CA for carrying a firearm is “offensive” to me.) Or perhaps, would it be possible to initiate a pro-active lawsuit (against CA) on these grounds? Curious as to the question raised by another commenter about Case Law (based on your recent case here)?

    03/28/2024 at 11:03
  • Gregory Acuff Reply

    Great job!

    03/28/2024 at 20:26
  • Norm Ellis Reply

    NEXT!!!

    03/31/2024 at 14:31

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *