After losing a lawsuit before the 9th circuit court of appeals in 2016, a case in which the NRA argued that states and local governments can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry, the NRA filed a new lawsuit in district court which again argued that states and local governments can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result each time.
On Monday, May 7th, Federal District Court Judge John Kronstadt granted the State of California’s motion for summary judgment in which he said it was unnecessary for him to decide whether or not there is a right to openly carry a firearm in public because the “exception” for carrying a loaded firearm when one is in “grave, immediate danger” is sufficient to uphold California’s bans on openly carrying firearms.
Notwithstanding that this “exception” is not an exception, it is an affirmative defense, Judge Kronstadt did not say where this magic gun would come from. The “exception” applies only to the brief interval of time between notifying the police and their arrival. It remains a crime to carry a loaded firearm, or to carry an unloaded firearm, outside the door to one’s home, or in a motor vehicle, including any attached camper or trailer, for the purpose of lawful self-defense even if one’s sole residence is the attached camper or trailer.
Not that the Plaintiffs in that case, Flanagan v. Harris[1] (now v. Becerra) have legal standing to challenge California’s Open Carry bans. You see, no matter how unconstitutional a law is, or how well one argues
