> Do you see the possibility of DOJ attempting to squelch our
> national rash of concealed carry licensure as (possibly)
> something important?
Have they announced such an initiative?
I saw Holder complaining about SYG the other day, but nothing about concealed carry.
I think my general position is that struggle between State and Federal control of an issue has been the source of a lot of headaches. Once we get to a point where there are stark differences in the treatment of an issue between different states, it's time to look for a nationwide solution. The question of concealed carry is probably one of those topics that ought to be standardized at the national level.
I don't see this case as having any weight on such a conversation; like I said earlier, many states already have a provision to set aside what would seem like a contradictory gun law (for instance, possession by a felon or juvenile) in the case of self-defense. California is a state that does NOT have this exception, but there has been at least once case where an incredibly narrow exception was made:
http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-king-23161
"when a [person prohibited from firearm possession] is in imminent peril of great bodily harm or reasonably believes himself or others to be in such danger, and without preconceived design on his part a firearm is made available to him, his temporary possession of that weapon for a period no longer than that in which the necessity or apparent necessity to use it in self-defense continues, does not violate [the law]."
It turns out that in that case, the guy was handed a pistol in the middle of a fight.
That probably would not have led to an acquittal in Z's case in California (where his concealment wouldn't have been legal), all other things (in fantasy world) being equal. The fantasy part is of course that the whole thing would never have happened in California, so woulda-shoulda-coulda ...
/jordan