pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handgun
#1
I wonder if the Supreme Court comes to the same conclusion, if we'll get constitutional carry? I assume "mag limits", where you can and cannot carry. etc. will have to be followed depending on which state you are in.

Quote:Ninth Circuit Recognizes Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun outside the home. The opinion comes days before the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review two other cases that ask the question of whether the right to “bear arms” extends beyond the home.

The California-based appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, delved into American history, from the Founding Era forward, and found support for the notion that “bearing arms” means carrying a gun in public:

So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The case comes from San Diego County, which, according to state law, requires residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun. Personal safety alone does not qualify as good cause. The question for the court was whether the requirement infringes on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

read more
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#2
Does the word "incredible" fit? The Ninth is one of the most liberal (and most often overturned) courts in the country!
Brick, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#3
Winning!

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#4
If SCOTUS takes the case it's going to be another nail-biter. Recall DC vs. Heller was 5-4. With what happened with Obamacare and Chief Justice John Roberts ruling it constitutional and a tax, it would not surprise me if he or one of the other conservative justices join the liberals in overturning this decision.
Live Free or Die
Reply
#5
This is unbelievable. There must be a catch. Tongue
Reply
#6
nomad;134813 Wrote:This is unbelievable. There must be a catch. Tongue

Exactly what I was thinking. 9th Circus? (Said in my best "Playoffs!!?" Way)
"In 4 more OMao years you won't like how America looks....I guarantee it."
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#7
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...-handguns/
Quote:The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Eugene Volokh may be too modest to say so, but the Court cites him four times, to his articles Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009); and The First and Second Amendments, 109 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 97 (2009). I got one cite, for The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 B.Y.U. L. Rev 1359 (1998). [Other modern scholars cited were Nelson Lund, Stephen Halbrook, Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson, and Joyce Malcolm, all of whom are familiar to longtime VC readers.]
Click here to subscribe.

I had participated in the case by filing an amicus brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and the Independence Institute, although the particular issue addressed in the brief became irrelevant before the case was decided. At the time of the brief, California law allowed persons to carry an unloaded handgun openly for self-defense, without need for a permit. The District Court had said that this was sufficient for exercise of the right to bear arms for self-defense. The amicus brief explained the mechanics of defensive gun use, and why it is unrealistic to expect that most people will be able to load and use their firearms after the perpetrator has begun a violent felony attack. Subsequent to the filing of the brief, the California legislature changed the statute, so now defensive open carry in any form is also prohibited.
The Peruta decision employs the typical two-step test which has been adopted by many federal courts: 1. Does the conduct at issue involve Second Amendment rights? 2. If so, then apply heightened scrutiny; but if the law destroys the right, rather than merely restricts it, the law is categorically unconstitutional, with no need for detailed analysis under strict or intermediate scrutiny. The details of the two parts of the test vary among the Circuits, and not all Circuits recognize the final item in Step 2.
The Peruta Court expressly stated that its ruling only applies to law-abiding citizens. The plaintiffs were in accord; they did not challenge the statutory requirement a permit applicant must be of “good moral character.”
The Peruta decision examines the text of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald, and the legal history of the right to bear arms. The Court pays particular attention to the historical cases and commentators that have been favorably cited by Heller and McDonald. The survey leads straightforwardly to the conclusion that the right to carry a gun in public places for lawful self-defense is part of the Second Amendment right. So plaintiffs pass step 1 of the two-part test.
As for step 2: the “good cause” requirement, as interpreted by San Diego, is a near-total destruction of the right to bear arms. “Heller teaches that a near-total prohibition on keeping arms (Heller) is hardly better than a near-total prohibition on bearing them (this case), and vice versa. Both go too far.”
Hence, San Diego’s policy is unconstitutional.
As Heller had observed, there are many 19th century cases which say that a state may ban concealed carry so long as open carry is still allowed. California might have been able to do the same. But it is unconstitutional to prohibit carrying in every mode: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”
The Peruta decision does not strike down California’s statutes about licensing for the carrying of firearms. The decision simply says that the “good cause” requirement may not be interpreted in a manner that disable typical law-abiding citizens from being able to obtain carry permits. The state statute is fine; the way the statute was interpreted by many California jurisdictions is not.


...Like I said I love these new laws... They will unravel the nonsense.. Maryland is about to get it's ass pounded... HARD..
Reply
#8
Brick;134805 Wrote:Does the word "incredible" fit? The Ninth is one of the most liberal (and most often overturned) courts in the country!


Must have been high when they made the ruling.
A gun rack in a pick-up is not for holding guns. Its a place for women to hold on to. Smile
Reply
#9
nomad;134813 Wrote:This is unbelievable. There must be a catch. Tongue

I haven't read the actual decision so the usual IANAL and IIUC warnings apply, but to me the "catch" seems to be that this basically said "may issue" isn't cool, but things like training and proficiency requirements (and licensing generally) are totally cool.

I'm not seeing any way this leads to constitutional carry, just a finding that a burdensome system of "shall issue licensing with lotsa inconveniences is good enough to satisfy the Second Amendment".
I am not a lawyer.
Reply
#10
twency;134847 Wrote:I haven't read the actual decision so the usual IANAL and IIUC warnings apply, but to me the "catch" seems to be that this basically said "may issue" isn't cool, but things like training and proficiency requirements (and licensing generally) are totally cool.


The Court Opinion...about 130 pages. Big Grin
[Image: 5c220c63-8b97-4da9-ab3c-287f26620991_zps529d180f.jpg]
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Lesser of Two Evils and The Hamilton Rule Mr_Gixxer 7 1,047 05-04-2016, 04:53 PM
Last Post: Mr_Gixxer
  Chinese firm reportedly cost California taxpayers millions extra for spotty bridge wo das 0 523 06-09-2014, 09:18 PM
Last Post: das
  Anti-Gun California Political Powerhouses Indicted On Corruption Charges middlefinger 1 721 02-25-2014, 06:53 AM
Last Post: halftrack
  Plan to split California into six states gains ground middlefinger 12 1,525 02-23-2014, 10:18 PM
Last Post: Ironbutt
  Book Alleges Obama Told Aides About Drone Strikes: I’m ‘Really Good At Killing People Pocketprotector 0 896 11-03-2013, 08:13 PM
Last Post: Pocketprotector



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.