An interesting point is there is much sound and fury about weapons buying but no real zero admin to actually stop it.
Why does it feel like dejavu I’m having all over again dejavu I’m having... This ruling WILL be ignored. The Cali elites must maintain their monopoly on second amendment rights. Only important celebrities and politicials deserve to defend themselves. We plaebes need to know our place.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
Criminals don’t follow gun laws, by definition.
While I like the idea of applying tomorrow, I suspect the ruling is not effective for some legally-set number of days. It doesn’t matter. As is pointed out, a large number of applicants promptly putting in applications is a political statement all by itself.
The issue of whether any specific application is approved or rejected will not revolve around the day it is made, but the law on the day it is approved or rejected. From reading the SD Sheriff’s website, the initial application cost is about $15. Anyone who owns a handgun has already invested far more than that in the gun.
Bottom line is all who want to help this along, especially those in San Diego, need to get an application in right away. Enough applications and the SD Sheriff may “see the light” especially since he has an election in 2014 and he knows in his heart that anyone who applied and was not issued a permit will vote for his opponent.
Nevada already has ‘shall issue’ CCW codified in our state level Nevada Revised Statutes.
This ruling essentially adds “... And be quick about it.”
Anyway, I hope it works out for the Californians. I’m skeptical about the outcome and don’t expect any real forward movement until the very last legal liberal trick on the subject has run its course. In NV, we’ll honor this new ruling. California, they’ll have to be dragged there.
Besides, this IS the same 9th Circuit Court that ruled that people have a right to construct home made machine guns as long as they didn’t enter them into interstate commerce. The US Supreme Court shot down ‘Stewart vs US’ before I could even get the Dremel tool warmed up... More insultingly, they remanded it back down to the 9th in light of ‘US vs. Raich’ which was a case about marijuana cultivation in California which nowadays is all the rage. I think these cases need revisiting.
There are a few narrow exceptions to [citizens carrying firearms in public.] Armored vehicle guards ...
... And a citizen may carry a loaded firearm in public if: ... he faces immediate, grave danger provided that the weapon is only carried in “the brief interval” between the time law enforcement officials are notified of the danger and the time they arrive on the scene (where the fleeing victim would obtain a gun during that interval
is apparently left to Providence).
Clearly, the California scheme does not prevent every person from bearing arms outside the home in every circumstance. But the fact that a small group of people have the ability to exercise their right to bear arms does not end our inquiry. Because the Second Amendment “confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” we must assess whether the California scheme deprives any individual of his constitutional rights. Heller, 554 U.S. at 595. Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”
The opinion simply sends the case back to the lower court for a new decision. From the opinion:
The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Even if an individual cannot afford legal fees to pursue an order, having standing allows pro bono 2A lawyers to argue on your behalf.
As you probably know, your right to self defense will still be temporary, expensive and discretionary. On the other hand, your records will be permanent and always a subject of interest.
Fees, fines and foes.