Skip to comments.Court strikes California law limiting concealed weapons
Posted on 02/13/2014 11:24:30 AM PST by KneelBeforeZod
California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state's permit system for handguns.
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution's Second Amendment by requiring residents to show "good cause" - and not merely the desire to protect themselves - to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.
State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would invalidate that system.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
FeinSwine and dumbasaBoxer are going to have kittens.
It is far past time that the 2A was recognized as being just as necessary and important as the 1st.
SF Court? This is a stunning ruling! And now San Diego has elected a Republican Mayor, Mayor Faulconer. Perhaps SF’s ruling might not be appealed?
CA needs to honor my AR CCW permit.
Yeah, I thought I heard heads exploding this morning.
Amazing coming from them......
9th Circus, and yes for that reason.
I think the problem is the San Diego County Sheriff, Bill Gore. He is a PC political hack. He was the FBI agent in charge at Ruby Ridge.
Well it’s about time that we are permitted the same basic freedoms here in Kalifornia as the rest of the country.
Wait ... the Ninth Circus did what?????
I bet some of the judges on the 9th circus have nice arsenals,, and exit plans.
The liberal Nine Circus struck down California’s discriminatory “may issue” concealed carry system - in which California local sheriffs and police chiefs could grant CCWs to politically connected celebrities and campaign donors. It was corrupt and unjust.
And it forces California to move to “shall issue.” A blow to the gun banners in the Bluest state in the country!
From the 9th Circus?.............I’m STUNED..................
It was a 2-1 decision, on appeal it will go in front of all of them if I’m not mistaken.
I think one of the two judges who voted this way is probably getting the icy stare of death from a majority of the bench right now...
It will have to go to the US Supreme Court.
It will have to decide if “may issue” CCW is constitutional. If it isn’t we can expect to see it struck down in New York, Maryland and Puerto Rico. We can also expect Hawaii’s “no issue” to be invalidated as well.
The trend is our friend and definitely speaks to elevating Second Amendment rights to the same level of strict scrutiny as governmental actions on the First Amendment.
In other words, the federal, state and local governments will have to show a compelling state interest in restricting people’s right to bear arms and to defend themselves.
The ant-gun side on the losing end of the battle! Take that Michael Bloomberg!
“I don’t know about you, but this guy should get a little more training. Not much trigger control. I doubt it was over 10 yards”
Thats better than one guy I saw at the range. He was bouncing rounds off the ground at 10 yards.
Text of the ruling...
I skimmed through it. This opens up challenges to the permitting process as a “poll tax” as it infringes on an Individual and protected Right that applies via the 14th and the Supremacy clause.
Just like I’ve been saying for years...
I really hope that this ruling sticks, since this may be what it takes for the rest of the "may issue" states to get it through their heads that the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary citizens, not just those with political connections. Considering that most of my family lives in states that do not accept CCWs from my state, I would very much like for those states to actually start accepting my CHL at some point. Otherwise I may not go visit my family again.
Not doing a full on Snoopy dance yet, but I’m warming up my dancing shoes just in case...
The Ninth Circus actually made a good decision - it will be promptly reversed.
Yup, you shouldn’t have to be a celebrity, be a friend of law enforcement or someone prominent to have the right of self-defense. And its quite frankly NONE of the sheriff’s or police chief’s business why I need a gun. I don’t have to explain my reasons to them any more than a cop has to answer to his boss on why he carries a gun on duty.
We all have the right to protect ourselves, not just the rich and famous and the politically connected. The rules for issuing a permit have to be the same for every one and your right to bear arms should not be a function of your social status, political influence or wealth. That belongs to all of us.
Even if en banc review reverses the 2-1 decision, it sets the stage for a trip to the SCOTUS.
I have a feeling the US Supreme Court will uphold it. The Second Amendment’s future has never looked brighter.
This argument has been seen numerous times here at Free Republic. Why does someone have the right to self defense at home, but then loses that right away from the home?
The best thing that could happen now would be for this to be appealed to the USSC and then have the appeal be DENIED for review.
Oh man, that would be OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!
Especially if some group appealed it and the Court said "You don't have standing to enter the case."
This from the Ninth Circuit? It can’t possibly be true.
The case couldn’t be clearer could it? But I’m wondering if maybe the judges understood that the issuance of a concealed weapons permit in some counties was dependent upon cronyism and celebrity status.
It's the same deal in Jersey- called having to show a "need" to carry. I think I'll forward this to Christie's office and await a reply with bated breath...
I was issued a .45 in the Army that was unbelievably bad.
It would miss at 10 meters - man size targets. I switched pistols with someone else and I started hitting handily and he started missing wildly. That was still not enough for our armorer to look at the weapon. When I PCS’d he had still not looked at it.
If this was an appeals court ruling, I’d be surprised if the losing parties tried to take it to SCOTUS. Too much of a risk of triggering a far-reaching and nationally-applicable ruling that vastly “expands” the concept of the 2nd Amendment as Liberals claim to understand this.
Better for them to walk away from this decision, hoping the next few years bring the replacement of a Conservative SCOTUS justice with a Liberal one (flipping the 5-4 balance on the court the other way) allowing a winnable anti gun case to be run up through one of the other Circuits.
I don’t remember the actual rulings, but the 9th Circuit Court has now made three Conservative friendly rulings in about as many years. Strange that...
It is exactly the same in Jersey. My father was an oral surgeon with lots of narcotic in his office throughout his career. In the late 1960s (after NJ changed its gun laws for the worse in 1967) he went to the local PD and inquired about a carry permit - because he got a lot of late night calls from people he didn't know, claiming that they had horrible pain (some did, others were looking for drugs). The chief told him that he'd never get it because he was politically connected enough (at least the guy was honest), but that he could call the cops anytime and have an escort. He immediately began telling people to meet him at the Emergency Room...and now you know part of the reason why medical costs shot through the roof.
I hope that this goes to the USSC, and that they rule correctly on this - just because I'd like to see liberals' heads exploding across the country.
Under D.C. vs Heller, that's an easy call to make. Since this court has already recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, it would be difficult indeed to reconcile that individual right with a state's discretion in issuing a carry license.
Uh, WASN’T politically connected enough.
How they have gotten away to limiting our Constitutional rights is beyond outrage.
How dare government dictate what level of safety is to be afforded to the law abiding in CA, while they defile the U.S. Constitution.
Disgusting does not begin to describe this.
I agree, I cannot explain it other than they know the fix is in at SCOTUS.
That could be it. On the other hand, can you remember any time in your life when you saw the Left take a pass on anything, with the idea it would be struck down at a higher level? I can’t.
They don’t play like the Republicans do.
I agree, I cannot, usually they delay repeatedly, and force conservatives to appeal negative decisions every step of the way, to use up their legal funds before they get to SCOTUS.
Interestingly, the one judge's dissent would support the argument that the state can regulate concealed carry, but not open carry. And he may be right about that.
In light of Heller I don't think they are going to be able get this back in the bottle. The right to "bear" arms means to carry them outside the home.
And that is very interesting, because in (The People's Democratic Republic of) California, it is illegal and a felony to open carry a firearm, even unloaded.
Not only the exploding heads, but a lot of constitutionalist Patriots will again be law-abiding citizens.
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson
Agree and should have happened years ago based on the fact statistics regarding permit holders clearly show very few abuses. Of course there are already laws intact for those who chose to be irresponsible or act in a violent criminal manner. The rights of the people should clearly abide here.
More like they will have cows.
Without the Second none of the others are enforceable against the regime.
I will be more surprised if the 9th Circuit fails to review this en banc than I am with this 2-1 decision.
It wasn’t en banc. So pretty meaningless vs the the Government.
Since when do progressives care about the rule of law? The ruling will be ignored like it was the several times obamacare was struck down.