Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brady Campaign: CA's Pro-Concealed Carry Ruling 'Legal Error'
Breitbart.com ^ | 2/14/2014 | AWR Hawkins

Posted on 02/15/2014 7:07:26 AM PST by rktman

On February 13th, a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's requirement that citizens applying for concealed carry show "good cause" for keeping a handgun on their persons. Later in the day, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence responded by labeling the ruling a "legal error" and expressing hope that "the entire Court" will correct the "mistake."

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2a; banglist; california; guncontrol; secondamendment
Mistake? Hello kettle. Are these asshats still around? Where ya been sarah? Giving lessons to mx. mark kelley-giffords on how to use a brain damaged partner to line your pockets.
1 posted on 02/15/2014 7:07:26 AM PST by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rktman

2 posted on 02/15/2014 7:08:40 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

It’s only a “legal error” when the ruling goes against the commie and Nazi piggies.


3 posted on 02/15/2014 7:09:02 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (As government expands, liberty contracts. - President Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Sarah is feeling kinda miniscule in the shadow of Opportunist Mark and his debilitated wife, showcase, puppet, anti-gun Icon, Gabby..

Frankly, Sarah is feeling oh so decades ago and needs to establish some relevancy here. In the wake of Gabby and Mark, they’ve seen some rather deep cuts in their funding profile.


4 posted on 02/15/2014 7:12:46 AM PST by Gaffer (Comprehensive Immigration Reform is just another name for Comprehensive Capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Appalling that the Brady’s WERE Republicans.


5 posted on 02/15/2014 7:20:33 AM PST by originalbuckeye ("A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

The Bradys are full of selfpity and are typical of the whiney, spoiled, elitist GOP machinery. A machine that richly deserves a SuperShoe store full of nice wooden sabots.


6 posted on 02/15/2014 7:30:28 AM PST by Thumper1960 (A modern so-called "Conservative" is a shadow of a wisp of a vertebrate human being.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rktman
The Brady Campaign to Enable Violent Criminals and Outlaw Self-defense really laid an egg here, FTA:

To demonstrate the "dangerous" aspect of the Ninth Circuit's decision, the Brady Campaign cited the death of Trayvon Martin. They did not mention, however, that George Zimmerman--the man who shot Martin--was acquitted of any wrongdoing on grounds of self-defense. (My emphasis.)

By citing the legitimate and legal extermination of a wannabe murderer and piece of subhuman vermin and calling themselves a "Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" they've given themselves away as a campaign to promote and facilitate violent crime. "Gun Violence," after all, includes both legitimate and legal killings, like that of St. Trayvon of the Skittles (SBUH) and the most horrific of crimes, like Nidal Hassan's atrocity at Ft. Hood.

7 posted on 02/15/2014 7:43:59 AM PST by libstripper (Asv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman
Although I agree with this ruling, I'm kinda suspicious about the possibility that this is just candy so we'll all gladly lineup to apply for CCW cards which will ID lots of gun owners.
Sort of like a de facto registry of gun owners.
Damn my tin foil hat fell off.
8 posted on 02/15/2014 7:47:13 AM PST by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

No mistake, however the above article is mistaken in that the ruling was not against California but against San Diego County. The ruling could have future implications for California and areas under the 9th Circuit.


9 posted on 02/15/2014 7:52:31 AM PST by yadent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Falcon4.0

No tin foil hat. This Admin ALWAYS seems to have an ulterior motive behind everything they do. Especially when it appears to be the lawful thing to do . They breed cynicism in the hearts of freedom loving Americans.


10 posted on 02/15/2014 8:00:42 AM PST by originalbuckeye ("A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yadent

If I’m interpreting the legalities correctly, no state or county within the 9th district can now employ a “good cause” requirement to disallow CCW applications.


11 posted on 02/15/2014 8:02:41 AM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

I thought nidal’s act was “merely” work place violence. What a load of crap we’re being fed. Thanks lsm for standing up to truth, justice and the American way. Well, maybe not so much.


12 posted on 02/15/2014 8:03:24 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme),unemployment will necessarily skyrocket! Despite the % dropping. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Falcon4.0
Not so sure that you have a tinfoil hat at all.

The Socialist left has always used any identification trick they can think of in preparation for the extermination camps they always plan.

13 posted on 02/15/2014 8:03:59 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Falcon4.0

Kinda why I’ve been reluctant to get my CCW after moving to NV. Seems the majority of places I go you aren’t “supposed” to carry, so having it in the car is the next best thing I guess. Especially since our sheriff is one of the two in the state that supported the intergalactic background check during the last legislative session. Thanks Jack.


14 posted on 02/15/2014 8:06:39 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme),unemployment will necessarily skyrocket! Despite the % dropping. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yadent
yadent said: "... the ruling was not against California ..."

I believe that this is a very critical point.

On the surface it would appear to be a mandate to San Diego regarding what they consider "good cause", and not a ruling against the state law which permits the Sheriff to exercise discretion in requiring "good cause".

Imagine for a moment that a person applies for a permit in San Diego and for "good cause" writes, "security of a free state" on their application.

Is the Sheriff then free to reject the application? Obviously, he should not be.

The real effect of the ruling is that Kalifornia does not have the authority to grant the San Diego Sheriff discretion in issuing permits. The existence of a "self-defense" justification for carrying is enough even if the applicant doesn't say so.

Others before me have pointed out a potential problem with this ruling. Evidently there are binding precedents which require the courts to include the state in any suit which challenges the Constitutionality of a state law. I don't see how anyone can claim that taking away a state-granted power is not affecting the law which grants the power.

One possible rationalization would be to claim that the state intended the phrase "good cause" to include non-specific claims of self-defense. I'd get a kick out of hearing any state authority make that claim.

The question then arises; did the courts permit the state to be a party to this case? I have read a claim that the state was warned some sixty days prior to the oral arguments that they should consider taking part. I don't know the details of this claim.

Thus, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Ninth Circus re-hear the case and reverse this recent decision, sending the case spinning back to the lower courts to decide ... who knows what. It won't change the logic of the decision but will push back for another couple of years the recognition of the right to keep and bear arms in Kalifornia.

15 posted on 02/15/2014 10:30:30 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“The real effect of the ruling is that Kalifornia does not have the authority to grant the San Diego Sheriff discretion in issuing permits. The existence of a “self-defense” justification for carrying is enough even if the applicant doesn’t say so.

Others before me have pointed out a potential problem with this ruling. Evidently there are binding precedents which require the courts to include the state in any suit which challenges the Constitutionality of a state law. I don’t see how anyone can claim that taking away a state-granted power is not affecting the law which grants the power.”

I do not think this invalidates California law in any way. There are already 11 counties in California that are granting permits with non-specific “self defense” as a reason for the permit. They have been doing it for years. This ruling only requires that the County of San Diego do the same as a number of other counties in the State. The State does not have to change any laws at all.


16 posted on 02/15/2014 11:08:47 AM PST by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
marktwain said: "This ruling only requires that the County of San Diego do the same as a number of other counties in the State. The State does not have to change any laws at all."

The state law gives the Sheriff discretion to decide what is "good cause". The court just took it away.

Do the other counties have the authority to change their policy and eliminate non-specific self-defense? The law would suggest they do. The law is wrong and has been judged so by the Ninth Circuit.

Are you claiming that the state law which includes "good cause" was written with the intention of including non-specific self-defense?

Are you claiming that most of the counties in the state are not in conformance with the state law when they deny permits for self-defense?

A state law which explicitly permits violations of a right, even if that law also permits recognition of the right, is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned.

Imagine a law which permitted counties to require "good cause" to purchase a newspaper. Would the fact that most counties grant permission make the law constitutional?

17 posted on 02/15/2014 12:06:09 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
marktwain said: "I do not think this invalidates California law in any way."

After my last posting, I remembered another legal distinction that is probably relevant.

I believe the distinction is that some laws are unconstitutional "facially" and some are unconstitutional "as applied".

The state law in question is, in my opinion, definitely unconstitutional "as applied". The law allowed the San Diego Sheriff to deny a permit to Peruta, the plaintiff.

Also, I believe that the law is "facially" unconstitutional, as it requires a person to justify the exercise of a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Anti-gunners never claimed that the state of Kalifornia has the power to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms. Their claim has always been that no such right exists. Since Heller and McDonald they can no longer make that claim. Their whole house of cards has been destabilized and will fall.

18 posted on 02/15/2014 12:15:17 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“Anti-gunners never claimed that the state of Kalifornia has the power to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms. Their claim has always been that no such right exists. Since Heller and McDonald they can no longer make that claim. Their whole house of cards has been destabilized and will fall.”

I certainly hope so. That is what we are fighting for, the restoration of the right.


19 posted on 02/15/2014 12:57:11 PM PST by marktwain (The old media must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bob
If I’m interpreting the legalities correctly, no state or county within the 9th district can now employ a “good cause” requirement to disallow CCW applications.

I'm more concerned with the current alifornia State ban on open carry. After this ruling, that should be a no-brainer.

20 posted on 02/15/2014 12:58:12 PM PST by Carry_Okie (0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take everything you own to pay for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I know you will agree with this...

That is what we are fighting for, the restoration of State respect for the right.

The right pre-exists the State and cannot therefore be "restored"; it can only be violated. What we seek is to end said violation by restoring State respect for the right.

Yeah, picky, picky, picky. :-)

21 posted on 02/15/2014 1:04:20 PM PST by Carry_Okie (0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take everything you own to pay for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Carry_Okie said: "After this ruling, that should be a no-brainer."

I'm only half done reading the Peruta decision. It does seem as if the historical analysis, using the same methodology as Heller, establishes that the core right is to carry defensive arms openly.

There does seem to be some "tradition" to disallowing the bearing of concealed arms. More recently, concealed carry has become the preferred means, as it doesn't frighten the easily intimidated. It will be a giant win for us if the core right of open carry is restored and the public prefers concealed carry. For the most part we will be able to have our cake and eat it too.

22 posted on 02/15/2014 2:31:11 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Another comment about what I have read so far in Peruta is that there are at least a couple of references to disallowing concealed carry which specifically mention that travelers are not barred from such carry.

Obviously, if one is traveling and having to handle one's luggage at various points along a route of travel, it is much more practical to call on a concealed handgun rather than an openly carried long gun.

23 posted on 02/15/2014 2:35:49 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
It does seem as if the historical analysis, using the same methodology as Heller, establishes that the core right is to carry defensive arms openly.

That would be consistent with both the nature of the weapons at the time and the idea of a citizen militia.

It will be a giant win for us if the core right of open carry is restored and the public prefers concealed carry. For the most part we will be able to have our cake and eat it too.

I don't like CCW laws because they are equivalent to gun-owner registration, but with a magnetic effect.

24 posted on 02/15/2014 3:20:45 PM PST by Carry_Okie (0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take everything you own to pay for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The CA DOJ standard application requires statement of good cause. Each county sheriff is allowed to use their own discretion in interpreting what is or is not good cause.

This ruling voids the statewide template, but still leaves the discretionary powers of the sheriff largely intact.


25 posted on 02/15/2014 4:34:24 PM PST by BlueNgold (Have we crossed the line from Govt. in righteous fear of the People - to a People in fear of Govt??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Carry_Okie said: "I don't like CCW laws because they are equivalent to gun-owner registration, but with a magnetic effect."

Kalifornia has been registering every new handgun purchased for as long as I have been a gun owner. Even private party transfers of handguns are registered. At such time as I apply for a CCW, I intend to inquire as to what arms I have that are already registered with the state.

I have just finished reading Peruta. The dissent is actually pretty compelling in many of its points. Most convincing, I think, is the following:

"If carrying concealed firearms in public falls outside the Second Amendment’s scope, then nothing—not even California’s decision to restrict other, protected forms of carry—can magically endow that conduct with Second Amendment protection."

The only argument I can muster against the evidence that there is a long-standing tradition of various jurisdictions banning concealed carry, is that, if our Founders had wanted such restrictions, they could have said so. They certainly weren't shy about detailing how reasonable searches and seizures can be carried out.

The majority opinion seems to ignore the fact that their decision effectively eliminates the protection of the Second Amendment for the bearing of non-concealable arms.

The dissent also does explicitly claim that the state was not afforded its opportunity to defends its regulatory "scheme", given that the majority found the way it did because of the outlawing of open carry.

I fear that we have not heard the end of this by far. I can easily imagine an overturning of this decision en banc and the Supreme Court refusing cert due to the non-involvement of the state.

Much disagreement has been generated by the "open-carry" crowd. Those most interested in getting concealed carry permits considered the open-carry demonstrations to be counter-productive. The truth may turn out to be that only open carry is protected and only an open-carry suit will arrive at the proper resolution. Once open carry is protected, I believe that "shall-issue" concealed carry will follow quickly.

26 posted on 02/15/2014 4:48:27 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BlueNgold
BlueNgold said: "This ruling voids the statewide template, but still leaves the discretionary powers of the sheriff largely intact."

Courts don't like it when the obvious aspects of their decisions are ignored.

Given the Peruta decision, there is no county in Kalifornia which can now reject an application for lack of "good cause". The court didn't simply decide that you have a right to a permit if you wish to defend yourself. They stated that you have a right to defend yourself, and that a permit must be issued lacking any other criteria for rejection.

It's a subtle distinction, but will stop counties from engaging in word games. If you are carrying a not-quite large enough sum of money and put that down as your reason, does that mean that you can't protect your life with the gun and thus should be rejected? I don't think so.

The reality is that the Sheriff's discretion involving "good cause" is pre-empted by this decision. He cannot decide that "self-defense" alone is insufficient, and I don't believe that he can reject any other purpose that could conceivably include an element of self-defense.

27 posted on 02/15/2014 5:00:51 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Kalifornia has been registering every new handgun purchased for as long as I have been a gun owner.

Sadly so.

This is a very insightful paragraph, one that distills what I have long felt to be the correct path to redressing the systematic violation of the right to armed self-defense in California:

Much disagreement has been generated by the "open-carry" crowd. Those most interested in getting concealed carry permits considered the open-carry demonstrations to be counter-productive. The truth may turn out to be that only open carry is protected and only an open-carry suit will arrive at the proper resolution. Once open carry is protected, I believe that "shall-issue" concealed carry will follow quickly.

No doubt, the OC crowd have been jerks about it, and there is nothing to be gained politically in rubbing people's noses in their baseless fears. Yet it does represent the truest interpretation of civilian law enforcement as echoed in the combination of the Second and Third Amendments. Effectively, the three million unionized LEOs we have in this country operate to the contrary, effectively constituting the standing army internal to the US the Founders feared.

If you haven't read Balko's book on the topic, it's worth the time.

When California effectively banned open carry, I called my SO about the following problem: I live in a rural area. I wear my pistol for self-defense against coyotes, mountain lions, and wild boar. My property line goes down the center of the County road. If I walk back to my house carrying my loaded pistol on my side of said public road while still on my property, am I in violation of this law?

They got a good chuckle out of it and told me that the spirit of the law supported my interpretation.

This is how we should be educating people, not what the OC crowd was doing.

Now, to your main point...

"If carrying concealed firearms in public falls outside the Second Amendment’s scope, then nothing—not even California’s decision to restrict other, protected forms of carry—can magically endow that conduct with Second Amendment protection."

The original Constitution placed firearms regulation completely at the discretion of the States. There was to be no Federal protection for the individual preexisting right. The States would rightly have feared the Feds exerting such a preemptive power of enforcing the right against the States. It is only since the 14th Amendment that gun owners, desperate to deal with outrageous State violations of their civil liberties, sought Federal protection against their States, to which I am on record saying, 'Be careful what you wish for.' "A well regulated militia" was to be the equivalent of a State army, where the men in said militia received "regular" practice and drill under the command of the governor. Effectively, the leftist, 'that's the National Guard' does have historic merit but for its systematic exclusion of any acknowledgement of the right to self-defense as pertaining to those not so regularly engaged. But remember, said right to self-defense is not mentioned in the Constitution. Accordingly, I have felt that Natural Law competition and Federalism was a better answer in the long run than going to SCOTUS, particularly because I fear what the Feds will do pursuant to the treaty power as it is currently interpreted. I think you've considered what I've had to say about that, but if not, they're here and here.

28 posted on 02/15/2014 9:11:18 PM PST by Carry_Okie (0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take everything you own to pay for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
MCarry_Okie said: "My property line goes down the center of the County road."

As does mine. It's not something I've challenged. As they say, "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride."

29 posted on 02/15/2014 9:32:19 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
As does mine. It's not something I've challenged.

That's why I called the SO to get them to ask the question first, and this is Santa Cruz. They said 'As a matter of the spirit of the law, it looks like you are within your rights.'

30 posted on 02/15/2014 9:39:50 PM PST by Carry_Okie (0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take everything you own to pay for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Carry_Okie said: "There was to be no Federal protection for the individual preexisting right. "

Surprisingly, some of the quotes in the Peruta decision seems to indicate that the idea that the Second Amendment, unlike the First Amendment, only applied to the federal government isn't quite clear.

The Dred Scott decision is one: "It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

There's no suggestion here that any state would be infringing the right to keep and bear arms of their citizens, though there is a suggestion that freedom of speech might be subject to state limitations.

Was it ever the case that the Fourth Amendment requirement for warrants didn't apply to the states? After all, the First Amendment explicitly states "Congress shall make no law ...", whereas the Second states, "shall not be infringed".

In all the reading of court decisions that I have done I don't recall ever reading in early decisions that persons could only keep or bear subject to state laws. But, of course, they didn't have those dreaded pistol grips that one needs in order to shoot up a school.

31 posted on 02/15/2014 9:44:39 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
In all the reading of court decisions that I have done I don't recall ever reading in early decisions that persons could only keep or bear subject to state laws.

In my entire reading of the Federal Convention debate I don't recall noting discussion of the the right to keep and bear arms. My understanding of the young Mr. Madison's character is that acts of government to violate the tenets of the Fourth or Second Amendments would be so unconscionable as to have not required contemplation but for the objections of the anti-Federalists. Later in life he got the idea. More importantly to the long term is the point that I have implied, that the power to enforce protection of a right is the power both to define its scope and to violate it. The more we concentrate that enforcement power, the more peril of irreversibility we face when (not if) human covetousness demands that freedom be curtailed.

In sum, I don't think the distinctions in the scope of of application re one amendment versus another was a major concern to the founders as they were more focused upon getting the States to go along with the idea of creating a Federal government with enforcement powers in the first place.

32 posted on 02/16/2014 7:10:57 AM PST by Carry_Okie (0-Care IS Medicaid; they'll pull a sheet over your head and take everything you own to pay for it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson