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 ...
It’s only a “legal error” when the ruling goes against the commie and Nazi piggies.
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.
Appalling that the Brady’s WERE Republicans.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
The Socialist left has always used any identification trick they can think of in preparation for the extermination camps they always plan.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
“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.
I'm more concerned with the current alifornia State ban on open carry. After this ruling, that should be a no-brainer.
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.