California battle over concealed-weapon rights could be headed for Supreme Court

Fox News ^ | August 3, 2014 | Lee Ross

[Zakeet]

The Supreme Court has turned aside all Second Amendment challenges since a pair of landmark rulings in 2008 and 2009 confirmed the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms.

But some believe a California case could make the high court return to the controversial area and determine whether gun ownership rights extend beyond the corners of one's home.

[Snip]

In February, a divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in Laxson's favor concluding that as responsible citizens she and the other plaintiffs have the right to carry a concealed weapon for self-protection.

The San Diego Sheriff's Department initially said it would follow the court's ruling and not appeal. But California Attorney General Kamala Harris intervened and is asking the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case. The legal pathway likely ends with a petition to the Supreme Court.

[Zakeet]

Fortunately, things are so much better in California these days that the people who live there no longer need guns ...

[Pollster1]

We all know what “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means. Restricting that God-given right to your own property is a massive infringement and thus unconstitutional. What the courts are determining is whether an illegitimate law infringing on that right will be permitted to stand.

[Gabrial]

My observation has been people in cities that ban concealed carry are more aggressive and anti-social than people in cities that allow it.

I wonder why....

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

“Carrying concealed weapons in public by definition does not inherently involve defense of hearth and home, so the core of the Second Amendment is not implicated.” So said the dissenting judge.

His argument is frivolous, that weapons exist *not* to protect lives and health, but just to protect “things”. But a house without a living person who lives in it is not a home, but just a house. And a person shot to death on the street by an armed and dangerous criminal will also neither tend the hearth.

As an analogy, as a man he is not a judge. He is a judge only because he wears a robe and has a gavel. So he deserves no special regard when he is disrobed and without his symbolic weapon.