Posted on 07/28/2018 2:13:13 PM PDT by rogerantone1
Why does this only apply to the Western US? I mean if it was about immigration it would apply to the entire country. I’m just sayin’
Don’t get too excited. We had a great victory in the Ninth Circus three judge review of Peruda that required must-carry, but an en banc re-review (Peruda II) reversed the three judge ruling and upheld may-issue.
I expect the same to happen here as well.
> Means I can open carry to California? <
I sure wouldn’t risk it until every sheriff in CA gives the OK.
I’m no lawyer. And I do not play one on TV. But this ruling was handed down not by the entire Ninth Circuit, but by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel.
The ruling has got to annoy West Coast liberals. So I’m predicting that the Ninth Court as a whole will meet - and soon - and they will strike down the panel’s ruling.
Who found the reset button on the 9th Circuit?!!!
Back in the 1980s Ohio’s laws were much the same
A high school friend of mine had a job as a jewelry salesman. And his job had him carrying a sample case with what was back then $40K in jewelry.
The State of Ohio issued him a concealed carry license. And he did carry a .38 revolver on his belt under his suit jacket.
I can’t imagine the ridged ideology that would not issue a CCW to someone with a job like my friend. Such people are targets and some thieves don’t care to leave behind witnesses.
Great!
My vulcan cannon, plasma phased array, enhanced radiation assault planet destroyer ...
... I can carry openly in public!
This sure is interesting. For those who don’t know the recent history, a few years ago pro-2A citizens started carrying rifles and pistols in public, unloaded, because it was legal to do so. Most of these people did so as a form of political protest. So of course the politicians just banned open carry.
Then Peruta filed suit. California is a “discretionary ccw” state meaning you can get a CCW only if your local police chief or sheriff agrees to give you one. So Peruta sued the San Diego sheriff. The Supreme Court just held in the Heller case that 2A is an individual right. Making open carry illegal and concealed carry discretionary is a defacto ban on 2A rights which Heller ruled was not permitted.
A 3-judge panel ruled in favor of Peruta and basically forced all the sheriffs to give anyone a permit who asked. Of course the reality was a bit different, they weren’t equipped to review that many applications and didn’t really want to give permits out. So they complied but very slowly. Meanwhile unprecedented political machinations by California, which originally decided to stay out of Peruta, decided they would appeal. This is very bizarre because how can you appeal if you are not a party to the lawsuit? San Diego lost, not California, and San Diego did not want to appeal. But the 9th Circuit of course found some excuse to permit the state (Kamela Harris, btw, our new Senator) to appeal en banc to the 9th circuit (en banc means when you don’t like the 3 judge panel ruling you ask the entire court to reconsider).
And then it got even more bizarre. The en banc court overturned their own 3 judge panel but did not actually resolve the conflict. They basically said “well the 2A is an individual right, but the SC didn’t say that open carry was a right, so the state is allowed to ban open carry. And the 2A didn’t say CCW is a right, so the state is allowed to regulate CCW permits.” Peruta appealed to the SC but the SC did not take the case - presumably because 4 of the judges were unsure if they would get a 5th to vote with them.
One very interesting thing here is that one of the 3 judges who ruled on this case was the judge who wrote the decision in favor of Peruta and the 2A. I dig it. He’s stuffing it back into the faces of the judges who overruled him last time. (And as an aside, California’s “discretionary ccw” policy was born from racism. The politicians figured that the chiefs and sheriffs would give permits to all the white people who wanted one, but not give them to many Blacks or Hispanics. And to this day that holds true: something near 81% of all permits in the state are issued to White people, 11% to Asians, and only 5% to Blacks and 3% to Hispanics.)
Today the politics of the SC are different. There may now be 6 judges who could vote to protect the 2A. So HI and CA ruling elite are in a pickle. They can let this ruling stand, which means everyone can carry openly. They won’t like that. They can appeal, but if they appeal they might lose and the SC will not hear another appeal thus cementing open carry as law for generations. They won’t like that either. If they appeal and win, the pro-2A side will appeal to the SC where now with 6 pro-2A judges would be much more likely to hear the case. And here is the problem, the elite had the chance to compromise on the CCW question. California could have said “Ok, let’s make it shall issue and create a state agency responsible for background checks and printing permits”.
Now personally I believe in Constitutional Carry but I am only arguing the political realities as they now stand. This idea that a local chief in a rural county can issue a permit that is valid anywhere in the state is bizarre and difficult to verify. If a cop stops a guy in Los Angeles and the guy says “Officer, I have a Stanislaus County CCW Permit” the cop has no easy way to verify that, thus threatening the civil liberties of the citizen, wasting resources, and possibly use of force or violence as outcomes.
But the state blew that chance to compromise they want to kill the 2A. But the tables have turned. It is almost a question now of how hard does the pro-2A side want to fight and what do they want to accomplish. Passing a “shall issue” CCW-law might be a decent compromise if you are a politician because at this point you just want to stop complete annihilation of your policies, and a compromise would foreclose most avenues to sue or appeal in the future. It is possible that the politicians will see the writing on the wall and pass a fast and dirty law to allow shall issue ccw just to prevent appeals. But the 2A side has the advantage now. I hope they use it well and negotiate roll-back of many of the ridiculous anti-2A rules like ammunition taxes and regulations, magazine size limits, and the moronic “California Roster” that bans every gun unless the maker pays a ton of money to prove that the design meets CA’s unique set of qualifications.
The 9th already stated in banc in Peruta that there is no specific open carry right. That’s what makes this case kind of bizarre. I think the difference is, Peruta was arguing for shall issue CCW permits and claimed that the state scheme banning open carry and allowing concealed carry by permission only was a defacto ban. The 9th (as I wrote in the post above) argued in return that Heller did not say open carry was lawful so the state could choose to ban it.
This case is similar to Peruta but argues the other side - from HI where CCW is even harder to get than CA. And instead of asking for CCW this case (Young) says “I asked twice for a CCW and the state wouldn’t give me, so I want to open carry”
In other words Peruta tried to change CCW laws, and Young is trying to change open carry bans. Otherwise the arguments are pretty much the same - if you ban open carry and make CCW impossible, it is unconstitutional defacto ban that Heller and the 2A prohibit. The funny part is that the same judge who wrote the decision to force shall issue CCW - and was overturned by his peers en banc - has been given another chance and he is making his peers eat their briefs. You gotta love it!
The 9th made a mistake in Peruta - they tried to be too clever in finding a way to flaunt the 2A and Heller - and it’s come back to haunt them.
I don’t believe in “ Constitutional Carry.” We have natural rights. Stop with the silly legalism already.
“It can be overturned by a full seating of the 9th Circuit Court.”
No, that isn’t how it’s done. The next step will be an En Banc panel of eleven judges to review the three-judge panel decision. BUT Someone has to ASK for an En Banc, because the court can’t do it without a complaining party. After the 3-judge panel in the 9th in Peruta ruled that concealed carry was legal Kamala Harris, our then AG got an En Banc even though she let the time expire under the law that would allow her to get one. This will go to the SCOTUS.
Way to win friends and influence people! You know what I meant. “Constitutional Carry” = gov’t cannot infringe on the natural right as explicitly stated in the Constitution. Pretty straightforward.
Though it is at the moment a losing political argument. Not many people agree that society should permit people convicted of violent felonies the same right to self defense as non-felons.
As the article points out the 7th District ruled pretty much the same way, so if the 9th en banc overturns the panel it will almost certainly be taken up by the SC because they would need to resolve the conflict.
My point exactly. There’s a long way to go and Trump’s appointments to the SC are crucial in righting the leftward tilt the current courts have taken.
Trump promised to protect the fundamental rights secured in the Original Bill of Rights, especially the oft attacked 2nd Amendment. His appointment of Kavanagh is another step in fulfillment of that promise.
It is delicious to watch play out. There is a lot of irony here too. The state had a chance to be reasonable and instead they pushed too far and now it has backfired. Young v Hawaii is the natural, logical response to the Peruta decision. The 9th en banc ruling was just too clever by far to be reasonable. Most of all I love that the judge who wrote the original Peruta ruling, who was overturned by the en banc court, draw the straw to hear Young v Hawaii and got the chance to shove that decision right into the throats of the colleagues who overturned him.
I wish the political memory of the voters was more astute and long-lasting because at the end of the day, their loss is their own fault. They could have compromised on carry permits but got piggish. Unfortunately they will probably pay no political price - their voters agree with them, even when told that their policy is unconstitutional - but this win is a good one for the good guys.
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.