Ninth Circuit strikes down CA "May Issue"!

[Chucktshoes]

[URL]http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/[/URL] The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public. California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by California to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

[Hershmeister]

The 2a civil rights journey continues!

[jtmaze]

Wow. I wonder how this will go down. JTM We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union......

[TrickyNicky]

Eff yeah! :woohoo:

[MacGyver]

When the ninth circuit is ruling in favor of the second amendment, that's probably a good sign to start looking for the seven horsemen of the apocalypse on the horizon.

[Pat]

I'll be darned... things get worse, and then better.

[E4 No More]

When the ninth circuit is ruling in favor of the second amendment, that's probably a good sign to start looking for the seven horsemen of the apocalypse on the horizon.

Absolutely! Were there imposters sitting on that bench?

[leroy]

I think it's very interesting that the only branch of the 3 branches of gubmt that is acting like the adults in the room is the judicial branch... My guess is that things are so polarized that the federal judiciary knows everyone on both sides of every issue is watchin... They seem to be commin down on a strict interpretation when it comes to the Bill of Rights issues...   By the way, hooray for the Second Amendment win.... We are livin in interestin times...

 

leroy

[300winmag]

That is a big deal for people in the LA and Bay areas because it is very difficult in those counties to get licenses.

[midtennchip]

The opinion is over 100 pages, so I have not yet read through it completely. However, it is interesting to note that it was a 2 to 1 decision and the dissenting judge said that the holding the majority's decision is in conflict with Heller. Also of note is that the Ninth Circuit is now in agreement with the Seventh on this, but the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits have held the opposite.

Strange days, indeed.

[Paladin132]

Mid I am having problems finding the text - can you link it please? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[K191145]

Just like Heller in DC, The California legislature will not acknowlege the decision and will probably not be punished for it. Still the decision itself is a small victory of sorts, a positive ruling on the 2nd Amendment. It's just a shame we even have to have any court rulings on the 2nd Amendment.

[runco]

If you are a lib you are probably doing this!

[URL=http://s963.photobucket.com/user/runco0318/media/cryinggirl_zpsb3b530db.png.html][/URL]

 

If you are reading this forum, you are probably doing this right now!

[URL=http://s963.photobucket.com/user/runco0318/media/laughs_zps002e925e.jpg.html][/URL]

[Garufa]

So what if CA does not comply?   Is the US DOJ gonna prosecute?  :lol:

[ncldwell]

San Diego is the most conservative part of the state (or at least it was). I hope pro 2A can get a foothold there and start moving north.

[TrickyNicky]

San Diego is the most conservative part of the state (or at least it was). I hope pro 2A can get a foothold there and start moving north.

Central CA is relatively conservative as well. Actually small pockets of sanity all over the state. If San Francisco, Sacremento and Los Angeles would get their crap in a pile CA might actually be a nice place to live again.

I really can't say how happy I am for the gun lovers in CA, now if they can just get back to standard capacity magazines and ditch the bullet buttons they'll be I pretty good shape. Of course, ultimately the state registration should be the next thing to address IMO. Then the waiting period... Still much to be done. Again I'm just thrilled for a pro-2nd ruling from my old home state.

[Erik88]

This is huge for the people of CA. I just told my GF about it, she was born on a military base in CA so I pick on CA a lot just to bug her.

 

After hearing this news she quoted Dumb and Dumber "so you're saying there's a chance!"

[2.ooohhh]

Mid I am having problems finding the text - can you link it please? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Here ya go.

 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

[Mark@Sea]

You think that eventually, some court somewhere will look at the text of the second and decide that "shall not be infringed" means "not even if the govt really, really wants to."?

[Glock30]

I've read the first 15 pages (so far) and I gotta tell you guys... take the time to read this thing. REALLY read it. Especially coming from the Ninth Circuit, there's a lot of beautiful commentary and history of what the 2nd Amendment has meant over the history of our country.

 

I keep not believing my eyes and double checking the calendar to make sure it's not April 1st. :)

 

Really though - don't skim, READ it!!

[midtennchip]

This is probably a good place to start in understanding why the Ninth held the way it did:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/more-on-the-reasoning-of-the-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/

Volokh is excellent at explaining Constitutional law. It is also interesting that even in the 1800s, courts routinely held that laws prohibiting concealed carry we're constitutional. So, this isn't a new issue. What makes the California laws (like the one in this case) really problematic is that they effectively prohibit ALL carry, not use concealed carry or open carry.

Also, just an interesting thought I read in another law review article some time ago. Many of the firearms restrictions that many people (including many here) accept without argument would be unconstitutional if held to the same standard as other constitutional rights. For example, most people believe felons (and particularly violent felons) should not have 2nd Amendment rights. But felons of all kinds are still protected under the Bill of Rights for other things (such as the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments). It would be unthinkable that a felon would have to give up the right (at least in total) to remain silent, to a speedy trial, or to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, but lose all rights under another Amendment (such as the 2nd). Again, just food for thought. Edited February 14, 2014 by midtennchip

[Oh Shoot]

So, to spare me the research, what's next? Was there any mandate/time span to get things cranking on changes to the permit program out there, like what happened in IL?

 

Is there a Federal Appeal court above the District ones, or what?

 

- OS

[Paladin132]

[quote name="2.ooohhh" post="1110735" timestamp="1392350569"]Here ya go. [url="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf"]http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf[/url][/quote]thank you. My google foo was weak. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

The 7th and the 9th with pro carry rulings back to back...Unbelievable. The right to carry is being recognized at a rate like never before.

Time to make Tennessee a free state. The legislation has been presented.

[E4 No More]

This is probably a good place to start in understanding why the Ninth held the way it did:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/more-on-the-reasoning-of-the-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/

Volokh is excellent at explaining Constitutional law. It is also interesting that even in the 1800s, courts routinely held that laws prohibiting concealed carry we're constitutional. So, this isn't a new issue. What makes the California laws (like the one in this case) really problematic is that they effectively prohibit ALL carry, not use concealed carry or open carry.

Also, just an interesting thought I read in another law review article some time ago. Many of the firearms restrictions that many people (including many here) accept without argument would be unconstitutional if held to the same standard as other constitutional rights. For example, most people believe felons (and particularly violent felons) should not have 2nd Amendment rights. But felons of all kinds are still protected under the Bill of Rights for other things (such as the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments). It would be unthinkable that a felon would have to give up the right (at least in total) to remain silent, to a speedy trial, or to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, but lose all rights under another Amendment (such as the 2nd). Again, just food for thought.

I've thought about that before when I was a LEO. Of course, I've thought of other things too like how violations of our freedom of speech are commonplace in our courts across the country. An example is the young woman who wore a vulgar, (in the judge's opinion, and to be fair, in my opinion as well), T-shirt in the court's gallery and got jailed for contempt of court. It seems like if the government is mostly ok with it and it only affects a small number of people at one time then it's all good. But in this case it's the very court who upholds the rules that violates them. I guess the founding fathers didn't think of that, because they wrote no modifier for the courts in the 1st, nor did they put a check in place to control the courts.