Court overturns concealed-carry rule in blow to California gun law

[unfy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-california-20140213,0,4197872.story

I'm sure there's a better source for this, but whatever.

The jist of it is:

LOS ANGELES— A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a requirement by San Diego County that residents show "good cause" to carry a concealed firearm, a ruling that could force local governments across California to revisit the way they license handguns.

Cali basically bars open carry, and the Court said 'good cause' makes it impossible to get a carry permit... etc.

The fairly liberal leaning 9th appeals ... stood up for 2A ? *shock*

I'm glad to see "good cause" shot down.  **** yeah!

[DanClrk51]

Yes this was a HUGE surprise! The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals basically struck down the "May Issue" provision of the California CCW law.

Federal Court strikes California’s ‘Good Cause’ requirement, says it violates 2nd Amendment

In a ruling Thursday afternoon, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier court ruling that self-defense was not a good enough reason for granting a CCW in California, stating that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a gun in public.

This is seen as a strike at the  practice of ‘may-issue’ in California, which is where a citizen has to prove why he or she needs a permit and if they do so effectively, the local authorities ‘may issue’ one. This is different from ‘shall-issue’ states where most lawful citizens can simply apply for and be granted a permit after a background check and fees.

Read More at: http://www.guns.com/2014/02/13/breaking-may-issue-california-attack-federal-court/


And from the NRA:

Second Amendment advocates won a major victory on Thursday when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the individual right to bear arms applies outside the home. Specifically, the court said that San Diego’s restrictive concealed carry laws that require citizens to prove a need to defend themselves are unconstitutional.

And Washington Time's Miller:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/13/nra-wins-big-concealed-carry-gun-case-in-petura-v-/

[Ronvandyn]

Let's not get our hopes up, it was a 3 judge panel and not the entire 9th Circuit Court.  There is sure to be an appeal to the entire court in the works.   But… it is good news all the same.  My home state might eventually be worth returning to if this ruling stands. 

Ron

[DanClrk51]

The ruling stands....for now.

San Diego County Sheriff won't appeal 9th Circuit Ruling:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/21/san-diego-wont-appeal-9th-circuit-on-concealed-car/

...This isn't good news since an appeal would have helped bring the whole issue before the Supreme Court which we would probably win. Instead this can buy liberals more time to wait for a more liberal Supreme Court.

[DanClrk51]

It is as I feared:

Supreme Court won’t hear three Second Amendment gun cases

The United States Supreme Court decided on Monday morning to not hear three Second Amendment cases that sought to clarify the rights of people to carry handguns for self-defense purposes outside their homes.

However, there is a fourth case also heading toward a private conference, at some point, that addresses many of the same issues in the three cases denied by the Court on Monday. The case of Drake v. Jerejian is about gun control laws in New Jersey and a petition has been filed with the Court.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-won-t-hear-three-second-amendment-150609818--politics.html

[DanClrk51]

MILLER: Pressure for Supreme Court to take up Drake case and rule on concealed carry laws for nation


Split between 9th Circuit in California and 3rd Circuit New Jersey cases

John Drake just wants to legally carry a gun to defend himself in New Jersey since he has been chased by robbers after refilling ATMs with thousands of dollars in cash. His application for a concealed carry permit was denied because the state does not consider self-defense a “justifiable need.”

Mr. Drake is taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court. If the high court decides to hear it, the ruling could change the laws related to the individual’s right to bear arms from coast to coast.

Read more at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/miller-pressure-for-supreme-court-to-take-up-drake/?page=all#pagebreak

[Ronvandyn]

The ruling stands....for now.

San Diego County Sheriff won't appeal 9th Circuit Ruling:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/21/san-diego-wont-appeal-9th-circuit-on-concealed-car/

...This isn't good news since an appeal would have helped bring the whole issue before the Supreme Court which we would probably win. Instead this can buy liberals more time to wait for a more liberal Supreme Court.

It might have, then again it might not.  After reading a bit more about his decision (The Sheriff) it seems he was pressured by other jurisdictions to abort any challenge because by doing so any additional ruling applies everywhere covered by the 9th Circuit.  It leaves the rest of the state as it is currently legislated by its local authorities. 

Yet there is always a chance that the entire 9th Circuit could take the case on en banc and make a different ruling.  With the 9th Circuit you can never tell, and most local legislators would never let a case like that get to the 9 wise souls in DC.  Too much to lose, very little to gain.  I believe he was told to shut up and accept it with a smile.

[DanClrk51]

Ohhhh so because it was just a panel it only applies to San Diego County not the entire 9th Circuit area?

Sadly the US Supreme Court isn't always so wise:

The Supreme Court decision, based on a Los Angeles case, says officers may search a residence without a warrant as long as one occupant consents.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#axzz2uT6sXQIC

[unfy]

The Supreme Court decision, based on a Los Angeles case, says officers may search a residence without a warrant as long as one occupant consents.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#axzz2uT6sXQIC

I'd suggest linking to the local conversation of it (assuming you started that thread before posting in this one, dunno heh):

http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,11346.html

This way the conversation can go on!

[Ronvandyn]

Ohhhh so because it was just a panel it only applies to San Diego County not the entire 9th Circuit area?

Sadly the US Supreme Court isn't always so wise:

The Supreme Court decision, based on a Los Angeles case, says officers may search a residence without a warrant as long as one occupant consents.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-scotus-lapd-search-20140226,0,3720623.story#axzz2uT6sXQIC

Was reading at the Gun Wire this afternoon and noted that the Ca AG, Kamala Harris, is asking the full court to review the case and make a ruling.  Funny part is, she does not appear to have the standing to make the request.  Her office has been asked many times to intervene in CCW related cases and in each case she has said that her office has no legal authority on that issue, the issuance of CCW's is a local (Sheriff's) matter.  I wonder how the 9th will view her request given her own office's background on the issue. 

They say be careful what you say, one day it might come back and bite you right in the a$$.  Sure would be fun to watch that... 

Ron