Man you folks there have a lot of problems.
Yes we do, this is California.
What part of 'Shall not be infringed' doesn't the state get?
The US Supreme Court has already held that concealed carry is not a right and one of the complicating factors in whether or not to hold an en banc hearing is whether or not the decision implicated any state law. If enough circuit court judges thinks that it did then the case likely gets kicked back to the district court for a do-over or is dismissed with prejudice leaving SCOTUS as the only avenue to continue the case. Given that SCOTUS has turned down every concealed carry appeal there is no reason to believe that Peruta/Richards won't be turned down as well.
Besides, that supposed sheriff needs to be booted out of office.
Not going to happen.
Now I hope the folks involved with this lawsuit will prevail in SCOTUS and not mess up the Heller and McDonald rulings.
Assuming that any of these concealed carry cases prevail in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a really big assumption. Even the NRA lawyer in the Peruta case thinks he is going to lose ->
http://youtu.be/UaxxuyBvB-M Contrary to what the NRA lawyer says in the video, there is no reason for SCOTUS to hear his appeal. All of the pending concealed carry cases will die a slow death on appeal. Once there is a binding decision upholding the constitutionality of the state concealed carry law, any newly filed appeals will be quickly dispatched to the judicial graveyard.
Good luck to them and God speed.
The Peruta v. San Diego lawsuit is funded by the NRA and the official state organization of the NRA is one of the plaintiffs. The Richards v. Prieto lawsuit is funded by the SAF and CalGuns. The NRA, SAF, CalGuns are all opponents of Open Carry and argued in their cases that states can ban Open Carry. Do you still wish them luck?
Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.
"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.
"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.
"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282
Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
