I've been reading a bunch about constitutional law lately (gee, I wonder why) and I came upon the idea of a prima facie case in relation to 14th amendment equal protection civil rights cases. To show that a case is a prima facie case of discrimination, one must show that the law has a disproportionate or disparate impact on a certain group of people as well as that the impact on that certain group of people is intentional in the sense that it results from a discriminatory purpose or design.
To show the first part (law has a disproportionate effect), one needs only to look at the racial population grouping of California. Where do minorities tend to live in California? I'm presuming the vast number of minorities live within incorporated cities. If anybody has evidence of this, feel free to chime in. Since people who live in unincorporated areas on California can carry loaded firearms, but those who live in incorporated cities cannot, there is a disproportionate effect of the law restricting minorities.
To show the second part (the impact on the discriminated group is intentional) one normally has to show that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision" (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hons. Dev. Corp.). Well we all know how 12031 came to be, the Black Panthers were regularly patrolling Oakland with armed groups. The representatives in Sacramento caught wind of that and the bill was introduced, the Black Panthers stormed the Capitol with loaded guns, and the scared representatives all voted for the bill. Was there a motivating factor involving race here? It certainly appears so!
And the best part to all of this, discriminatory cases involving race are challenged using strict scrutiny. So basically, even without McDonald, 12031 is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
To show the first part (law has a disproportionate effect), one needs only to look at the racial population grouping of California. Where do minorities tend to live in California? I'm presuming the vast number of minorities live within incorporated cities. If anybody has evidence of this, feel free to chime in. Since people who live in unincorporated areas on California can carry loaded firearms, but those who live in incorporated cities cannot, there is a disproportionate effect of the law restricting minorities.
To show the second part (the impact on the discriminated group is intentional) one normally has to show that "a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision" (Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hons. Dev. Corp.). Well we all know how 12031 came to be, the Black Panthers were regularly patrolling Oakland with armed groups. The representatives in Sacramento caught wind of that and the bill was introduced, the Black Panthers stormed the Capitol with loaded guns, and the scared representatives all voted for the bill. Was there a motivating factor involving race here? It certainly appears so!
And the best part to all of this, discriminatory cases involving race are challenged using strict scrutiny. So basically, even without McDonald, 12031 is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
