Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Federal Judge Rules No Constitutional Right to Carry a Hidden Gun in Public

  1. #1
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129

    Federal Judge Rules No Constitutional Right to Carry a Hidden Gun in Public

    A federal judge ruled Monday there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public _ a decision that dealt a setback to gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits.
    U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. in Sacramento supported a policy by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto that says applicants must have a reason, such as a safety threat, to legally carry a concealed weapon in his county northwest of Sacramento.


    The rest of the story at;

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011...ealed-weapons/
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Interesting wording.

    If you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and a Federal magistrate rules that you do not have a right to keep it concealed, then what is left?
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Interesting wording.

    If you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and a Federal magistrate rules that you do not have a right to keep it concealed, then what is left?
    UOC, in California, until UOC is banned.

    ETA: In addition to discretionary CCW permits under 12050.
    Last edited by wildhawker; 05-17-2011 at 04:22 AM.
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Great news for gun owners in Ca. There is a very definite 14th A equal protection issue with varying standards for issuing a permit in different counties. It can only be justified by claiming concealed carry is not a right. If concealed is not a right then open carry must be the right.

    We already know what Heller and Nordike say about unloaded restrictions. Gura can now fight for loaded open carry in CA.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Loaded open carry is good enough for PD

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Great news for gun owners in Ca. There is a very definite 14th A equal protection issue with varying standards for issuing a permit in different counties. It can only be justified by claiming concealed carry is not a right. If concealed is not a right then open carry must be the right.

    We already know what Heller and Nordike say about unloaded restrictions. Gura can now fight for loaded open carry in CA.
    So let it be legal for lawful gun owners .... that'll work for me even though my 2 second load and ready was as near perfect in operation my less than 2 second draw and shoot is certainly perfect
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

  6. #6
    Activist Member Joshua Costa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    80
    Kind of him to kick it upstairs so quickly.
    "I do not love the sword for its gleam, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory; I love only what they protect."
    — J.R.R. Tolkien

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Costa View Post
    Kind of him to kick it upstairs so quickly.
    This!

    -Gene

  8. #8
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922
    Seriously, leftists are absolutely retarded! How damn hard is it to understand the concept of "Shall not be infringed"???
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  9. #9
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
    UOC, in California, until UOC is banned.

    ETA: In addition to discretionary CCW permits under 12050.
    Where they are available...

    But the Magistrate by ruling that there is no Constitutional right to concealed arms could be taken completely literally... that any form of concealed carry is not a right, regardless of whether or not it was regulated by a licensing scheme. Then the only way the 2nd amendment can be expressed is through loaded open carry and 12031, 626.9, 171b, and all the California specific statutes banning weapons ready for use (loaded) are the laws that must be challenged towards exersizing a consitutional form of carry.

    It is clear to me that our government is trying to have it both ways; both regulating (chosing) the acceptable form of carry and preserving the piecemeal prohibition of ready weapons, there is no untouched expression of the right to keep and bear arms. So, in order to preserve a consitutional form of carry, even if the concealed carry licensing scheme was shall issue, there STILL must be some means to loaded open carry statewide, excluding only those sensitive places where weapons are not allowed even for licensees (courthouses, sterile areas in airports).
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Where they are available...

    But the Magistrate by ruling that there is no Constitutional right to concealed arms could be taken completely literally... that any form of concealed carry is not a right, regardless of whether or not it was regulated by a licensing scheme. Then the only way the 2nd amendment can be expressed is through loaded open carry and 12031, 626.9, 171b, and all the California specific statutes banning weapons ready for use (loaded) are the laws that must be challenged towards exersizing a consitutional form of carry.

    It is clear to me that our government is trying to have it both ways; both regulating (chosing) the acceptable form of carry and preserving the piecemeal prohibition of ready weapons, there is no untouched expression of the right to keep and bear arms. So, in order to preserve a consitutional form of carry, even if the concealed carry licensing scheme was shall issue, there STILL must be some means to loaded open carry statewide, excluding only those sensitive places where weapons are not allowed even for licensees (courthouses, sterile areas in airports).
    Hey ConditionThree,

    I don't think SCOTUS would rule that way. Kennedy will not join Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas if the wording in a majority opinion is written the way you suggest, IMHO.

    At best, SCOTUS will rule that the states must offer OC, Shall Issue, or both. I am not sure, at all, that SCOTUS will rule that OC must be unregulated. In the end, we may have to get an OCW permit in some states.

    Unless, one of our five, 2A supporting justices dies.

    Did I missunderstand your point?

    markm

    OCW: Open Carry Weapon.

  11. #11
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Hey ConditionThree,

    I don't think SCOTUS would rule that way. Kennedy will not join Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas if the wording in a majority opinion is written the way you suggest, IMHO.

    At best, SCOTUS will rule that the states must offer OC, Shall Issue, or both. I am not sure, at all, that SCOTUS will rule that OC must be unregulated. In the end, we may have to get an OCW permit in some states.

    Unless, one of our five, 2A supporting justices dies.

    Did I missunderstand your point?

    markm

    OCW: Open Carry Weapon.
    Well we are talking about a district court judge- and it may not matter in the least. However, my point is that this fellow is saying that bearing concealed weapons (without qualification) is not a right. If there is no right to concealed weapons- regardless of the issuance of a license, there must be some form of 'bearing' that is a right. The court wants to hang its hat on UOC as the right- but it is not a 'completed' weapon or a weapon ready for self defense. The courts cannot say that there is no right to bear concealed arms and also conclude that exposed carry can be regulated to the point where it is impossible to bear a weapon that is ready for immediate use.

    To me, this is like the city of Chicago banning firearms- and when that is overturned, Chicago establishing a licensing scheme that requires qualification at a range-- while at the same time they prohibit gun ranges inside the city of Chicago. In both instances, the burden on the right is such that there is no way to exercize it.

    By my reckoning, AB144 if signed into law, should fall to an injunction in a similar manner as AB962 because of the confusing litany of unintelligible exemptions (26 in all-making enforcement problematic) and the district courts have declared twice now, that UOC is the second amendment unharmed.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  12. #12
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree
    this fellow is saying that bearing concealed weapons (without qualification) is not a right.
    My qualification is the fact that I'm a human being entitled to self-defense, and that is protected (not granted) by laws, starting with the Federal Constitution.

    Just as telling me that the only gov't-approved way to defend myself would be, oh, say, a pointy stick, & I'm not allowed to kick someone, saying that one method of carry isn't allowed while another is is rubbish.

    What is it about becoming a judge that (for so many) leeches common sense out of them?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Well we are talking about a district court judge- and it may not matter in the least. However, my point is that this fellow is saying that bearing concealed weapons (without qualification) is not a right. If there is no right to concealed weapons- regardless of the issuance of a license, there must be some form of 'bearing' that is a right. The court wants to hang its hat on UOC as the right- but it is not a 'completed' weapon or a weapon ready for self defense. The courts cannot say that there is no right to bear concealed arms and also conclude that exposed carry can be regulated to the point where it is impossible to bear a weapon that is ready for immediate use.

    To me, this is like the city of Chicago banning firearms- and when that is overturned, Chicago establishing a licensing scheme that requires qualification at a range-- while at the same time they prohibit gun ranges inside the city of Chicago. In both instances, the burden on the right is such that there is no way to exercize it.

    By my reckoning, AB144 if signed into law, should fall to an injunction in a similar manner as AB962 because of the confusing litany of unintelligible exemptions (26 in all-making enforcement problematic) and the district courts have declared twice now, that UOC is the second amendment unharmed.
    Hey ConditionThree,

    Philosophically, I totally agree with. The world would be a nice place if we only used a philosophical basis for our laws and did not have to worry about people who have agendas that require top-down control of our society for the betterment of the "little-people."

    I assumed you were trying to make a point based on reality.

    Thanks for the clarification,

    markm

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    My qualification is the fact that I'm a human being entitled to self-defense, and that is protected (not granted) by laws, starting with the Federal Constitution.

    Just as telling me that the only gov't-approved way to defend myself would be, oh, say, a pointy stick, & I'm not allowed to kick someone, saying that one method of carry isn't allowed while another is is rubbish.

    What is it about becoming a judge that (for so many) leeches common sense out of them?
    Hey MKEgal,

    Your philosophical point is right-on! WE TOTALLY AGREE.

    markm

  15. #15
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Where they are available...

    But the Magistrate by ruling that there is no Constitutional right to concealed arms could be taken completely literally... that any form of concealed carry is not a right, regardless of whether or not it was regulated by a licensing scheme. Then the only way the 2nd amendment can be expressed is through loaded open carry and 12031, 626.9, 171b, and all the California specific statutes banning weapons ready for use (loaded) are the laws that must be challenged towards exercising a constitutional form of carry.

    It is clear to me that our government is trying to have it both ways; both regulating (choosing) the acceptable form of carry and preserving the piecemeal prohibition of ready weapons, there is no untouched expression of the right to keep and bear arms. So, in order to preserve a constitutional form of carry, even if the concealed carry licensing scheme was shall issue, there STILL must be some means to loaded open carry statewide, excluding only those sensitive places where weapons are not allowed even for licensees (courthouses, sterile areas in airports).
    Why aren't the big 2A groups fighting for what the lower federal courts have been hinting that they will give... Loaded Open Carry?

    Seems counter productive to an end goal of CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY (Arizona Style) to fight for a government permission slip system of a 2A right. Why not bolster a carry that is not dependent on government permission slips first? Then go after the "privilege" carry later?
    Last edited by hgreen; 05-22-2011 at 08:08 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    west
    Posts
    40
    I think you guys may be missing a very significant point, this new handgun ban does not actually infringe on 2A rights at all by court standards. Unloaded open carry of long guns still being legal, definitely will allow for conitnued 2A allotment as the courts will see it. I see this anti-handgun oppen carry law as the anti-gun folks basically saying, "go for it, carry the long gun, let's see how that works for you". I think they don't think many people will do it because it will be very dificult to always keep it on you comfortably and still go about your day. And I think they think more business' will say no, no long guns. Pretty smart move if you think of it objectively... I am not a fan by any means, but still very shrewd. I don't think this will help real 2A observance at all. Only the state voting these folks out and the right folks in will. Sorry, but this isnt very good news!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    Why aren't the big 2A groups fighting for what the lower federal courts have been hinting that they will give... Loaded Open Carry?

    Seems counter productive to an end goal of CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY (Arizona Style) to fight for a government permission slip system of a 2A right. Why not bolster a carry that is not dependent on government permission slips first? Then go after the "privilege" carry later?
    To count to 5, we have to keep Kennedy.

    -Gene

  18. #18
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
    To count to 5, we have to keep Kennedy.

    -Gene
    And if the SCOTUS does not have the desired make-up by the time Prieto and Peruta get there, then that could mean a PERMANENT may/no-issue CCW system US-wide, I don't think people in real-America would be very happy with CA "gun groups" for helping them with that one.
    Plus it gives legitimacy to a nanny state mentality that we need permission slips to carry firearms for self-defense.
    Sounds like a big risk, especially when it looks as if lower court federal judges are ready to strike down 12031 and 626.9 based on their questions/hints at trial.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    And if the SCOTUS does not have the desired make-up by the time Prieto and Peruta get there, then that could mean a PERMANENT may/no-issue CCW system US-wide, I don't think people in real-America would be very happy with CA "gun groups" for helping them with that one.
    Plus it gives legitimacy to a nanny state mentality that we need permission slips to carry firearms for self-defense.
    Sounds like a big risk, especially when it looks as if lower court federal judges are ready to strike down 12031 and 626.9 based on their questions/hints at trial.
    Well, if permits are not an option, then permitless is!
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •