CA District Court Judge: No Right to Conceal Guns in Public

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/federal-judge-rules-calif-gun-advocates/

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – 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.

"Regulating concealed firearms is an essential part of Yolo County's efforts to maintain public safety and prevent both gun-related crime and, most importantly, the death of its citizens. Yolo County's policy is more than rationally related to these legitimate government goals," England wrote.

Click to expand...

Again, I could have sworn that courts' jobs are to uphold the rights of the citizens, and not further "government goals".

This case could be good fodder for Gura to take the SCOTUS to get the "bear" part of the second amendment defined and hopefully incorporated a la McDonlad.

Bobby

The thread title is misleading. [on edit: That seems to have been corrected. Thanks to whoever did that.] The ruling said that concealed carry is not a right. I think this one is a loser and should not be pursued.

The right is to carry, not to conceal. If the case is pressed, I expect a SCOTUS ruling that contains those precise words, encouraging some States that stopped regulating CC to resume.

One upside, if the Court so rules, they will be saying, in a somewhat roundabout way, that OC is not only lawful, but is, in fact, the very right mentioned in the 2A--somewhat as the ALSC did in State v. Reid.

Ohio had this happen also...

In Klien vs. Leis 2003

It was determined that "Concealed Carry" was not a protected by 2A. It stated that it wasn't protected because the citizens of Ohio had the "Right" to "Open Carry" their firearms.

After several peaceful "Open Carry" marches the Ohio law makers passed Concealed Carry and it went into effect in 2004.

This ruling could help if CA passes the OC ban. Also I wonder if this could be used to get LOC legal in CA by arguing that the state only has the right to regulate CC and not OC.

The California legislature is doing its best to help with a current bill to prohibit unloaded open carry, which is now the only way to "bear" without a California may-issue license.

If a state prohibits OC and does not license CC with shall-issue, it will eventually lose to the combination of the Heller and McDonald decisions: "keep and bear" is an individual right.

Unfortunately, it will probably require another couple of centuries of litigation to get there.

This recent ruling may also help the 2A cause in MD, with regards to that state's unconstitutional regulation (read PROHIBITION) of OC, and WWW-based CC permit issuance...

Does anyone else out there find it mildly ironic that a federal judge ruling from a California court may be one of the biggest contributors in the battle for MD gun rights? :banghead:

Anubis said:

The California legislature is doing its best to help with a current bill to prohibit unloaded open carry, which is now the only way to "bear" without a California may-issue license.

Click to expand...

Ah-GAIN? WTF? Haven't we been tackling this issue for the last 47 years?

ALL-CALL: Californians: Please realize these morons are trying to extract what little rights you have left. Please tell them NO, and put them in their place.

It's that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

- since9