9th circuit rules may issue unconstitutional in Peruta

[Jeff Hayes]

In Peterson, the Tenth Circuit considered a Second Amendment challenge to
Colorado’s concealed handgun licensing regime, which restricted the issuance of
licenses to Colorado residents. The Tenth Circuit concluded that “[t]here can be
little doubt that bans on the concealed carrying of firearms are longstanding.” 707
F.3d at 1210. After conducting an historical analysis, the Court concluded that
“the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons.” Id.
at 1211.


Interesting quote from the dissent. Who was it that was complaining about others setting bad precedents ?

I see what you did there.

 

[davidmcbeth]

There remains two other factors to overcome before California goes 'shall issue'. Hopefully, there will be short work made of them.

And those that passed these laws and allowed them to stay on the book? Hope they choke on their steaks that they "earned" on the backs of the peasants.

Overall I think you are happy with the decision?

 

[teddyearp]

As unintentionally serendipitous as UOC movement was, <snip>

By UOC I an going to assume that you mean unloaded open carry. That has been going on in CA for a long long time, before they changed the law recently to deny even that. The old PC 12031 only allowed open carry if unloaded. But of course, I probably have this all out of context . . . so if so forgive the n00b.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I see what you did there.

, couldn't help myself after stumbling across that passage....

 

[ConditionThree]

And those that passed these laws and allowed them to stay on the book? Hope they choke on their steaks that they "earned" on the backs of the peasants.

Overall I think you are happy with the decision?

California is poised to look very much like Texas, in respect to lawful carry. Given that even when UOC was wholly lawful in 95% of California's geography, it was never an example of the right to keep and bear arms in the context of the second amendment. There is a rather large distinction between transporting a firearm for 'any lawful purpose' and carrying a working firearm 'for use in the event of a confrontation'.

Am I happy with this decision? As far as outcomes are concerned, 'shall issue' licensing is the best possible direction available in California at this time. If San Diego County loses their appeal in this next go-around, issuing agencies will not be able to say 'I'm sorry Mr, McBeth, we at Thus-and-such county have reviewed your application, and have found no compelling reason to issue you a carry license, since there are no recorded threats against you...' A denial would have to rely solely upon whether they thought you were of 'good moral character'- which switches the burden on discovering something more concrete besides 'we don't trust you' on the issuing agency. Granted, they could contrive any number of character assassinations based on the frequency you have been stopped by police, whether you pay your bills on time, whether you have ever used drugs or medication in a manner not consistent with dosage instructions, your spotty employment history, or whether you have a dispute with your neighbors... but it is better than what we have now.

 

[onus]

I wonder if police would give me a CCW in California.

I have never been arrested. Never been convicted. Don't drink. Don't do drugs.

Last ticket I got was 18 years ago.

However, my picture is on the walls of every police department in Los Angeles and they all hate me.

Hmm...I think I should make a video of me applying for a permit

 

[RockerFor2A]

Current San Diego Sheriff Policy....

Just to try and find out what this really means in terms of San Diegan's actually being able to finally GET permits, I happened across this page and made a screen shot:

http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

Looks like for now it's business as usual with Bill Gore who "will continue with existing procedures." I assume this means they are still requiring the now "officially-unconstitutional" good cause statement beyond "self defense."

As I wondered what OUR next move should be as pro-2A citizens of San Diego County, I couldn't help think what gay marriage proponents would be doing if this ruling pertained to THEIR issue. I suspect that would be out in front of whatever institution was refusing to implement the decision of the court with signs and bullhorns and would invite the media down there.

Is there any good reason why we shouldn't try to get a group together with signs and organize a protest in front of the Sheriff's office in Kearny Mesa, for example? Inform the media about it. The gist of the protest should be that Bill Gore is now continuing to violate the law as decided by the 9th circuit. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but UNTIL the Sheriff's Department files an appeal or other challenge, isn't the department technically violating the law and why not make that accusation publicly against Bill Gore EVERY DAY until the appeal is actually filed?

I'm just really wondering if we couldn't do more. If we could get say, 50 people out in front of the Sheriff's office with signs, I would think it would make the news and then perhaps put some pressure to bear on Gore. Maybe it wouldn't change his mind about appealing the decision, but some voters might see it on TV and learn more about the issue and subsequently it might affect Gore's re-elections chances negatively.

 

[Grapeshot]

Would seem to be some pucker power manifisting itself there.

 

[marshaul]

Wow. This is huge. I'm hoping non-resident permits will follow suit. I might be able to visit CA again.

I'm no fan of requiring permits, but will take advantage of it and let people know why I came back to support their economy again.

California passes 10 new gun laws for every "victory" GCF et al win in court. CA is doomed due to the exclusively top-down, utterly anti-grassroots litigative approach taken by CGF.

I find it really hard to get excited over this.

 

[RockerFor2A]

...utterly anti-grassroots litigative approach taken by CGF.

I find it really hard to get excited over this.

Is anybody interested in maybe picketing the Sheriff's office at some point? Or is that just a foolish idea for some reason I haven't really thought through?

 

[marshaul]

Is anybody interested in maybe picketing the Sheriff's office at some point? Or is that just a foolish idea for some reason I haven't really thought through?

I don't have much of an opinion on that at the moment.

I do know that Californians need to start worrying, big time, about getting folks (re-)interested in guns.

California is probably the only state I've spent significant time in where gun ownership is less common amongst folks my age, than it is amongst their parents. That's an extremely dangerous state of affairs, IMO.

Unfortunately, I don't see these victories doing much to increase gun ownership when the state is having so much success discouraged new gun ownership.

 

[We-the-People]

So they have documented that they plan to continue with their unlawful procedures. Ahh but they have an out you see. The case was reversed and remanded, meaning that it still isn't settled. Yes the 9ths opinion says that their policies are unconstitutional but they'll wriggle and hem and haw.....what's the definition of "is"?

 

[oc4ever]

The time may be now to apply for a CCW permit.

So they have documented that they plan to continue with their unlawful procedures. Ahh but they have an out you see. The case was reversed and remanded, meaning that it still isn't settled. Yes the 9ths opinion says that their policies are unconstitutional but they'll wriggle and hem and haw.....what's the definition of "is"?

My (non lawyer) understanding is that the 9th circuits ruling becomes immediately the law of that district., unless it is reversed at some point in the future. I did not see any place in the ruling where it gave the defendants any time to stay the decision pending the appeal. The Sheriff's only hope is to try to drag out giving application appointments as long as possible. This leaves the San Diego Sheriff wide open to many individual lawsuits for civil rights violations, all which the plaintiffs, get court ordered attorneys fees beyond damages. Since the other urban areas of Orange and Los Angeles have similar policies, they are not in much better shape. I say now is the time to go file CCW applications in the most restrictive Counties. Any appeal is not going to be heard within the statutory time required to grant the permit.

 

[davidmcbeth]

My (non lawyer) understanding is that the 9th circuits ruling becomes immediately the law of that district., unless it is reversed at some point in the future. I did not see any place in the ruling where it gave the defendants any time to stay the decision pending the appeal. The Sheriff's only hope is to try to drag out giving application appointments as long as possible. This leaves the San Diego Sheriff wide open to many individual lawsuits for civil rights violations, all which the plaintiffs, get court ordered attorneys fees beyond damages. Since the other urban areas of Orange and Los Angeles have similar policies, they are not in much better shape. I say now is the time to go file CCW applications in the most restrictive Counties. Any appeal is not going to be heard within the statutory time required to grant the permit.

$$ to be made? People will make money then...

 

[scott58dh]

Fantastic decision - jubilation. Believe the verdict will hold up.

This will send shock waves through Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut..........

The anti are suffering from acute indigestion, I suspect.

+1 Grape :exclaim:

 

[MAC702]

California passes 10 new gun laws for every "victory" GCF et al win in court. CA is doomed due to the exclusively top-down, utterly anti-grassroots litigative approach taken by CGF.

I find it really hard to get excited over this.

Being in NV, only 45 minutes away from them, I understand they live under a huge pile of steaming crap when it comes to such freedom laws.

Your point is well taken, and I am more tempered now, but was quite a bit excited in the first five minutes after reading the excerpts of the decision, forgive me.

Chicago is still a crap-hole, too, but these are good changes for them, and hopefully a start of a reversed trend, if the court is taken seriously.

 

[Gray Peterson]

In Peterson, the Tenth Circuit considered a Second Amendment challenge to
Colorado’s concealed handgun licensing regime, which restricted the issuance of
licenses to Colorado residents. The Tenth Circuit concluded that “[t]here can be
little doubt that bans on the concealed carrying of firearms are longstanding.” 707
F.3d at 1210. After conducting an historical analysis, the Court concluded that
“the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons.” Id.
at 1211.


Interesting quote from the dissent. Who was it that was complaining about others setting bad precedents ?

In response, the other language of the dissent:

Because the act of carrying concealed weapons in public is not protected by the Second Amendment, it is unnecessary to reach the second part of the Second Amendment inquiry. However, even if we were to assume that San Diego County's good cause requirement implicates the Second Amendment, I would conclude that the San Diego County policy easily passes constitutional muster.
You really are going to take the side of the guy that said that "bear" basically means nothing just to poke me with a stick, eh?

Section C 2 of Peruta should give you an answer, given Colorado's Legislative declarations on the matter of belief that self protection is best served by a statewide concealed carry licensing scheme. I personally will not file against Denver and Colorado again, given that 2014 elections may give me the relief I desire (permitless carry, universal carry license recognition).

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In response, the other language of the dissent:

Because the act of carrying concealed weapons in public is not protected by the Second Amendment, it is unnecessary to reach the second part of the Second Amendment inquiry. However, even if we were to assume that San Diego County's good cause requirement implicates the Second Amendment, I would conclude that the San Diego County policy easily passes constitutional muster.
You really are going to take the side of the guy that said that "bear" basically means nothing just to poke me with a stick, eh?

Section C 2 of Peruta should give you an answer, given Colorado's Legislative declarations on the matter of belief that self protection is best served by a statewide concealed carry licensing scheme. I personally will not file against Denver and Colorado again, given that 2014 elections may give me the relief I desire (permitless carry, universal carry license recognition).

More intellectual dishonesty, did I say I took his side?

You are the one who acted [poorly] on a public forum, you are the one who demonized others efforts while telling them the case to get behind was yours, even when many on here spoke out that you were fighting the wrong fight.

You are the one who just tried the same scare mongering tactics in Washington, telling us mere mundanes not exercise a right because that right will be restricted if we do.

You are the one who decided to make it a personal fight against me, I won't apologize or sacrifice my liberty centric politics that makes you so upset.

Oh and don't be so arrogant as to think my intention in pointing that out was just to "poke you with a stick".

 

[OC for ME]

Just to try and find out what this really means in terms of San Diegan's actually being able to finally GET permits, I happened across this page and made a screen shot:

http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html

Looks like for now it's business as usual with Bill Gore who "will continue with existing procedures." I assume this means they are still requiring the now "officially-unconstitutional" good cause statement beyond "self defense."

As I wondered what OUR next move should be as pro-2A citizens of San Diego County, I couldn't help think what gay marriage proponents would be doing if this ruling pertained to THEIR issue. I suspect that would be out in front of whatever institution was refusing to implement the decision of the court with signs and bullhorns and would invite the media down there.

Is there any good reason why we shouldn't try to get a group together with signs and organize a protest in front of the Sheriff's office in Kearny Mesa, for example? Inform the media about it. The gist of the protest should be that Bill Gore is now continuing to violate the law as decided by the 9th circuit. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but UNTIL the Sheriff's Department files an appeal or other challenge, isn't the department technically violating the law and why not make that accusation publicly against Bill Gore EVERY DAY until the appeal is actually filed?

I'm just really wondering if we couldn't do more. If we could get say, 50 people out in front of the Sheriff's office with signs, I would think it would make the news and then perhaps put some pressure to bear on Gore. Maybe it wouldn't change his mind about appealing the decision, but some voters might see it on TV and learn more about the issue and subsequently it might affect Gore's re-elections chances negatively.

Well, the cops could cite you all for disorderly conduct or any other stretch of the law to paint you all as unsuitable to CC. But, it is the cops move to make and no protest has ever worked when not done in a public venue. Protest and see what happen. Record the event, each and every citizen who joins you.

 

[ConditionThree]

Is there any good reason why we shouldn't try to get a group together with signs and organize a protest in front of the Sheriff's office in Kearny Mesa, for example? Inform the media about it. The gist of the protest should be that Bill Gore is now continuing to violate the law as decided by the 9th circuit. Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but UNTIL the Sheriff's Department files an appeal or other challenge, isn't the department technically violating the law and why not make that accusation publicly against Bill Gore EVERY DAY until the appeal is actually filed?

I'm just really wondering if we couldn't do more. If we could get say, 50 people out in front of the Sheriff's office with signs, I would think it would make the news and then perhaps put some pressure to bear on Gore. Maybe it wouldn't change his mind about appealing the decision, but some voters might see it on TV and learn more about the issue and subsequently it might affect Gore's re-elections chances negatively.

Yes. There is a good reason why you shouldn't picket Sheriff Gore's office.

There are more effective means of getting what we want. Firstly, assuming you are a resident of San Diego County, you should be contacting the SDCO board of supervisors, advising them that you do not approve of the county appealing this decision due to the fiscal impact of losing- (which, even in California is a strong probability.)

Protesting out front will get you ignored and burn your time with few dividends.