• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
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/may/16/us-calif-concealed-weapons/
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
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:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

EXTREMEOPS1

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
248
Location
Escondido CA
Loaded open carry is good enough for PD

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
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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).
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
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.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,223
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,385
Location
in front of my computer, WI
ConditionThree said:
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?
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
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
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
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
 

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
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:

yawn

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
40
Location
west
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!
 

hoffmang

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
120
Location
Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
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
 

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
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.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
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! :D :p
 
Top