HUGE win in California
- Thread starter ladder13
- Start date
Cal44
Member
Court tosses California's CCW rules
I just heard a bulletin that the US Court of Appeals has struck down California's CCW law.
In California the county Sheriff has the power to grant concealed carry permits -- as long as the background check is passed.
The law says that the applicant has to "show good cause" as to why they need a permit.
In some counties, Sheriff's will accept reasonable good causes, in others (particularly urban) counties almost no cause is good enough so no one gets a permit.
Anyway, the "good cause" requirement has just been struck down as unconstitutional.
Could it be the constitution actually still counts for something?
I just heard a bulletin that the US Court of Appeals has struck down California's CCW law.
In California the county Sheriff has the power to grant concealed carry permits -- as long as the background check is passed.
The law says that the applicant has to "show good cause" as to why they need a permit.
In some counties, Sheriff's will accept reasonable good causes, in others (particularly urban) counties almost no cause is good enough so no one gets a permit.
Anyway, the "good cause" requirement has just been struck down as unconstitutional.
Could it be the constitution actually still counts for something?
For those who are interested, this is the ruling:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf
Fishslayer
US Veteran, Absent Comrade
It's a morale booster for sure.
I understand S&W and Ruger have joined the lawsuit to get the "Not Too Unsafe Handgun" roster thrown out.
Now that we have flying pigs and snowball fights in Hades the Roster will soon be gone. I picked up my new soon to be off roster 22/45 yesterday so we have that going for us...
...which is nice.
UncaGrunny
US Veteran
I've gave a cursory reading to the decision - - it's actually quite damning for the State and the various Counties who have made a course of hoop-jumping out of the permit process.
It directly criticizes the three circuit court decisions that upheld laws faced with similar challenges, bluntly stating that in light of Heller they should be reversed.
It thoroughly constructs that the right of law-abiding responsible people to carry arms in self defense outside the home is real, is established in the 2nd AM, and in fact that the 2nd Am simply codified that already-existing right.
It states flat-out that any regulatory scheme that acts to prohibit all forms of carry outside the home for law-abiding average citizens (as opposed to specific groups) is obviously unconstitutional, not even an arguable point requiring a specific type of scrutiny.
It's scholarly but quite readable in terms of normal language. There's a lot of ammunition here for people in other California counties that have Sheriffs who have made the justification clause a near-insurmountable barrier to use for demands for relief.
Pretty cool. Expect our chicken-headed legislature to react like Chicago's leadership did, though, & try to find some way to worm their way out of the clear reasoning in this decision.
It directly criticizes the three circuit court decisions that upheld laws faced with similar challenges, bluntly stating that in light of Heller they should be reversed.
It thoroughly constructs that the right of law-abiding responsible people to carry arms in self defense outside the home is real, is established in the 2nd AM, and in fact that the 2nd Am simply codified that already-existing right.
It states flat-out that any regulatory scheme that acts to prohibit all forms of carry outside the home for law-abiding average citizens (as opposed to specific groups) is obviously unconstitutional, not even an arguable point requiring a specific type of scrutiny.
It's scholarly but quite readable in terms of normal language. There's a lot of ammunition here for people in other California counties that have Sheriffs who have made the justification clause a near-insurmountable barrier to use for demands for relief.
Pretty cool. Expect our chicken-headed legislature to react like Chicago's leadership did, though, & try to find some way to worm their way out of the clear reasoning in this decision.
A couple of points.
San Diego County will likely ask for a stay while they decide whether or not to appeal for an en banc hearing before the 9th Circuit.
If that happens, the losing side is likely to apply for cert. before SCOTUS. There will be tremendous pressure for that not to happen if it's the County that loses. Just as there was in IL after the 7th Circuit decided Moore v. Madigan.
If this case stops at the Circuit Court level it will be binding on all states in the 9th Circuit. Most of the states in that circuit are pro 2A, but the circuit also includes HI, which is even more restrictive than CA.
This is potentially a major Second Amendment victory, but it's far from over.
San Diego County will likely ask for a stay while they decide whether or not to appeal for an en banc hearing before the 9th Circuit.
If that happens, the losing side is likely to apply for cert. before SCOTUS. There will be tremendous pressure for that not to happen if it's the County that loses. Just as there was in IL after the 7th Circuit decided Moore v. Madigan.
If this case stops at the Circuit Court level it will be binding on all states in the 9th Circuit. Most of the states in that circuit are pro 2A, but the circuit also includes HI, which is even more restrictive than CA.
This is potentially a major Second Amendment victory, but it's far from over.
OP
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This statement from the 9th Circuit majority decision says it all.
"Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even
future judges think that scope too broad."
This statement from the 9th Circuit majority decision says it all.
"Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even
future judges think that scope too broad."
Rastoff
US Veteran
No, that would be like declaring our victory of independence right after dumping the tea in the harbor. This is just one tiny battle in a very long war.
Still, it is a HUGE, MONSTER win for Californians.
Now, I need some help with this. I downloaded the pdf and it's 127 pages long. How is it that the decision of a case about a single sentence right can take that much paper?
So, explain this to me, is this just for San Diego county or will it apply to the whole of CA?
UncaGrunny
US Veteran
Very wide spacing, very big margins, lots of footnotes... and an exhaustive demonstration of "this means this."
You hit the end of the decision around page 70 or so, I think.
You hit the end of the decision around page 70 or so, I think.
I'm confused. I've been listening to Joe Biden and Constitutional scholar Obama, and I thought the 2nd Amendment only protected the right to hunt game inside the home using a double barrel shotgun.
I'm down to page 73 and it looks like the judge that wrote the opinion is winding things up.
Rastoff, the decision was based heavily on an analysis of Second Amendment decisions going back to the early 19th century and up to Heller and subsequent cases. The judge analyzes the cases that decided contrary to the 9th circuit in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits and also mentions Moore v. Madigan in the 7th, which mostly agrees with this ruling.
This sets up the potential for an appeal to the Supreme Court since there is now a clear split between the District Courts.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
It's a morale booster for sure.
Well sure it is.
It wasn't that long ago that concealed carry in Tenn was illegal for average Joe. Tenn open carry law was so screwed up it made California look great! Not until 1989 did Tenn go to May Issue and then a few years later to Shall Issue. It complely changes the dynamic of gun ownership, and when blood does not run in the streets as gun grabbing hoplophobes always incorrectly predict, it helps debunk their entire gun control argument. Shall Issue has been great for the people of Tenn, the gun industry and the 2A. I still completely disagree with the notion of requiring a permit to carry a gun... but things have been moving in the right direction for the past couple decades.
Last edited:
For those who don't want to read the whole decision,
Rastoff
US Veteran
OK, reversed means that they are changing the earlier decision, but what does remanded mean?
Sent back to the District Court from which it was appealed for further proceedings consistent with the decision. As in the District judge will oversee how the County implements a permitting plan that is not overly restrictive. My guess is that this means "shall issue" unless the applicant is a federally prohibited person or is otherwise disqualified from possessing firearms.
While this case came from San Diego County, and other counties or issuing authorities that have similar requirements will also have to comply.
I think that the first order of business for San Diego will be to apply for a stay so that they can decide if they want to appeal the courts decision.
Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, and won't be sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express until Saturday night at the earliest. As such, this is my layman's interpretation and one of the lawyers (but not your lawyers
) on the forum may well tell me that I am full of fertilizer.
BobsSmith
Member
Very encouraging! My gut tells me it will "Shall Issue" is still years away.
Good start!
Bob
Good start!
Bob
MrTrolleyguy
US Veteran
Californians take heart
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a requirement by San Diego County that residents show "good cause" to carry a concealed firearm, a ruling that could force local governments across California to revisit the way they license handguns.
A federal appeals court on Thursday struck down a requirement by San Diego County that residents show "good cause" to carry a concealed firearm, a ruling that could force local governments across California to revisit the way they license handguns.
UncaGrunny
US Veteran
I slept with a lawyer at a Holiday Inn Express, once... does that count?
BlueOvalBandit
Member
Attachments
YogiBear
Absent Comrade
Aloha,
Those of us in Hawaii will be waiting to see what effect this will have with
our Non Issuing Police Chiefs.
If they start issuing, I'm going to have to get matching S & W for me and the Wife.
Those of us in Hawaii will be waiting to see what effect this will have with
our Non Issuing Police Chiefs.
If they start issuing, I'm going to have to get matching S & W for me and the Wife.
Similar threads
