HUGE win in California

[onemanwolfpack]

Totally pumped.

 

[Hack]

Kinda of like in MI... pay to take a class, pay to apply, wait and wait and wait, take a day of work to appear before a gun board, finally get your CPL in the mail!

Oh yeah and then in 5 years, pay again to renew!

\

I did have to pay to take a conceded carry class and pay my 105 dollars for the permit with included the cost of finger prints. I turned in the form and was called 2 weeks later to come pick up my permit. never had to go before the gun board.

I've had my CPL since 2001 when the law changed to 'shall issue'. I also live in Wayne County (Detroit's county), other than the first time when the county was 'sitting on' everyone's application, I have had very small wait times for renewals. I have NEVER had to go in front of the gun board.

That being said, I would like to see the renewal process streamlined more.

 

[Rastoff]

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.

I have no idea how it will affect Hawii, but as far as I know, there has never been a CCW issued there yet. It would be even more monumental for y'all.

 

[dahoss2002]

I hope a lot of Californians apply for and receive their permit, passively demonstrating by statistics that it's not "the gun", it's the "bad guy", that commits the crime. And I hope it's not an endless and ridiculously challenging process. Good luck west coasties.


Sgt Lumpy

I hope they start voting for people that want to represent them.

 

[islamoradamark]

congrats you do have the right to carry concealed its the 2nd admendment like i have said in the past u have rights. its just some point in the past some knockle head took them away

 

[ladder13]

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.

Hawaii is part of the 9th Circuit, the ruling should pertain to you also..................eventually

 

[cmort666]

1. I always said that Illinois would ONLY get shall issue CCW via court decision. I was right. Apparently the same thing has happened in California.
2. Apparently they can ban concealed carry OR open carry, but not BOTH. Some of the reasoning appears similar to the arguments we made here in favor of concealed carry. The opponents said that we didn't need concealed carry because it was lawful to open carry. When LOTS of people started open carrying... in LARGE GROUPS, they realized they'd painted themselves into a corner and passed an iffy CCW bill. We've been steadily rationalizing that bill for years now and there's no going back.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I slept with a lawyer at a Holiday Inn Express, once... does that count?

Dammit Gunny you promised not to tell!

 

[cmort666]

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.

After EVERY loosening of oppressive gun control laws in Ohio, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has predicted a slaughter that would put the Battle of the Somme to shame. In EVERY instance it has failed to materialize.

The PD (and freaks like Toby Hoover) have lost ALL credibility here. In fact, it's an amusing pastime to mock the Plain Dealer in its own online comment section regarding all of their past predictions of carnage. And that's exactly what happens every time they run some asinine call for gun control. They've become a laughingstock, and by their own stupidity and dishonesty.

 

[Old TexMex]

And in Texas, liberal Dem candidate for Governor Wendy Davis has said that she'll support Open Carry! The Republican candidate has already said the same. The (probably) leading candidate for Lt. Gov. (Dan Branch) even has a line about supporting the 2nd Amendment in his TV ads. I think that's unprecedented.

I can't go into detail on this board about why I think Davis has accepted this, but it's great news, and was unexpected.
I think we may just be on the verge of winning this gun war, despite the efforts of those oppressors whose names and offices we aren't allowed to mention.

I am much more hopeful than ever about the issue.

This news from Kali seems especially uplifting.

California gun owners did not get this win through elected politicians, but rather through the Constitution and its clear enumeration of our God given rights.

Texans should be well aware that a politician will promise anything, anything in order to get a vote, and no one should be surprised (much less inspired) at their "promises".
Edit: and that includes one that wears pink tennis shoes.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

If you ever get the notion that gun control advocates have been winning and we've lost our 2A freedoms we used to enjoy in the past... Take a look at this animated map to see how screwed up this nation used to be in regard to gun carry compared to today.

Concealed Carry Animated Map

 

[ladder13]

I haven't seen any mention of this win in the MSM.

 

[rojodiablo]

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?

This ruling is in specific against the City and county of San Diego. The plaintiff was a reporter. When denied, he looked into how cities turn the jurisdiction of issuance of CCW. In San Diego, it is county sheriff. After being denied, he brought forth suit.
For the moment, it is SD specific. But the dissenting judges' writ states that this would render the state law as being not in line with the constitution. (In a really basic way of saying it.)

Now; if we can just get a hearing on the 'Bullet Train' fiasco, maybe we can attempt to right this ship.

 

[mrm71343]

The San Diego County attorneys who defended the present CC permitting laws have asked for an 11-judge panel review of this decision, which is therefore on hold until a resolution is forthcoming. Thus, the present situation is as yet unchanged in CA. Also, the US Supreme Court will undoubtedly weigh in on this if the 9th Circuit decision holds up, as there are other circuit decisions to the contrary, and we now know the USSC leans left on a lot of important issues these days. I live in San Diego and would like this ruling to hold up, but I'm not counting on it just yet.

 

[mrm71343]

Truly amazing as the 9th Circuit is by far the most liberal of them all. Hopefully this portends a move back to defending the Constitution rather than rewriting it.

Truly amazing, yes - but it certainly doesn't portend a move by this ultra-liberal Circuit Court back to defending the Constitution; re-writing it will always be their Number 1 objective.

 

[UncaGrunny]

To me, one of the more interesting aspects of the opinion was how the historically-referred cases uniformly opposed concealed carry because of its 'corrosive effect on the human spirit' and 'incitement to dangerous actions' and the implication that you'd only carry concelaed if you were planning illicit violence, where OPEN carry was seen as natural, just, honest, and 'put all men on an equal footing.'

Just about exactly 180 degrees from where opinion lies today, where open carry is often seen as an incitement of fear and a belligerent action, and concealed carry is considered more 'moral,' prudent, and socially acceptable.

Clear subtext is that people didn't used to fear weapons, but they did fear sneaky uncouth so-and-so's with hidden weapons.

Dammit Gunny you promised not to tell!

I didn't... but now, you did.

I haven't seen any mention of this win in the MSM.

Probably their heads haven't stopped spinning to the point they can write. They gotta feel like their trusted pet dog just exploded, or something.

 

[rojodiablo]

To me, one of the more interesting aspects of the opinion was how the historically-referred cases uniformly opposed concealed carry because of its 'corrosive effect on the human spirit' and 'incitement to dangerous actions' and the implication that you'd only carry concelaed if you were planning illicit violence, where OPEN carry was seen as natural, just, honest, and 'put all men on an equal footing.'

Just about exactly 180 degrees from where opinion lies today, where open carry is often seen as an incitement of fear and a belligerent action, and concealed carry is considered more 'moral,' prudent, and socially acceptable.

Clear subtext is that people didn't used to fear weapons, but they did fear sneaky uncouth so-and-so's with hidden weapons.




I didn't... but now, you did.


Probably their heads haven't stopped spinning to the point they can write. They gotta feel like their trusted pet dog just exploded, or something.

UncaGrunny, you have really touched on the basis of this ruling, at its' most elemental level.

The court of appeals adopted a "Two Step Inquiry" (1) If the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment then (2) courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

This is an important decision because when the US Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the cases involved bans. The High Court did not describe a framework for the courts to use to evaluate laws that fell short of outright bans as was the case in Heller and McDonald.

Until today, the cases decided in the 9th Circuit did not articulate a framework because they either involved persons the court said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., convicted felons) or "arms" which the court likewise said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., bombs) or persons using firearms to further their criminal enterprise (e.g, drug dealers), etc. In cases such as this, the court decided that it was not necessary to articulate a framework to use in deciding the cases. In other words, these were "Open and Shut" cases.
What This Portends for the Concealed Carry and Open Carry cases?

There are close to a dozen concealed carry cases either pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or are currently being decided in the lower 9th Circuit District Courts. Unfortunately, the concealed carry cases have several insurmountable mountains to climb. First, the US Supreme Court said that its decision in Heller did not invalidate prohibitions on concealed carry and when the Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in McDonald it also applied the Heller decision to the states. The US Supreme Court in Heller said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

So the concealed carry cases are unlikely to even reach, let alone pass, the first step of the "Two Step Inquiry." For nearly two hundred years state courts have said that concealed carry is not a right. Two recent Supreme Court decisions say concealed carry is not a right as have every Federal Court of Appeals to decide the question. Since there are only two ways to carry a firearm, openly or concealed, that leaves the two Open Carry cases, Nichols V. Brown and Young v. Hawaii to be decided under the "Two Step Inquiry" framework.

"Step 1″ – Does the challenged law burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment?

The US Supreme Court said that Open Carry perfectly captures the meaning of the Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms and both California and Hawaii ban Open Carry. So both Open Carry cases pass "Step 1."

"Step 2″ – Having passed "Step 1," courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

There are three levels of scrutiny; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. "Rational Basis" basically means the government wins except in rare circumstances such as the law being "irrational" or "arbitrary." The Supreme Court in Heller took rational basis off the table so that leaves intermediate and strict scrutiny.
Intermediate Scrutiny – Sliding Scale

Intermediate Scrutiny is a sliding scale that courts apply to "regulations" of fundamental rights that fall short of a ban. For example, if you as an individual want to walk up and down the sidewalk wearing a t-shirt with some political or religious message then you are free to do so. If there were a local law requiring a permit for you to do so then it would likely be overturned even under the low end of "intermediate scrutiny." However, If you and a hundred friends want to walk up and down the same sidewalk then you might have to comply with a law requiring you to get a permit and that law would normally be subject to the sliding scale of "intermediate scrutiny." The greater the restrictions placed on getting a permit, the greater the burden on the government in justifying the law.

However, once a law passes a certain threshold then "strict scrutiny" applies and the restrictions on your fundamental rights have to be narrowly tailored and the government needs a very good reason to justify that restriction.

Under both intermediate and strict scrutiny the burden of proof is on the government to justify those restrictions.

There is an exception however, when the government bans a protected right, as does California and Hawaii which both ban the bearing arms for the purpose of self-defense, then it is unnecessary for the court to decide what level of scrutiny to apply. Bans on fundamental rights are always unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny.

In other words: We have the right to defend ourselves. We have the right to keep and bear arms, OUTSIDE our home, to defend ourselves in our daily lives.
SO- a state must then decide; either allow concealed carry, open carry, or both. But the state can not ultimately restrict both. THAT is against the 2A.

 

[redlevel]

"Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or even
future judges think that scope too broad."

Properly applied, this would also blow out of the water the old, "But when the 2nd Amendment was passed, there were no such things as assault rifles or machine guns."

 

[venomballistics]

I'm thinking this is one to keep an eye on, but don't hold your breath.
It is as it is in Calli, because the PTB wants it that way. therefore the PTB naturally will do all they can to try to keep it that way as much as they possibly can.

Keep hammering Calli ... Ivory towers are fixed defensive positions.
for as long as the rate of damage is greater than the capacity to repair it. ITS GOING DOWN BABY. You just have to keep pressure on it

 

[Vulcan Bob]

Sounds like the judge got back on his medication.