Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down California's Limits on Concealed Carry Law

snake284

http://news.yahoo.com/court-tosses-californias-concealed-weapons-200220826.html

I don't know if it will stand, but for now there is a God and a Santa Clause. This at least gives us hope. :cool2::up:

NN

It is kinda a so what unless there are some kind of sanction such as giving Ca back to Mexico.

Teach

Conflicting appeals court rulings- - - - -means this one's headed for the Supreme Stupid! That sword cuts both ways, depending on the attitude of one or two judges on any particular day!
Jerry

zorba

Its progress!

CaliFFL

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that California is wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

You guys crack me up. Being all optimistic and shtuff.

To comply with the court's ruling, California will just ban concealed carry altogether. That will remove any "good cause" issues and those messy applicants. Treat everyone equally!

pjames777

Only way to beat the politico bast***s in Sacramento is with SCOTUS.....hopefully they'll step in and clarify but its a baby step for sure in Kalifornia.

BigDanS

CaliFFL wrote: »

You guys crack me up. Being all optimistic and shtuff.

To comply with the court's ruling, California will just ban concealed carry altogether. That will remove any "good cause" issues and those messy applicants. Treat everyone equally!

While they might like to do that, Illinois and DC just had their restrictive CCW law repealed by verdict...

D

CaliFFL

BigDanS wrote: »

While they might like to do that, Illinois and DC just had their restrictive CCW law repealed by verdict...

D

Incorrect.

Both Chicago and and DC were sued to allow residents to purchase and possess firearms. Niether lawsuit covered CCW. Illinios passed CCW on its own.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/PDF/098-0063.pdf

DC has NO allowance for carrying of weapons ANYWHERE outside the house, unless security or LE.

The District of Columbia is a No-Issue jurisdiction by law, and forbids both open and concealed carry except under a very limited set of circumstances. The District of Columbia recently lost a Supreme Court case relating to restrictions on ownership and possession of firearms (District of Columbia v Heller), however, the case did not specifically address the question of public carry, either open or concealed.

The NRA confirms this quote.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/district-of-columbia.aspx

BigDanS

CaliFFL wrote: »

Incorrect.

Both Chicago and and DC were sued to allow residents to purchase and possess firearms. Niether lawsuit covered CCW. Illinios passed CCW on its own.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/PDF/098-0063.pdf

DC has NO allowance for carrying of weapons ANYWHERE outside the house, unless security or LE.



The NRA confirms this quote.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/district-of-columbia.aspx

Your are correct and I was wrong... thanks for clearing that up.

D

Bigslug

Wambli Ska wrote: »

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is probably THE most liberal/progressive leaning courts in this country. . .

EXACTLY. When my dad texted me with the news today, my immediate reaction was "THE NINTH DID THAT?!?!?!?"

The whole "reasonable cause" restriction on CCW has needed burning to the ground for a long time, as it is wide open to local interpretation, local political leaning, and local political corruption. I'm hoping that this is a situation of even the 9th Circuit being able to see that.

Illinois got it's face slapped on the whole "No-issue" issue, and this is a nice win against "may-issue". Economical shall-issue and Constitutional Carry are really the only valid options if a state is truly going to claim equality for everyone regardless of race, gender, social status, etc... This is REAL progress.

bobbyrlf3

CaliFFL wrote: »

You guys crack me up. Being all optimistic and shtuff.

To comply with the court's ruling, California will just ban concealed carry altogether. That will remove any "good cause" issues and those messy applicants. Treat everyone equally!

From what I read, the court's decision included the opinion that the legislature can ban open or concealed carry, but not both. Isn't open carry already banned in Cali?

snake284

Bigslug wrote: »

EXACTLY. When my dad texted me with the news today, my immediate reaction was "THE NINTH DID THAT?!?!?!?"

The whole "reasonable cause" restriction on CCW has needed burning to the ground for a long time, as it is wide open to local interpretation, local political leaning, and local political corruption. I'm hoping that this is a situation of even the 9th Circuit being able to see that.

Illinois got it's face slapped on the whole "No-issue" issue, and this is a nice win against "may-issue". Economical shall-issue and Constitutional Carry are really the only valid options if a state is truly going to claim equality for everyone regardless of race, gender, social status, etc... This is REAL progress.

Not only that, the fact that there are still a few Federal Judges out there that will rule like this is a miracle and it IS DEFINITELY PROGRESS!

Slanteyedshootist

Maybe the first step for Cali out of the abyss. Or abscess.

CaliFFL

bobbyrlf3 wrote: »

From what I read, the court's decision included the opinion that the legislature can ban open or concealed carry, but not both. Isn't open carry already banned in Cali?

Yes it is, and you have a valid point.

Everywhere the courts have forced cities to allow citizens to buy guns, those places still have the most restrictive laws in the country. I do not see California passing shall issue without some ridiculous limitations. Like making permit applicants go through the police academy annually to obtain a permit, as an example. Or allowing a permitee to carry only a single shot .22. Or mandating retaining holsters. Or mandating insurance, or anything they can think of that "satisfies" the court ruling. I'm dead serious.

Bigslug

CaliFFL wrote: »

Everywhere the courts have forced cities to allow citizens to buy guns, those places still have the most restrictive laws in the country. I do not see California passing shall issue without some ridiculous limitations. Like making permit applicants go through the police academy annually to obtain a permit, as an example. Or allowing a permitee to carry only a single shot .22. Or mandating retaining holsters. Or mandating insurance, or anything they can think of that "satisfies" the court ruling. I'm dead serious.

I'm going to start calling you "Ray", as in "Ray of ****ing sunshine".

You may have noticed, California's gun laws have gotten sufficiently around-the-bend that they are starting to come under attack from outside the state, and damn well time. The beauty of all those "ridiculous limitations" you bring up is that they are just that - ridiculous. We get the hard win out of the way, then yes, the liberal reaction will be to see what they can cook up to counter. Most of that sort of legislation is obviously the work of a tantrum-throwing child, and probably won't hold up against a legal acid test.

And I don't have a lot of use for Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, but he is probably about as close to moderate Democrat as we're going to get for a governor, and he did veto some of the more stupid gun bills that crossed his desk last year. We could be far worse off.

Pelagic Kayaker

Not buying it. IMO this is nothing but a well executed ploy to "show" swing voters that the left is "pro-gun". (yeah ...riiiight) Remember; the midterms are coming up.

snake284

NN wrote: »

It is kinda a so what unless there are some kind of sanction such as giving Ca back to Mexico.

Is that such a bad Idea? we first evacuate all the 2A conservatives, we'll take em in Texas, and we let all illegals move there. We entice them with 5 acres of land apiece. Then we dig a moat around Calif about 50 feet deep, fill it full of sewage and/or Alligators and give it back to Mexico. Problem solved. They get Hollywood and 12 million illegals and we lance a boil. Now that's a Win-Win situation if I ever saw one, :tooth:


The only hitch is if they think they will have to keep Nancy P and Barbara B they may not agree to it.

:roll2:

CaliFFL

Bigslug wrote: »

I'm going to start calling you "Ray", as in "Ray of ****ing sunshine".

You may have noticed, California's gun laws have gotten sufficiently around-the-bend that they are starting to come under attack from outside the state, and damn well time. The beauty of all those "ridiculous limitations" you bring up is that they are just that - ridiculous. We get the hard win out of the way, then yes, the liberal reaction will be to see what they can cook up to counter. Most of that sort of legislation is obviously the work of a tantrum-throwing child, and probably won't hold up against a legal acid test.

And I don't have a lot of use for Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, but he is probably about as close to moderate Democrat as we're going to get for a governor, and he did veto some of the more stupid gun bills that crossed his desk last year. We could be far worse off.

Bigslug, I really sympathize with you guys. I wish it was different in California, but it isn't, at this point. I bailed because I've lost all hope. I WANT things to be different, but until then, feel free to call me Ray.

Bigslug

CaliFFL wrote: »

Bigslug, I really sympathize with you guys. I wish it was different in California, but it isn't, at this point. I bailed because I've lost all hope. I WANT things to be different, but until then, feel free to call me Ray.

Oh, I lost hope for our legislation YEARS ago. That someone like Nancy Pelosi can win an election ANYWHERE is a pretty clear indicator of the state of the location's electorate. Snake's "lancing a boil" analogy is not wrong.

The things that are happening right now - legal challenges - are what I have been hoping to see for the last 20+ years. Especially coming on the heels of Heller and McDonald. Do I expect to be able to start my collection of BAR variants via mail order in the next six months? No, but steps are FINALLY being taken to rein these idiots in.

With regards to gun control, the Clinton administration was the depth of my despair. The Democrats proposed it, passed it, and had a fair following that thought it a good idea. Think about what Newtown would have meant had it happened back in '92. The Dems tried to use it as a selling point in 2012 and fell flat on their faces. The level of "HELL NO! NOT AGAIN" in the current climate makes me feel a great deal more positive about where we're heading.

CaliFFL

Anything that makes the Brady Campaign squirm.

The following is a statement from Jonathan Lowy, Director, Legal Action Project, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

"Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so. The parents of Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin, whose children were killed by licensed concealed-carry holders, could educate the Court about the real dangers posed by this legal error. We are hopeful that this mistake will be corrected by the entire Court."

I guess it doesn't matter that Zimmerman was aquitted and Dunn is not convicted.


http://www.bradycampaign.org/brady-center-statement-on-ninth-circuit-decision-on-ca-gun-law

snake284

I choose to be cautiously optimistic. Well, It seems to me that just before the pendulum swings things seem their worst. And things have been looking pretty dismal here lately.

But things may be coming around. One thing that makes me believe this that with all the resent mass shootings, the left has gotten no significant anti gun-anti second amendment legislation through. And it isn't because they haven't been trying.

I think things have finally begun to turn. I think Joe sixpack is finally waking up and I believe we will see this in the upcoming mid term elections. Anyway, here's hoping.

bobbyrlf3

CaliFFL wrote: »

Everywhere the courts have forced cities to allow citizens to buy guns, those places still have the most restrictive laws in the country. I do not see California passing shall issue without some ridiculous limitations. Like making permit applicants go through the police academy annually to obtain a permit, as an example. Or allowing a permitee to carry only a single shot .22. Or mandating retaining holsters. Or mandating insurance, or anything they can think of that "satisfies" the court ruling. I'm dead serious.

I think the evidence of this is quite apparent in D.C. and Chicago; the SCOTUS may have struck down the outright ban, but the court having given them no clear parameters for restrictions, they've simply come up with new ways to deny the right.

horselips

The people of California are still a long, long, loooooong way from being free. Many will not live long enough to see their final liberation.

rberglof

If I remember right Los Angeles was ordered by the court to issue about ten thousand CCW permits and I heard they issued about 100 then stopped and that was the end of that.
California does not care what the courts say they do what they want, don't expect any real change.