Peruta Wins: 9C. agrees that the 2A protects a right to be armed beyond the home

[CathyInBlue]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/huge-win-for-gun-owners-in-california/

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722

The 9th Circuit joins with the 7th Circuit in upholding this right, diverging from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits. Hello, Supremes! Do you hear us knocking?

Once California's state legislature passed their repeal of unloaded, unlicensed open carry, San Diego's may issue regime for concealed carry licensure became unconstitutional.

Tell me again how OCing only leads to worsening of gun control regimes, never loosening.

"Yeah, CA law ALLOWS OCing, but no one should do it because then they'll just make it illegal again."

*pttttui!* I spit on those arguments!

 

[SteveM4A1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

Federal Court Just Dealt a Major Blow to Anti-Gun Advocates in California | TheBlaze.com

EDWARD PERUTA V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 10-56971

The 9th Circuit joins with the 7th Circuit in upholding this right, diverging from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits. Hello, Supremes! Do you hear us knocking?

Once California's state legislature passed their repeal of unloaded, unlicensed open carry, San Diego's may issue regime for concealed carry licensure became unconstitutional.

Tell me again how OCing only leads to worsening of gun control regimes, never loosening.

"Yeah, CA law ALLOWS OCing, but no one should do it because then they'll just make it illegal again."

*pttttui!* I spit on those arguments!

x10000!

Edit: I especially liked this part,"An act needn't amount to a complete destruction of the right to be forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution, since any statute that diminished or impaired the right as it existed when the constitution was formed would also be void."

WOW!!

Actually, the rest of that paragraph is AMAZING.

 

[mrjarrell]

SF Gate has a well written piece on it.
Court strikes California law restricting concealed weapons - SFGate

 

[Kirk Freeman]

With the 4th Circuit's decision, we now have a split in the Circuits. Off to the Supreme Court we go.

 

[MikeDVB]

With the 4th Circuit's decision, we now have a split in the Circuits. Off to the Supreme Court we go.

Which way do you think the SC will lean? [I've honestly no idea].

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Which way do you think the SC will lean? [I've honestly no idea].

It's been a 5-4 court recently. I can see it going that way again.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The Court has already stated in dicta that there are "secured areas" where carrying a handgun can be restricted (a la time, manner, place restrictions of the First Amendment). Thus, if there are "secure areas" outside one's home then there are a whole bunch of non-secure areas outside one's home where carrying a handgun is a right.

If carrying a gun is a fundamental right, then only strict scrutiny would apply. California's or Maryland (as in Woollard) will not survive s.s. review.

 

[ryknoll3]

San Diego has said that they will appeal for an en banc hearing of the case. Do you think they will get it, and what are the chances that the full 9th Circuit upholds the panel ruling?

 

[CathyInBlue]

SF Gate has a well written piece on it.
Court strikes California law restricting concealed weapons - SFGate

"The majority of peace officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns," Mayer said. "If you have a domestic violence incident and a gun is available, it's more likely to be used. ... It increases the harm to law enforcement and to the public."

So. Much. Fail.

Last time I checked, weren't most LEOs who are killed on the job killed with cars, not guns?

The issue at controversy here is the carrying of guns outside of the home. Domestic violence, as the name implies, tends to happen in the home, where the issue of the possession of firearms is a settled question. This judgement doesn't affect that issue one iota.

I find it funny that this Liberal apologist thinks more firearms on the streets "increases harm to […] the public", when we know that a disarmed public is harmed more than an armed public.

 

[Somemedic]

So. Much. Fail.

Last time I checked, weren't most LEOs who are killed on the job killed with cars, not guns?

The issue at controversy here is the carrying of guns outside of the home. Domestic violence, as the name implies, tends to happen in the home, where the issue of the possession of firearms is a settled question. .

Sometimes they dont see the forest for the trees. Great point Cath

 

[Captain Morgan]

I read 50 pages of the opinion last night. While I think this is a step in the right direction, I wasn't thrilled with all of it. Particularly where they state that "arms" can be regulated based on the history that they've been regulated in the past, since we can't let the citizens carry scary arms. I'll have to find the specific sections later, as I was primarily interested in reading as much as possible last night.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

since we can't let the citizens carry scary arms

That is simply the Court applying the language of Heller.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So states cannot ban both Conceal and Open carry, must allow at least one of them.

Do states still have the authority to punish "printing" in CC-only states? Would seem discriminatory... since it's only really based on the "fear" they perceive people to have.

 

[MisterChester]

This is GREAT news! Hope it gets picked up in the SC and they rule that may-issue and no-issue laws be unconstitutional.

 

[Daggy]

That is simply the Court applying the language of Heller.

Yes. There are exceptions even to 1A, so I don't see SCOTUS ever ruling that 2A is absolute. The heart of the matter is how much of the regulation is tolerable.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Yes. There are exceptions even to 1A, so I don't see SCOTUS ever ruling that 2A is absolute. The heart of the matter is how much of the regulation is tolerable.

Except that 2A has that whole "shall not be infringed" thing

 

[rockhopper46038]

So the San Diego sheriff chose to NOT seek an en banc review. This seems good. But we've seen legal wrangling before, and is this part of a strategy to try to keep this away from SCOTUS?

 

[Daggy]

Except that 2A has that whole "shall not be infringed" thing

You missed the discussion about inexistence of absolute right. The first Amendment says that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged, yet how come people can be prosecuted for libel, slander, and terroristic threats?

 

[Bunnykid68]

You missed the discussion about inexistence of absolute right. The first Amendment says that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged, yet how come people can be prosecuted for libel, slander, and terroristic threats?

Maybe because with libel and slander there is an injured party.

 

[Daggy]

Maybe because with libel and slander there is an injured party.

I'll give you hardcore porn then. Can't display it in public.