Breaking news: Ninth Circuit Rules California May Issue Unconstituional

[dc dalton]

Just amazing!

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/

 

[Midwest]

Will this only apply to California? Or can people from 'needs based essentially may issue' states like NJ, MD and HI can use this as an argument. What are the chances for this to affect New York State since both CA and NYS have may issue/shall issue areas.

This is great news indeed.

 

[Sam1911]

Volokh, writing for the Washington Post says:

The Ninth Circuit thus joins the Seventh Circuit, and disagrees with the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits. (State courts are also split on the subject.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ond-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun/

 

[dc dalton]

Will this only apply to California? Or can people from 'needs based essentially may issue' states like NJ, MD and HI can use this as an argument. What are the chances for this to affect New York State since both CA and NYS have may issue/shall issue areas.

This is great news indeed.

It could set precedence that other states could then be gone after with BUT you have to be about 99% sure the state is going to appeal this so I have to think this fight is far from over. More than likely it would be pushed up all the way to SCOTUS (if they would accept it)

 

[rbernie]

Will this only apply to California?

The ruling addresses CA law, but the Ninth Circuit covers the West Coast and therefore I'm assuming that this has broader implications beyond just this specific case.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000135

 

[9mmepiphany]

Yes, I believe that has far ranging influence. CA is unusual in that a CCW here isn't issued by the State but rather by each separate county...however, it is good anywhere in the state

For those who want further confirmation, here is the article from the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Court-strikes-California-law-limiting-concealed-5232386.php

For those interested, here is the complete ruling.

WARNING: it is 127 pages long

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

 

[pendennis]

I was under the impression that Federal Court rulings applied generally within each circuit.

But, since this ruling was by a three-judge panel, might this be further reviewed by the full court, if California requests it?

 

[danez71]

And so many here said that because all of the liberal judges, politicians, and residents, CA was a lost cause and "get what they deserve". .......

Between IL, DC, and now CA, anyone who says that any state is a lost cause is a defeatist and was never 100% committed to the fight to begin with.


This has serious POSITIVE National implications and should put more pressure for SCOTUS to take a case and there is a reasonably good chance that the entire Country can become "shall issue" or must allow open carry.


Yes, "CA got what they deserved". Look at my sig on how they did it.

 

[model4006]

awesome!

 

[danez71]

Yes, I believe that has far ranging influence. CA is unusual in that a CCW here isn't issued by the State but rather by each separate county...however, it is good anywhere in the state

For those who want further confirmation, here is the article from the San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Court-strikes-California-law-limiting-concealed-5232386.php

For those interested, here is the complete ruling.

WARNING: it is 127 pages long

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

From the ruling link.

Pretty strong words IMO.

We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated 76 into the Due Process Clause.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.

 

[JellyJar]

Does that mean that since California already has procedures on the book for issuing CCW license that immediately everyone that qualifies and applies for a license must be given one now?

 

[danez71]

Does that mean that since California already has procedures on the book for issuing CCW license that immediately everyone that qualifies and applies for a license must be given one now?

I'm not done reading it....

What I'm gathering, in regular words, is that since CA bans open carry, it must have a reasonable CCP process and would need to be "shall issue".

Currently, CA is a "May Issue" and "must show good cause" of which 'for personal protection' wasn't enough of a reason (in the vast majority of CA). Residents needed to show some added need.

The court said in its ruling (from the link above).

At issue in this appeal is that policy’s interpretation of the “good cause” requirement found in sections 26150 and 26155: “[A] set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” Good cause is “evaluated on an individual basis” and may arise in “situations related to personal protection as well as those related to individual businesses or occupations.”
But—important here—concern for “one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.”

The power to grant concealed-carry licenses in San Diego County is vested
in the county sheriff’s department. Since 1999, the sheriff’s department has
required all applicants to “provide supporting documentation” in order “to
demonstrate and elaborate good cause.” This “required documentation, such as restraining orders, letters from law enforcement agencies or the [district attorney] familiar with the case, is discussed with each applicant” to determine whether he or she can show a sufficiently pressing need for self-protection. If the applicant cannot demonstrate “circumstances that distinguish [him] from the mainstream,” then he will not qualify for a concealed-carry permit.

Because he was denied, and open carry is banned, he sued.... and WON!

 

[gc70]

Nice! Now to read the opinion.

 

[madsend81]

While it may be 127 pages long, most of it (at least 46 so far, I haven't finished it yet) are historical analysis, similar to what was done in Heller.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Volokh, writing for the Washington Post ...

Actually, what had some WP leftie readers upset that that the Volokh conspirators (about 20 lawyers including Eugene Volokh and David Kopel) retained fully editorial control over Volokh Conspiracy content.

 

[egyas]

That is just freaking Amazing! I can't believe this came from the 9th circus.

 

[Yo Mama]

Yes!

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a huge win.

If someone who has had the chance to review the ruling, I would like to know if they discussed no weapons zones, and the impact this has on an individual when they leave their home with a firearm to carry? This is what Chicago did, just make everywhere a no carry zone.

 

[Jim K]

Interesting. Policy in MD is to issue a general carry permit only because of a specific known threat, by a specific person, and to revoke as soon as the State Police decide the threat is past. And they MAY issue if the applicant has been threatened, can prove he or she was threatened and reported repeated threats to the police at the time they were made. Highly restricted permits MAY be issued to business people who carry large sums of money, or for some other reasons. There have been reports that permits will be issued to those who make very generous contributions to certain political campaigns, but since that does not include me, I cannot prove or disprove such allegations.

I once asked a state police officer (sarcastically) if a notarized statement from someone saying he wanted to kill me would be enough for me to get a carry permit. He replied, quite seriously, that it would not be, because there might not be a real threat.

Jim

 

[madsend81]

Starting on page 64, they start punching holes in the decisions made by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th circuit decisions on carry outside the home.

By evading an in-depth analysis of history and tradition, the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits missed a crucial piece of the Second Amendment analysis. They failed to comprehend that carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms. See Moore, 702F.3d at 941 (criticizing the court in Kachalsky for “suggest[ing]that the Second Amendment should have a much greater scope inside the home than outside” and noting that the“interest in self-protection [and thus in the Second Amendment right]is as great outside as inside the home”). And further, they failed to comprehend that regulations on the right, although permissible to an extent, could not go so far as to enjoin completely a responsible, law-abiding citizen’s right to carry in public for self-defense. Such regulations affecting a destruction of the right to bear arms,just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keep arms, cannot be sustained under any standard of scrutiny

 

[morcey2]

I don't have time at the moment to read the opinion, but I wonder if there's something in there that would apply to reciprocity/recognition of non-resident permits. Maybe it's beyond the scope of this ruling, but it can't be possible that the 2A wouldn't apply to non-residents also.

Great news though!

Matt

 

[madsend81]

If someone who has had the chance to review the ruling, I would like to know if they discussed no weapons zones, and the impact this has on an individual when they leave their home with a firearm to carry? This is what Chicago did, just make everywhere a no carry zone.

On page 55 the Justices say

[The 2A right] is, in effect, destroyed when exercise of the right is limited to a few people, in a few places, at a few times.

 

[femoralis]

This is HUGE! I did not think the 9th would agree!

 

[joeschmoe]

... another one bites the dust...

 

[Ryanxia]

Fantastic, just like Chicago, let's start taking our Country back! This and what's happening in Chicago prove we can't give up on ANY state or city but remain ever vigilant.

 

[Mike1234567]

Hmm... we may soon need need to change our pet name for the farthest southwest state from California to Carryfornia.