Excerpts from Peruta v. San Diego

[usmarine0352_2005]

Good statements from Clements and Gura.






http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015...-ninth-appeals-court-arguments/?#article-copy

Can concealed gun laws vary by county?


Issue of county gun permits comes before full panel of appeals court, which could lift San Diego County restrictions

By Kristina Davis8 P.M.JUNE 16, 2015

“The Second Amendment, does it change from county to county?” asked Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t like to talk about the Second Amendment very often,” one of the judges commented during the hearing. “Which makes this court’s opinion all the more important,” replied Paul Clement, an attorney arguing on behalf of the San Diego plaintiffs.

In their questions Tuesday, many of the judges circled around the same central question: Does the Constitution offer the same right for someone to carry a concealed gun at a mall as in the countryside? How does public safety balance with the Second Amendment?

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

More:

He pointed to other populous counties that allow a more lenient standard of good cause: Sacramento, Fresno, San Bernardino.

“What happens is two things, crime stays exactly the same or it goes down,” he said of those counties.

Edward DuMont, who argued on behalf of the state, told the judges there is a rich tradition of regulating the carrying of firearms in populated areas for public safety, dating back centuries, and that gun-carrying is still allowed in the home and in rural areas.

“The fact you can’t get a concealed weapon permit to walk down streets, parks and malls of downtown San Diego doesn’t mean your right to carry a firearm outside the home is destroyed,” DuMont said.

Many of the judges also questioned how the case should be viewed, now that California has made it illegal to openly carry unloaded weapons in public places.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

More:

“You have the right to be ready and armed in case of confrontation,” answered Alan Gura, representing Adam Richards in the Yolo County case. “If the legislature says you can’t carry in any way, shape or form, than the right has been effectively destroyed.”

“The right to self-defense outside the home is forbidden to us almost anywhere on the grid,” Clement added in his rebuttal argument.

The judges will take the case under submission and are to make a ruling within the next several weeks.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

More:

Several states have backed the gun lobby, including the governor of Texas, who joined his counterparts in Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Dakota in a brief filed in the case that argues California’s “irrational fear” is unfounded when it comes to allowing citizens to carry guns, contending that fear has led to unconstitutional permitting policies.

“If citizens in a state like Texas need or want to travel to a state like California, they should not be forced to check their gun rights at the border,” the brief says.

The National Rifle Association of America goes even further, stating it is contrary to the Constitution to have any kind of licensing process to bear arms.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Lastly:

The cases have generated national attention, and many observers predict this could be the best chance for the U.S. Supreme Court to bring clarity to how far the Second Amendment extends beyond the home.

 

[Styx]

10-56971 Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego

 

[Radagast]

Styx: Thanks for the link.

 

[BLB68]

Some analysis of the case:

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/17546/a-fault-line-in-california/

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I can answer this one:

How does public safety balance with the Second Amendment?

The right protected by the Second Amendment assures public safety. It IS the balance against criminal activity, despotism and tyranny.

Woody

 

[denton]

The right protected by the Second Amendment assures public safety.

Exactly.

We get drawn into a debate about whether allowing people to have and carry firearms is good policy. We should never participate in that discussion.

The Founders knew well the advantages and disadvantages of having an armed society, and gave us one. If you want to change that, you're a bit over 200 years late to the discussion.

 

[Librarian]

It would be nice if the panel would issue an opinion in the next several weeks.

If you use "52" as the meaning for "several", I think you would be comfortably within the range of probability. The court has no schedule or deadline for issuing opinions.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

How does public safety balance with the Second Amendment?

Public safety concerning firearms is a parade of horribles served up by the folks opposed to guns in general. Those conclusions are based mostly on conjecture and few facts. Hopefully, the legal standard for gun rights cases is eventually going to be strict scrutiny, which few regulations will survive.

 

[danez71]

Exactly.

We get drawn into a debate about whether allowing people to have and carry firearms is good policy. We should never participate in that discussion.

The Founders knew well the advantages and disadvantages of having an armed society, and gave us one. If you want to change that, you're a bit over 200 years late to the discussion.

However, that is what the topic is about.

If we don't participate, we lose by default as they will make what ever laws they want unchallanged.

 

[old lady new shooter]

the "only" restriction according to the government atty...

I watched the video.

To me the most bizarre assertion by the government attorney was that since we can be armed in our home, armed in our business, armed in any private establishment that gives permission, the "only" restriction is that we can't be armed when we're on the street, and we would only be on the street if we're going someplace. I am not making this up.

Never mind that that totally excludes being able to defend yourself in case of a carjacking attempt. Another scenario, you need to walk your dog and it's a small fluffy thing as opposed to, say, a Doberman... and a zillion other examples I won't waste pixels on here.

EDIT: One of the judges did chime in when the government attorney said that to say a person isn't necessarily going someplace when on the street.

 

[denton]

If we don't participate, we lose by default

Oh I'm not saying we shouldn't participate. I'm just saying that we should choose the battleground that favors us.

Debating whether having an armed society is good policy or not is not a winning position for us. Too many people learned all they know about guns by watching TV and going to the movies. Debating what Heller and McDonald mean in practice is a much more favorable battleground.

 

[barnbwt]

"To me the most bizarre assertion by the government attorney was that since we can be armed in our home, armed in our business, armed in any private establishment that gives permission, the "only" restriction is that we can't be armed when we're on the street, and we would only be on the street if we're going someplace. I am not making this up."

"The court hereby finds that the use of city walkways for any purpose besides travel between two points to be illegal"

Sounds kinda stupid when you put it that way

TCB

 

[gbran]

It is inconceivable to believe our our founding fathers held a view that firearms outside the home were totally prohibited.