Monday, May 23, 2011

California Ruling NO on Concealed Carry

 From Findlaw.com:

No Right to Carry Concealed Gun, Judge Rules

| 
A federal judge in Sacramento, California has upheld a portion of California's concealed gun law.
The decision likely sets battle lines for an appeal on Second Amendment grounds, which could eventually go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gun rights advocates challenged a policy set by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto that requires applicants to state a reason, such as a safety threat, to obtain a concealed weapons permit.
Plaintiffs, the challengers to Yolo County's policy, claimed requiring a reason to get a permit infringes their right to keep and bear arms, as stated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, reports AP.
Thus Judge England rejected the plaintiffs' contention that California laws allowing unloaded gun carry, but prohibiting concealed carry without a permit--which by implication makes a self-defender load up before shooting--infringed on Second Amendment rights.
Judge England's ruling states that the Second Amendment "does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public."
Gun advocates have already filed a Notice of Appeal in the Sacramento case, and will take their contentions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, predicts Examiner.com.
Since similar lawsuits against concealed gun laws are pending in several states, further U.S. Supreme Court participation in Second Amendment issues appears likely.

10 comments:

  1. This should be amusing Scalia said that laws prohibiting concealed carry were lawful in Heller:
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

    Likewise, Alito made the reassurance that:
    It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). McDonald at 39-40.

    Would the Justices follow their own holdings and find that this was constitutional be a blow to the "pro-gun" crowd who haven't tumbled that Heller-McDonald isn't as gun friendly as they would like.

    Even more amusing is that CJ Roberts made a comment about the First Amendment picking up baggage over time as well as the comment that I wonder why in this case we have to articulate an all-encompassing standard. Isn’t it enough to determine the scope of the existing right that the amendment refers to, look at the various regulations that were available at the time, including you can’t take the gun to the marketplace and all that, and determine how these — how this restriction and the scope of this right looks in relation to those?
    I’m not sure why we have to articulate some very intricate standard.


    As I said at the time, there already was a decision that held that United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, required that "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." must be shown for the Second Amendment right to kick in, Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."

    Prior to Heller-McDonald under the Supreme Court decisions there was no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols could not hve beem enacted. There is no reason why pistols could not be have been barred from anyone with a police record. There was no reason why a State could not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. Even more importantly, there was no reason why all pistols should not have been barred to everyone except the police!

    And Miller was a unanimous decision other than the person I just quoted (who was on the court at the time but took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause).

    Somebody mention baggage?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm very happy to hear this. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment does not prevent regulation of guns in any manner as long as law-abinding adults are able to acquire one for home protection. I HOPE it goes to the Supreme Court so that the model that started it all -- requiring a pressing reason for conceal carry (other than simple paranoia and fear of society) -- can become nationwide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All that language yet they ruled and overturned the Chicago and the DC handgun bans, It will be ever so disappointing when they do it to you statists again.

    5 of the 9 supremes will rule against all of your combined wisdom, and overturn this judicial jackenape.... And that is why we are here to force this thru the courts..... it will be long, it will be contentious but it will be won.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, 5 out of 9. In other words by the slimmest possible margin. How is the health and the age of those 5 doing these days? Can they hang in there for another 5 years?

    ReplyDelete
  5. And the judge based his decision in part on the fact that California had open carry as an alternative so that concealed carry was not a right.

    So what happens when California bans open carry and the concealed carry is challenged again?

    We still have to wait and see how the Westchester, New York suit winds its way through Federal Court. The challenge there is that open carry is banned so CCW is the only legal option yet you can be denied for no reason whatsoever. Will be the same situation in California when open carry is banned.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm sure that all you gun control looser think of, how to turn death of another in to your benefit....

    Cant win by the legislation steal by judicial activism.....

    ReplyDelete
  7. "How is the health and the age of those 5 doing these days? Can they hang in there for another 5 years?"

    None have plans on retiring anytime soon. None during Obama's 2nd term when he wins it. You ought to check the historical record as plenty of SCOTUS judges stay on the bench well into their late 80s. Some have even died while serving on the bench.

    Laci has her quotes half right, but the courts did say that some form of carry must be allowed. As the court explained, the 2nd Amendment recognizes not just a right "to keep" arms but also a right to "bear," or carry, arms.

    Even Ginsburg recognizes you can't separate keep from bear.

    Laci also has Miller half right as well. Miller if you recall was dead. His attorney nowhere to be found during the depression. Nor is that decision at odds with Heller and McDonald as Miller deals with only the militia clause; not the people clause.

    While it is true states may be able to ban people from carrying concealed weapons or prohibit them from carrying them openly, they will not be able to prohibit both.

    In this case, the court cited a number of lower court cases that upheld concealed carry bans on the ground that citizens still had the alternative of openly carrying their guns. Without that option (see CA legislation pending), you indeed force the courts to reform CCW to a shall issue system. Some form must be available that is applied without prejudice, equally to everyone, and without excessive cost.

    If anything, be thankful to the 9th as nothing reaches SCOTUS without a split. The 9th is good for that anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah, 5 out of 9. In other words by the slimmest possible margin. How is the health and the age of those 5 doing these days? Can they hang in there for another 5 years?

    Is that a threat MikeyB are you threatening the lives of SCJotUS, really Mikey are you so sad and pathetic when you don't get rulings you like that you threaten death to get a court you like......

    ReplyDelete
  9. Listen Mr. Threating MikeyB, Your commenting like that and linking back to my blog is probably confusing for people. Please don't do it any more. I liked you better as Anonymous. Of course best would be if you use your real internet name and quit fuckin' around.

    Just so I'm clear. You can't make up a name and link it back to my blog. I'll delete those from now on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In defence of his own lamenessMay 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM

    Listen Mr. Threating MikeyB, Your commenting like that and linking back to my blog is probably confusing for people. Please don't do it any more. I liked you better as Anonymous. Of course best would be if you use your real internet name and quit fuckin' around.

    Just so I'm clear. You can't make up a name and link it back to my blog. I'll delete those from now on.


    So...... your readers are too stupid to tell the difference between you gilded prose and my pathetic graffiti, my what a sad bunch of readers you have.....

    ReplyDelete