In the past three days two of the largest counties in California have witnessed their sheriffs switch from ‘may issue’ to ‘shall issue’ in the wake of the Peruta v. San Diego reversal by a federal court.
San Diego County’s sheriff, who was expected to appeal the decision, announced late Friday that he would respect the court’s findings and not seek an en banc review of the case.
“Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature’s responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality. Law enforcement’s role is to uphold and enforce the law,” said San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore in a press release (pdf) late Friday.
Gore acknowledged this authority in saying, “The legislature certainly has the power to amend California’s firearm carry process, and the Ninth Circuit has the ability to bring its own motion to rehear the decision of the three member panel en banc.”
“However, while the court’s decision clearly involves a question of exceptional importance, and conflicts with decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals, the opinion provides clear guidance in the context of issuing CCWs in California,” it continued.
“I see no need for me to petition for a hearing or rehearing en banc in order to be able to carry out my duties as Sheriff of San Diego County,” he added. “As a result, I have advised the Office of County Counsel that I will not seek such a hearing.”
With this, “should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the San Diego Sheriff’s Department will begin to issue CCW’s in situations where the applicant has met all other lawful qualifications and has requested a CCW for purposes of self-defense” concluded the press release.
In other words, the sheriff doesn't want the whole state or nation to end up having to be shall issue, so he didn't force the case to go before the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteNo worries. There are plenty of cases that will send it there.
I'm still astounded that no one is pushing for the en banc option. That was my biggest concern.
DeleteYou can stop being astounded now.
DeleteYeah. I'm still puzzled that it took this long.
DeleteIf I understand correctly, the court has to make a decision on whether or not to hear the case en banc by March 7, so we should know by close of business Friday. Is that your take on it?
Kurt, I just saw this last night. It will be interesting to see if this goes the same way as it did with Moore vs Madigan. Per someone can tell me if the State AG is authorized to request an en banc hearing since the parties of the challenge chose not to contest the outcome.
Delete"Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, on behalf of the State of California, urging the court to review and reverse its decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego."
http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-appeals-ninth-circuit-concealed-weapons-permit
Per someone can tell me if the State AG is authorized to request an en banc hearing since the parties of the challenge chose not to contest the outcome.
DeleteI've seen some discussion of that very question, but I'm certainly not qualified to answer. I wonder if it really matters, though. From a legal standpoint, how can she (or anyone else, for that matter) be forbidden to make a request to the court?
In the end, the court has to make its own decision whether or not to revisit the case, and it's impossible to say how much influence her request will have on that decision. Hopefully, with or without her request, the 9th Circuit will just be grateful to not have to deal with the issue any longer.
Kurt,
DeleteIt's a matter of whether you have standing or not. You or I can't sue to challenge the wood import rules if they don't affect us. Gibson Guitars could have.
As for whether the AG has standing, I don't have the time or interest to check that out at the moment, but that would be the how to answer your question.
I think I get that. My point is that it's the 9th Circuit that will decide whether or not to revisit the case, whether Obama's heartthrob asks them to, or not.
DeleteIf there's some difference in the likelihood of the court taking this up again, if asked by an interested party, rather than just revisiting it unprompted, I guess I could see the relevance of whether or not she has standing.
DeletePerhaps there is such a difference. I don't know.
Sweet news! The state's motion to intervene (and the Brady Campaign's), and thus put the wheels in motion for an en banc re-hearing, has been denied!
DeleteDon't know enough about law to know the details of how this will shake out, but it would certainly seem that issuance of concealed carry permits in the 9th Circuit will now no longer be held hostage to some sheriff's or police chief's judgment that the applicant has a "good and substantial reason" to "need" the means to defend life and limb.
That's sounding like rather a "big deal," indeed.
Way cool! Thanks for the update Kurt. Now we just have to see if California will appeal to SCOTUS. Considering Illinois wimping out and declining to appeal, it will be interesting to see which way they will jump.
DeleteIf I recall correctly, Peruta's argument uses Heller as its basis, so the direction the court could go might be easy to see.
Way cool! Thanks for the update Kurt.
DeleteWell, I seem to have been a bit premature in breaking out the bubbly. There's probably still a long way to go before good triumphs over the evil of state-mandated defenselessness:
The Attorney General’s next action will determine whether the Peruta case ends here. Attorney General Harris could seek review of her request to intervene in the appeal by an eleven judge “en banc” panel of the Ninth Circuit, or by the Supreme Court. Regardless, pending requests for en banc review in similar cases that benefitted from the work done in the Peruta case could imperil the Peruta ruling. Supreme Court review of the Peruta decision would resolve this important issue once and for all.
From what I gather, an en banc review of the decision to reject the state's motion to intervene is a long shot, but the other cases that relied on the Peruta ruling can still play a major role in the final outcome:
As a practical matter, though, this decision probably doesn’t mean much, because the same issue has been raised in Baker v. Kealoha, which challenges Honolulu’s restrictive licensing scheme, and in Richards v. Prieto, which challenges the Yolo County (California) scheme. The panel held in plaintiffs’ favor in those cases, citing Peruta, and those defendants did file en banc rehearing petitions. So the Ninth Circuit will now consider those petitions. Stay tuned for what the Ninth Circuit does.
I'm still thrilled about Wednesday's developments, but it's an advance, rather than a knockout blow.
Could someone please correct me if I'm wrong that the 9th Circuit decisions apply to all states in that district? The reason I'm asking is that if true, this ruling will also affect another apple of the Brady Campaign's eye, Hawaii. It seems that Hawaii has a permit system similar to New Jersey.
ReplyDelete"Hawaii is a "may issue" state for concealed carry. The chief of police may grant a permit "in an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property". In practice, Hawaii is "No-Issue," as issuing authorities rarely or never approve applications for permits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Hawaii
Hawaii is "no issue?" Isn't that what you guys used to say about NJ?
DeleteThat is effectively true about New Jersey. You just won't admit it.
Delete"Hawaii is "no issue?" Isn't that what you guys used to say about NJ?"
Delete"Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed
carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2012, 168 employees of private security firms were issued
carry licenses, and two were denied. Four private citizens applied for a concealed carry license in the
City & County of Honolulu, and one applied in Maui County, and all five were denied at the discretion of
the respective county police chief."
http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2013/03/Firearm-Registrations-2012.pdf
I'd say it was pretty close to zero.
Greg, you hero John Lott just told us there are 10,000 carry permits in Jersey. If you want to be picky and eliminate the ex-cops there are still 5,000.
DeleteWill you not admit you were wrong to say New Jersey effectively bans concealed carry? Here's your chance to prove you're not a stubborn liar who cannot admit a mistake.
WOW! .0564% of the population--and that's if your guess is correct about the number of permit holders who are ex-cops is correct.
DeleteYeah, looks like you're rights--anybody can get a permit in Jersey--you don't have to be a crony of someone in the government--the may issue system is wide open for anyone who wants to try for a permit.
What difference does it make whether it's 5000 or 10,000, or even 50,000? The point is, their may-issue system routinely denies good people looking to obtain a permit for self-defense. What consolation is it to them how many other people get to carry?
DeleteSimon says, Mikeb.
DeleteSimon, you're quickly becoming as dishonest as Greg.
Delete"Yeah, looks like you're rights--anybody can get a permit in Jersey-"
Totally mischaracterizing what I said is one of Greg's favorite tricks. I call it lying.
TS, the difference is this. Greg, and probably you, said NJ bans concealed carry, period. The numbers John Lott quoted prove that to be wrong. Greg is incapable of admitting he was wrong. And what do you do, you side-step the question entirely and pose it another way, "their may-issue system routinely denies good people looking to obtain a permit for self-defense." We weren't talking about that. It turns out that only SOME people are denied, not all. Some are granted their permits. You guys have called NJ one big gun free zone. Do you remember that? You were wrong.
DeleteIn your response to TS, you claim that Greg and he said that NJ bans concealed carry. In your earlier post to Greg, you attacked him for saying that it was effectively banned.
DeleteI used your numbers to come up with that percentage, and I have to say, most people would consider something effectively banned if only 5 hundredths of one percent are able to get a license. The impression only gets stronger when you look at Jersey's long history of corruption and who actually is able to get these permits. It's effectively a ban unless you know the right people or are so unfortunate as to have some severe threats on your life.
I said it was a de facto ban. That's what it is. Even in no-carry states--now blessedly no longer the case--the politically connected could carry. Remember how Elvis got a DEA badge so he could carry?
DeleteSimon, what numbers did you use, by the way?
DeleteI used your estimate of 5,000 non-ex cops and Google's search results for the state's population which actually appears to be a hair under the Census Bureau's estimate for 2012.
DeleteFirst of all, the ex-cops don't really have to be eliminated. They are, for all intents and purposes, civilians. Secondly, you don't really have to count the babies and children and older teens who are ineligible in any case.
DeleteOf course, if you want to do the old twisting thing, do it like that. What I keep wondering is if you guys had right on your side, why do you continually do tricky shit like that to make your numbers appear better than they really are?
Mikeb, cops are civilians. But under LEOSA, retired law enforcement officers are eligible to carry anyway. But we all know how you see a fraction of a percent as being a large group of people.
DeleteAh, when you can't find a problem to argue with, make it up. Tell me I don't need to take out the former LEO's, when You did just that--That'll get you to .1% of the population.
DeleteThen accuse me of further padding the statistics for using the state's population figures.
Fine, let's take out the kids--under 18 is 22.9%. There's no breakdown of % under 21, but let's assume there are tons of 18-21 year olds and round up to 30%.
That leaves us with an eligble population of 6,207,424 (BTW, these numbers coming from US Census website).
Now we'll divide 10,000 permits (including the cop) by this population, and we discover that we're all the way up to 0.16%.
Congrats, your changes tripled the likelihood of people being able to have a permit--and it's still way less than even a 1 percent chance.
Maybe you'll get around to answering how such a tiny percentage doesn't effectively ban most people from exercising this right.
Or maybe you'll come up with another way to twist the data and then accuse me of twisting it.
Mikeb likes to accuse Greg and others for "lying" about NJ's de facto ban, arguing that the tiny, token number of licenses issued undermines the claims of the de facto ban.
DeleteMeanwhile, he argues that all "illegal guns" start out as legal ones, and when confronted with proof that this is not true, because sometimes a legally prohibited gun owner makes the "illegal guns", meaning the gun was illegal from the very moment of its coming into existence, he claims that the number of such guns is so small as to be safely ignored.
He, in other words, is a hypocrite.
Actually, Kurt, I accepted that criticism and corrected my statement to "almost all." I guess you conveniently forgot about that.
DeleteBut, not a one of you lying gun fanatics has yet to change your position on NJ. Nor has any one of you explained why it's necessary for you to exaggerate and twist things in order to make the statistics worse than they really are. If you guys really did have "right" on you side, you wouldn't have to keep doing that.
Actually, Kurt, I accepted that criticism and corrected my statement to "almost all." I guess you conveniently forgot about that.
DeleteCare to show me the "almost" in this recent statement of yours (emphasis added)?
The problem with that criminals-don't-obey-the-laws nonsense is this, all guns used in criminal activity start out the lawful property of gun owners like you. Through various means these guns flow into the criminal world
As for "lying," and "fanatic[ism]," project much, hypocrite?
We've explained what we mean plenty, and you have yet to explain how a system that denies permits to all but 0.16% of a population, with half of those getting permits by virtue of being former state employees, is a fair and open system rather than a de facto ban with exceptions for favored parties.
DeleteKurt, we've been over that many times. I sometimes don't spell it out, because "almost all" and "all" is really close when it comes to the 300,000,000 guns in the hands of lawful US gun owners. Not so for the permit holders in NJ. They, as few as they are, prove you guys who used to call New Jersey one big gun free zone, wrong.
DeleteSimon, I never said it was "a fair and open system." You see what you did there? You can't help yourself, can you?
DeleteKurt, we've been over that many times. I sometimes don't spell it out, because "almost all" and "all" is really close when it comes to the 300,000,000 guns in the hands of lawful US gun owners.
DeleteSo where's the cut-off point at which the difference between "all" and "almost all" can be ignored? It's apparently higher than 99.89% (assuming an NJ population of 8,899,339 and 10,000 permits--which means the cut-off percentage is even higher, at 99.94%, if we're "picky" and don't count the 5,000 cops).
Ok, so how would you describe it? Unfair, capricious, and highly restrictive unless you know the right people, but yet not a de facto ban?
DeleteEverything we've been saying has been acknowledging that the connected can get permits, but that everyone else is pretty much SOL. You seem to have a problem with that characterization, so how about you clear it up and tell us how you would characterize it. That way we can stop being derailed by you constantly saying "That's not exactly how I'd nuance it." Give us your nuanced characterization so we have something to discuss.
I hope you'll guys forgive me if I repost something I wrote in another thread. It provides some interesting data in this one also.
Delete"I've seen some debate recently regarding percentages of the population that have carry permits and came across this source. A fairly recent GAO report on carry permits in the US.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/592552.pdf
One thing I found interesting was that California actually has a lower percentage of carry permits than New Jersey, though that might very well change with the latest decision by the 9th Circuit.
I haven't had a chance to do more than look at the permit totals, but I thought you'd find it interesting. "
Actually, according to this article, there are only 1,200 permits in NJ, so if we discount half of those as retired cops, the cut-off at which it's OK to equate "almost all" with "all" jumps to more than 99.993%
Delete0,0067% of 300,000,000 guns is only a bit more than 20,000. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of guns that were "illegal" the second they were made has started to approach that number.
"No Big Deal" Is Getting Bigger"
ReplyDeleteIt could get very big. It just went to a de facto shall issue state. Much as I hate using potentially biased sources, there are currently about 37,000 carry permits in the state.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1EZkldv5Yko/TpSDbDTJ1AI/AAAAAAAAB60/3HyqDU1OThM/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2011-10-11%2Bat%2B%2BTuesday%252C%2BOctober%2B11%252C%2B1.55%2BPM.png
This is from John Lott's blog to keep things up front. In Minnesota, approximately 2% of the population has a carry permit. If we use the same percentage with the population of California, the number of permits could potentially rise to 766,000. I think that could qualify as a big deal.
Don't mean to disappoint you. We don't really need guns in California. Certainly not for killing each other. This is God's country. Only the fringe will apply for these permits.
DeleteThat 766,000 is only half of what was predicted for the FIRST YEAR, which you defended, remember?. It will never reach either of those figures - oops there I go again making wild predictions of my own.
DeleteJunior,
DeleteIf that is the case, then this decision by the 9th circuit wont have much of an effect. However, if the data in the chart I cited is correct, and San Francisco county only has carry permits in the single digits, why do you suppose that is in a county with a population of over 800,000?
It will be interesting to revisit this in a year and see what the numbers are.
"That 766,000 is only half of what was predicted for the FIRST YEAR, which you defended, remember?"
DeleteYou are correct Mike. I'm merely making a wild assed guess based on the numbers in my home state, which is also fairly liberal. Using the percentages from Florida would have been quite a stretch.
And I'm not making any claims in regards to time either. If the people decide not to avail themselves of the right to bear arms, that is their choice. The important thing is that there IS a choice.
FJ, you may think you don't need guns, but how about letting others make up their minds for themselves? But if California is God's country, call me an unbeliever.
DeleteWe're all for letting others have guns if they want the, bit they need to be qualified and responsible.
DeleteYou're all for letting qualified and responsible people keep guns- but what about bearing them? That's what we're discussing on this thread.
DeleteMikeb, you keep forgetting: We don't believe you.
DeleteTS, is your memory slipping? I do not oppose concealed carry any more than I oppose gun ownership in general. I would like to raise the bar a little bit as to who qualifies, that's all.
DeleteMikeb, are we debating memory again?
DeleteYou want a tribunal to decide whether an applicant is allowed to own a firearm. You want may-issue carry licenses, only given to people deemed worthy--such as celebrities and the wealthy. You want mental health examinations for owners. You want medical examinations for owners. You object to fat people owning guns. You would make it a crime to own ammunition that doesn't match the guns registered to the person. You want all guns registered. You want home inspections to check storage. The list goes on and on.
Would you please stop claiming that you just want to raise the bar a little?
Then you should support the decision of the 9th circuit. California has a high bar. This decision says that if people are above the bar, they will be issued a permit- that’s all. As it is now, people above the bar (even way above the bar) can’t get permits. And people blow the bar, like Sean Penn, end up with permits just for being famous. Without this decision, I can’t get a permit without moving. I can’t get a permit in New Jersey either. Nor can you, Laci, or Dog gone. That’s what we are talking about with these may-issue systems. When you counter by saying *some* people in New Jersey have permits, you are doing that tedious arguing that you so often chastise us for. You know what we are talking about. Good people get denied their right to carry. The answer is “no”, and it has nothing to do with passing a bar test. It is of no consolation that celebrities, wealthy people, politically connected people, and yes even some regular joe who handles cash for work or was able to prove that they received death threats was able to get one, when the answer for you is “no”. They deny permits without cause. Do you oppose that practice? If you don’t oppose it then when you say this: “I do not oppose concealed carry any more than I oppose gun ownership in general.”- It means you would also strip me of right to even own guns based solely on where I live. Would you do that?
DeleteSay . . . check out this great news (excerpt):
DeleteThe Orange County Sheriff’s Department may hire temporary staff to help process a flood of concealed weapons permit applications in the wake of its decision to loosen the county’s gun restrictions.
More than 500 people have applied for concealed weapons permits in Orange County in the last 10 days, nearly as many as applied all of last year.
Sheriff Sandra Hutchens announced the policy change last week in response to a pro-gun U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that California counties may no longer require residents who want to carry concealed firearms to demonstrate a specific, individualized need to do so.
[ . . . ]
In the meantime, Supervisor Todd Spitzer called on county staff members Tuesday to explore options for expediting the permit approvals — including the hiring of extra personnel — to help gun owners take advantage of the current policy.
Let freedom ring.
Damned near enough to tempt one to call this a big deal, isn't it?
And we can see that their former policy prevented people from even applying for a permit. There isn't much point in going through the time and expense when you know it will be rejected. But Mike likes to pretend good people get accepted all the time under may-issue. I guess there are only 10,000 or so good people in New Jersey.
DeleteGreg, you're absolutely right. I want to raise the bar a lot.
DeleteTs, I hear ya. I think the solution lies in a better definition of what justifiable cause means and better oversight of the decision-making process. Shall issue is way too loose.
Is "self-defense" a justifiable cause? This ruling says, "yes, it is". That's all.
DeleteBut do I also need justifiable cause to own guns? You say you don't oppose carry any more than ownership in general.
In other words, let's clarify definitions and have oversight to prevent capriciousness, thus getting as close to a "shall issue" system as possible without calling it that?
DeleteWhy not argue for a shall issue system that meets your standards rather than clinging to that incredibly easy to abuse discretionary standard which is frowned on by the courts in other permitting regimes? Keeping discretion in there seems like it's just asking for a court to overturn the law, and potentially knock down some of the other restrictions while they're at it.
For an example of that, look at the development of Brown v. Board decisions--the Supreme Court started out cautious of violating federalism by meddling too much in the affairs of the states, but the racist shitheads in charge at the time kept pushing and violating court orders so that by the end of it, the Court kinda said "fuck it" regarding federalism and instituted bussing, etc.
Also, you said, "I would like to raise the bar a little bit as to who qualifies, that's all."
DeleteThen, when called on it, you admit that you want to raise it a lot.
And you're still mystified why we don't believe you when you say you just want "a little bit more infringement," or that a proposal will only be "a minor inconvenience," etc.
Raising the bar a lot or a little, call it what you want. But, even if I had all the gun control I'd like, the effect on responsible and truly law-abiding gun owners, the good 50% in other words, would amount to a minor inconvenience.
DeleteMikeb, do I have to repeat that list--that not comprehensive list, since you have a lot of burdens and inconveniences you want--again? Why won't you be honest and admit what we all know: You want gun ownership, much less carry, to be exceedingly difficult.
DeleteSorry, Mike. You already gave us a similar line above, and then changed it. No matter how much you minimize it, your credibility is shot.
DeleteAnd that good 50% would be allowed to carry, right? Under May-issue, the vast majority of them are denied their right to carry in states like CA and NJ.
DeleteTS, the abuses in the "may issue" system have to be addressed. We've discussed this and it's a difference discussion to this one.
DeleteIn other words, we must disarm half of gun owners, and only ___% (tiny percentage to be determined) of them may get permits?
DeleteYes, Simon. That's the idea.
DeleteYou do realize, don't you, Mikeb, that we would never have gotten to this point had California not banned open carry (of unloaded firearms!)--a measure you clearly approved of at the time?
DeleteIf the current court ruling stands, I wonder if you'll be able to maintain your high opinion of the 2011 legislative abomination.
This decision is addressing the abuses of the May-issue system. That is exactly what it is doing! What do you want? To say it needs addressing, but then refuse to address it?
DeleteNo, I don't realize that. Whoever said the current push in CA for concealed carry laxity is a result of the open carry having been prohibited is a fool.
DeleteYou gun-rights fanatics would have tried for that in any case because open carry has next to nothing to do with concealed carry. In fact, our side did you a favor in CA. Idiots who carry unloaded guns in public just because they can do your side more harm than good. They make you all look like idiots.
You gun-rights fanatics [sic] would have tried for that in any case because open carry has next to nothing to do with concealed carry.
DeleteIt's not a question of whether or not the effort would have been made to overturn the odious "good cause" requirement--I have no doubt that there would indeed have been such an effort, as you say.
The open carry ban, though, figures very heavily in the court's decision. That decision explicitly states that if open carry had not been banned, ultra-restrictive regulation (including even a full ban, like Illinois had until another big win for the good guys righted that wrong) on concealed carry might be Constitutionally permissible, and the 9th Circuit would almost certainly have left it to SCOTUS to find such regulation unconstitutional:
Thus, if California law had banned concealed carry but allowed open carry (which some states have historically done), that wouldn’t have violated the Second Amendment. And if California law had banned open carry but allowed concealed carry (perhaps requiring a license that pretty much all law-abiding adults could get), that too might well have been constitutional, on the theory that it still left people free to carry guns, but just regulated the “manner” of carrying.
From the ruling itself:
A flat-out ban on concealed carry in a jurisdiction permitting open carry may or may not infringe the Second Amendment right — the passage from Heller clearly bears on that issue, which we need not decide. But whether a state restriction on both concealed and open carry overreaches is a different matter. To that question, Heller itself furnishes no explicit answer. But the three authorities it cites for its statement on concealed-carry laws do.
Who is the "fool" again, Mikeb?
Obviously the court that disagrees with Mike. After all, he is the wisest legal mind, except maybe for Laci.
DeleteAnd now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go scrub my fingers off with Lava soap, because that was inexcusable, even for sarcasm.
DeleteMike, how do abuses get addressed in your mind? If a party has a grievance with the permit system, should they sue the Sheriff and bring it up to the courts to decide? Is that about how it should work?
DeleteYou're the fool, Kurt. And the reason is because you're so contentious when arguing with me that you'll accept any nonsense to support your opposing position.
DeleteI ask again, does it make sense to you that prohibiting the open carry of UNLOADED guns really has something to do with allowing concealed carry? I don't think you really believe it does, but you got yourself in a corner by disagreeing with what I said and trying to support it by quoting the ruling, but it still makes no sense, does it?
In other cases you're perfectly fine with discounting what's said in legal rulings. It all depends on your current argument.
Let's recall for a moment how this petty tangential argument started, shall we? You said, "Mikeb, that we would never have gotten to this point had California not banned open carry (of unloaded firearms!)--"
You said "we would never have gotten to this point." That makes you the fool, Kurt. Even if all your exertions to prove that the banning of open carry did have SOMETHING to do with the more recent decision are right, to say the more recent decision would NEVER HAVE BEEN REACHED otherwise is indeed foolish.
Your idiocy truly knows no bounds, Mikeb.
DeleteMike, I believe what happened is that in previous cases where California was sued for denying the right to bear arms regarding CCW permits, the state argued in defense that one could bear arms by carrying open and unloaded (nobody said anything about "useful" carry), and the judges cited this in upholding the law.
DeleteLooks like I will have to be a little bit more polite whilst out and about in society.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that people can drive around in their cars with holstered weapons? Or do the normal vehicular rules apply?
I'm not hearing about a lot of violent crime in my home town. Starting to hear more about accidental shootings. Used to be almost unheard of. It creeps me out to think of people walking down the street carrying. But I guess its mostly just a toy. Long as they don't get it out and play with it!
As long as you don't endanger a carry license holder's life, you have very little to worry about from us.
DeleteGreg speaking out his ass again pretending to represent ALL concealed carry permit holders.
DeleteI know, I know, it vast majority are OK, right Greg? Too bad that leaves TOO FUCKING MANY who are not.
Far more than 99% of us do no wrong.
Delete"No wrong?" As I explained on another thread just now, failure to store guns securely and letting them get stolen to the tune of half-a-million a year is a BIG WRONG. So is the half-a-million gun crimes that take place each year. Add to those two numbers all the accidents and incidents of negligence, let's count all the drunk and drugged gun handling even where no one is injured by pure chance. Add it all up, Greg, and you come up with about 50% who do no wrong.
DeleteAdd it all up, Greg, and you come up with about 50% who do no wrong.
DeleteA no doubt futile effort, trying to educate the innumerate, but we all need our windmills at which to tilt. So, in a debate about how much "BIG WRONG" can be laid at the feet of concealed carry licensees (and I'm not even going to address that you got a big chunk of that number by using gun owners who were victims of the crime of theft, and whose stolen property was then used for a negative outcome), you claim over a million "BIG WRONGS" per year, all by concealed carry licensees?
Is this some of that "Common Core" math< we've been hearing about?
There's that 50% claim again. Except you have no evidence to support it. You never have had evidence. You never will. But why let that stop you?
DeleteThis is a wonderful time that I have had talking to you guys.
ReplyDeleteOne prediction, since nobody answered my question. Cops are not going to take a friendly attitude towards people who carry loaded weapons in their cabs. Good people in California never even think about carrying a weapon.
Cops and cabs? What are you talking about? Good people don't tend to get rides from cops, unless it's an emergency.
DeleteThings are getting more interesting in California. The Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of citizens wishing to bear arms for self defense. The case is similar to Peruta in that the plaintiff was denied a permit for failure to show "good cause".
ReplyDeletePretty soon it will be hard to keep the appeals and stays being thrown about straight.
"The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto, challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto."
"The Richards case was argued at the same time, and to the same panel, that earlier decided Peruta v. County of San Diego, a similar case challenging overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but apparently, the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed."
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/03/saf-cgf-score-ninth-circuit-victory-richards-carry-case/
I notice that while Peruta was a 2-1 victory, what Mike would refer to as the slimmest of victories, while this case is unanimous. I wonder if the court is sending a message. Anyone know if the Federal Circuits announce decisions as they're made? Or are they all made and then released at some metered rate?
Wow--great news.
DeleteI'm starting to get happier and happier that California banned open carry, thus making all this possible.
I suppose this is "no big deal," either, right, Mikeb?
ReplyDeleteOh, well, at least you still have your Starbucks and Facebook "victories" ;-).
Get it? I referred to those as "victories" for you. Hahahahahahahahaha!