Saturday, February 15, 2014

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision about Justifiable Cause for Concealed Carry

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun outside the home. The opinion comes days before the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review two other cases that ask the question of whether the right to “bear arms” extends beyond the home.
The California-based appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, delved into American history, from the Founding Era forward, and found support for the notion that “bearing arms” means carrying a gun in public:
So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.
The case comes from San Diego County, which, according to state law, requires residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun. Personal safety alone does not qualify as good cause. The question for the court was whether the requirement infringes on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
From the Ninth Circuit:
The question is not whether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”
To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.
The court’s ruling aligns with one by the Chicago-based Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but conflicts with the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits.
That last part has been completely omitted in the reports of this story by the gun-rights fanatics. They're all pretending this is a monumental victory which foretells their complete success over all gun control laws. 
It's hardly that.

15 comments:

  1. Mikeb, what do you imagine the current Supreme Court will rule on this subject?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I answered that in another comment even though it's a stupid question. The court is essentially the same as when the Heller and McDonald mistakes happened.

      Delete
    2. You may call the question stupid, but it makes the point that we who support gun rights are likely to get another victory.

      Delete
  2. Gun rights fanatics haven't omitted circuit court splits. We talk about that all the time. We even talk about en bloc review- which you " omitted ".

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals

    Mike, A better indication would be if whether the courts that conflict with this decision took Heller into account in making their conflicting decision, or was the decision take prior to Heller.
    There are some districts that this wont have a bearing on since some districts have permit systems which align with what was determined by the 9th Circuit. The challenge will come in the remaining states with may issue permit systems.
    If the 9th circuit decision is upheld, then it will only be the remaining states in the East that will eventually see their laws challenged. When you look at a map, if you cant call it monumental, it a small victory. Especially considering that California if the Brady Campaign's sterling example of proper gun control laws.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home."

    Note that last part, Mike: Some form of carry MUST be permitted.

    In other words, It can be concealed carry or it can be open carry, but CARRY must be allowed.

    Who's being dishonest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What dishonesty? Because someone said the right MUST include carry outside the home doesn't mean shit, especially when the balance on the Court changes. When that happens, the right might stop applying to inside the home.

      Delete
    2. Apparently, the word, bear, means something different to you, Mikeb? But Heller and McDonald have established a precedent that is already bearing good fruit.

      Delete
    3. That last part has been completely omitted in the reports of this story by the gun-rights fanatics [sic].

      While I agree that David Kopel is not one of those mythical "gun-rights fanatics" to which you so often refer, it was my understanding that that's precisely what you think he is--"a rabid gun-rights fanatic," in fact. But if he were that you, once again, have a truth problem, because he acknowledges the court split.

      From Dave Kopel:

      Today’s decision creates a split of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits vs. the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits.

      So--how do you want to try to spin being caught in yet another obvious lie, Mikeb?

      Delete
    4. They're all pretending this is a monumental victory which foretells their complete success over all gun control laws.

      We "all" are, huh? Point me to one example of a gun rights advocate stating that the 9th Circuit Court ruling "foretells [our] complete success over all gun control laws," please. It won't help you much, because by virtue of your having said "all," I need find only one counter-example (myself, for instance) to prove that you are, yet again, spewing dishonesty, but it will amuse me for you to go looking for that one example.

      Delete
    5. You're right. "All" was wrong. It should have been "some" or "many."

      Big victory, that, Kurt.

      Delete
    6. You're right. "All" was wrong. It should have been "some" or "many."

      So can you find one example of these "'some' or 'many'"?

      Besides, aren't you the one who raised so much hell over New Jersey being characterized as a "no issue" state, because it's not quite true that all applicants are denied?

      Delete
  5. Just saw this pop up and thought I'd throw it in the mix.

    "Today, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore notified the County Board of Supervisors of his intention not to seek en banc review in the matter Peruta, et.al v. County of San Diego."

    "Should the decision of the Ninth Circuit become final, the 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."

    http://apps.sdsheriff.net/press/Default.aspx?FileLink=fce6dc6b-e015-4c15-8d6c-4e38b4e212e1

    It does seem interesting that everywhere a case is lost using Heller as a reason to justify bearing arms outside of the home, no one seems interested in taking it further. In case the link above doesn't work due to my inept talents at copying and pasting, here is the original article the link came from.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/21/san-diego-sheriff-will-not-seek-9th-circuit-en-banc-in-peruta-right-to-carry-case/?wprss=rss_national

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow--that's a surprise (to me, anyway). Some might say that indicates a lack of confidence on the part of the gun rights tramplers in the tenability of their position.

      Delete