Jump to content


Photo

California "May Issue" Ruled Unconstitutional


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
350 replies to this topic

#1 Chiburbian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 08

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:13 PM

Google for more info!

#2 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,936 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:17 PM

I just saw a posting on Facebook from Cal Guns that the 9CA has ruled California's May Issue law is unconstitutional and that Shall Issue will be implemented.

Edit: found a link

http://m.washingtonp...ry-of-handguns/

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 California to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. 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 the legislature may what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but the legislature may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.


Edited by domin8, 13 February 2014 - 01:23 PM.


#3 transplant

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,616 posts
  • Joined: 14-May 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:18 PM

Cal guns:

http://calguns.net/c....php?p=13430464

#4 2putt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:20 PM

I found this..

http://cdn.ca9.uscou.../12/1056971.pdf

#5 brianj - now in Kansas

    Political refugee from the People's Republic of IL

  • Members
  • 1,708 posts
  • Joined: 17-September 12

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:22 PM

Or Volokh Conspiracy

http://www.washingto...to-carry-a-gun/

tl;dr version is that may-issue “impermissibly infringe[s] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.”

So, the Ninth Circuit now agrees with the 7th, but disagrees with 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. The USSC is gonna have to put this to bed once and for all.

"Your father's 1911..  Not as random or clumsy as a Glock.  A more elegant weapon for a more civilized age." -- Obi Wan Kenobi


#6 Matt B

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 07

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:22 PM

If this survives appeal, this could rescue Hawaii as well correct, as they are also under the 9th?

#7 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,516 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:28 PM

Same rules as IL.right? Probably a petition to rehear En Banc?

#8 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,936 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:30 PM

That may depend on the wording in Hawaii's law, which I haven't seen.

What I do wonder is well this now require SCOTUS to take up the issue? Remember, several months ago Maryland's May Issue law was determined to be Constitutional.

#9 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,075 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:30 PM

http://www.washingto...ry-of-handguns/


Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#10 miztic

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 12

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:34 PM

Same rules as IL.right? Probably a petition to rehear En Banc?


Yep, I'm pretty sure, if they appeal, en-banc will be next, and then on to SCOTUS who will hopefully grant cert due to the circuit split :)
Exciting times.

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.


#11 G214me

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,060 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:34 PM

That may depend on the wording in Hawaii's law, which I haven't seen.

What I do wonder is well this now require SCOTUS to take up the issue? Remember, several months ago Maryland's May Issue law was determined to be Constitutional.

I think they can take a pass on hearing the case like they did in the Maryland ( 2nd Circuit ) and leave the ruling stand. that is if California appeals to SCOTUS.

#12 G214me

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,060 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:35 PM

http://www.washingto...ry-of-handguns/


Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns

WOO HOOO !!!!!

#13 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,936 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:36 PM

Molly, we posted the same link. Lol.

#14 G214me

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,060 posts
  • Joined: 15-May 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:36 PM

Dear California Socialists, Liberals, Commies and Freedom haters, HA HA !!!!

#15 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,286 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:39 PM

That may depend on the wording in Hawaii's law, which I haven't seen.

What I do wonder is well this now require SCOTUS to take up the issue? Remember, several months ago Maryland's May Issue law was determined to be Constitutional.

Here is HI's law http://www.capitol.h...S_0134-0009.htm

Seems similar: "when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property"

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#16 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:40 PM

How long will they give CA to implement? 15 months like IL?
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#17 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,286 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:42 PM

So, the Ninth Circuit now agrees with the 7th, but disagrees with 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. The USSC is gonna have to put this to bed once and for all.

The 9th has gone a step beyond the 7th. The ruling from the 7th would have allowed may issue in IL

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#18 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,286 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:42 PM

Dear California Socialists, Liberals, Commies and Freedom haters, HA HA !!!!

Posted Image

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#19 Booxone

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:43 PM

I wonder if this will make its way to SCOTUS. Has anybody informed Dart that "May issue" is unconstitutional?

#20 ghk012

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:44 PM

Now we need this to be taught to the New England judges.

#21 jagt48

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,509 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 11

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:45 PM

That may depend on the wording in Hawaii's law, which I haven't seen.

What I do wonder is well this now require SCOTUS to take up the issue? Remember, several months ago Maryland's May Issue law was determined to be Constitutional.

Here is HI's law http://www.capitol.h...S_0134-0009.htm

Seems similar: "when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property"


So me walking into the sheriff's office crying my eyes out saying, "I'm soooo scared!" isn't good enough?

This is great news! I think the next step is to see if they will hear this en banc, no?

#22 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,075 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:47 PM

http://www.washingto...ry-of-handguns/


Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns


Stunned! Absolutely stunned, I am!!
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#23 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:48 PM

^ truth
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#24 BIGDEESUL

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,040 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:49 PM

Awesome! The winds of change are definitely blowing in the right direction!

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk


Supporting member
NRA Endowment Member

IALEFI Member/Instructor
Certified Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
NRA certified Pistol Instructor
NRA certified Personal Protection Inside The Home Instructor

NRA certified Personal Protection Outside The Home Instructor
NRA certified Chief Range Safety Officer
NRA certified Home Firearm Safety Instructor
 


#25 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,936 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:49 PM

That may depend on the wording in Hawaii's law, which I haven't seen.

What I do wonder is well this now require SCOTUS to take up the issue? Remember, several months ago Maryland's May Issue law was determined to be Constitutional.

Here is HI's law http://www.capitol.h...S_0134-0009.htm

Seems similar: "when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property"

I agree with your assessment.

#26 Pete S

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:50 PM

On to Jersey!

"A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."


#27 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,843 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 13 February 2014 - 01:59 PM

In Peruta v. County of San Diego, the opinion was delivered by Judge O'Scannlain....

"These passages alone, though short of dispositive, strongly suggest that the
Second Amendment secures a right to carry a firearm in some fashion outside the
home. Reading those lines in light of the plain-meaning definition of “bear Arms”
elucidated above makes matters even clearer: the Second Amendment right “could
not rationally have been limited to the home.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 936."


Introduction...you know what's coming heh


Our conclusion that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an
operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense is perhaps
unsurprising—other circuits faced with this question have expressly held, or at the
very least have assumed, that this is so.

Put simply, a law that destroys
(rather than merely burdens) a right central to the Second Amendment must be
struck down.


We thus disagree with those courts—including the district court in this
case—that have taken the view that it is not necessary (and, thus, necessary not) to
decide whether carrying a gun in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a
constitutionally protected activity. See, e.g., Drake, 724 F.3d at 431; Woollard,
712 F.3d at 876; Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89; cf. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 475.


Understanding the scope of the right is not just necessary, it is key to our analysis.
For if self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to “bear arms” and the
California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of
interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San
Diego County’s policy.


Now, the court must delve into may issue after finding that carry outside the home is a constitutional right under the Second Amendment.

[T]he 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.”


In California, the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen
can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a
concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off
the table.
The San Diego County policy specifies that concern for “one’s personal
safety alone” does not satisfy the “good cause” requirement for issuance of a
permit. Instead, an applicant must demonstrate that he suffers a unique risk of
harm: he must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish [him] from the
mainstream and cause[] him . . . to be placed in harm’s way.” Given this
requirement, the “typical” responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County
cannot bear arms in public for self-defense; a typical citizen fearing for his
“personal safety”—by definition—cannot “distinguish [himself] from the
mainstream.”


(This one just tickles me to death :P )
Judge O'Scannlain begins ripping into CA2, CA3, and CA4 and doesn't stop

Our reading of the Second Amendment is akin to the
Seventh Circuit’s interpretation in Moore,
702 F.3d at 936–42,20 and at odds with
the approach of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits in Drake, 724 F.3d at
431–35, Woollard, 712 F.3d at 876, and Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89, 97–99.


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, 702
F.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.


Criticizing the Circuits for their deference to state legislatures....

When analyzing whether a “substantial relationship” existed between the
challenged gun regulations and the goal of “public safety and crime prevention”
the Second Circuit concluded that it owed “substantial deference to the predictive
judgments of [the legislature]” regarding the degree of fit between the regulations
and the public interest they aimed to serve. Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 97. Relying on
New York’s historical regulation of handguns from 1911 to the present, the court
deferred to the state legislature’s “belief” that regulation of handgun possession
would have “an appreciable impact on public safety and crime prevention.” Taking a
similar approach, the Third Circuit deferred to the legislature’s judgment that the
permitting regulations would serve its interest in ensuring public safety even
though “New Jersey [could not] present[] [the court] with much evidence to show
how or why its legislators arrived at this predictive judgment.” And the Fourth Circuit,

in a familiar vein, relied on the legislature’s judgment that “reduc[ing] the number of

handguns carried in public” would increase public safety and prevent crime,

despite conflicting evidence on the issue."


Here's where it gets really good

This is not an appropriate application of intermediate scrutiny in at least two
respects. First, the analysis in the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuit decisions is
near-identical to the freestanding “interest-balancing inquiry” that Justice Breyer
proposed—and that the majority explicitly rejected—in Heller.
. . . All three courts

referenced, and ultimately relied upon, the state legislatures’ determinations

weighing the government’s interest in public safety against an individual’s

interest in his Second Amendment right to bear arms.


In Drake, Woollard, and Kachalsky, the government failed to show that the
gun regulations did not burden “substantially more” of the Second Amendment
right than was necessary to advance its aim of public safety
. Indeed, as the district
court noted in Woollard, the government could not show that the challenged
regulation served its needs any better than a random rationing system, wherein gun
permits were limited to every tenth applicant.


. . . .


In light of the states’ failure to demonstrate sufficient narrow tailoring
in Drake, Woollard, and Kachalsky, the gun regulations at issue in those
cases should have been struck down even under intermediate scrutiny.


Goodbye!

The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary
judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s
“good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.


REVERSED and REMANDED.


I'm not gonna analyze the dissent, I don't feel like it heh. Here's the opinion.
Attached File  Peruta.Opinion.pdf   446.19KB   174 downloads
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#28 miztic

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 12

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:01 PM

How long will they give CA to implement? 15 months like IL?


Luckily they already have everything set up, the sherriff now just has to accept "self defense" as a good cause for the application and they are good to go :D

The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.


#29 Matt B

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 430 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 07

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:02 PM

Solid circuit split on this now. If there was a time for SCOTUS to weigh in, this is it. Better to get this decided now before any more turnover happens on the bench.

#30 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 13 February 2014 - 02:05 PM

Dang! CA9 calling out CA2, 3, and 4!

I do love seeing Moore referenced even though it isn't binding on CA9.
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread