Chiburbian Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:13 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:13 PM Google for more info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:17 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:17 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.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplant Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:18 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:18 PM Cal guns: http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=13430464 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2putt Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:20 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:20 PM I found this.. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianj - now in Kansas Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:22 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:22 PM Or Volokh Conspiracy http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-holds-second-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun/ tl;dr version is that may-issue “impermissibly infringe 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:22 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:22 PM If this survives appeal, this could rescue Hawaii as well correct, as they are also under the 9th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:28 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:28 PM Same rules as IL.right? Probably a petition to rehear En Banc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:30 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:30 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:30 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:30 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/ Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:34 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:34 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G214me Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:34 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:34 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G214me Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:35 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:35 PM http://www.washingto...ry-of-handguns/ Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handgunsWOO HOOO !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G214me Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:36 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:36 PM Dear California Socialists, Liberals, Commies and Freedom haters, HA HA !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:36 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:36 PM Molly, we posted the same link. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:39 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:39 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.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0009.htm Seems similar: "when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:40 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:40 PM How long will they give CA to implement? 15 months like IL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:42 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:42 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:42 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:42 PM Dear California Socialists, Liberals, Commies and Freedom haters, HA HA !!!!http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ct51c9fbc3.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booxone Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:43 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:43 PM I wonder if this will make its way to SCOTUS. Has anybody informed Dart that "May issue" is unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghk012 Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:44 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:44 PM Now we need this to be taught to the New England judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:45 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:45 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:47 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:47 PM http://www.washingto...ry-of-handguns/ Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns Stunned! Absolutely stunned, I am!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:48 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:48 PM ^ truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:49 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:49 PM Awesome! The winds of change are definitely blowing in the right direction! Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:49 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:49 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.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete S Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:50 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:50 PM On to Jersey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:59 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 07:59 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 theSecond Amendment secures a right to carry a firearm in some fashion outside thehome. Reading those lines in light of the plain-meaning definition of “bear Arms”elucidated above makes matters even clearer: the Second Amendment right “couldnot rationally have been limited to the home.” Moore, 702 F.3d at 936." Introduction...you know what's coming hehOur conclusion that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry anoperable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense is perhapsunsurprising—other circuits faced with this question have expressly held, or at thevery 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 bestruck down. We thus disagree with those courts—including the district court in thiscase—that have taken the view that it is not necessary (and, thus, necessary not) todecide whether carrying a gun in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is aconstitutionally 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 theCalifornia regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount ofinterest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify SanDiego 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 notwhether the California scheme (in light of San Diego County’s policy) allows somepeople to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, thequestion is whether it allows the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to beararms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latterquestion is a resounding “no.” In California, the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizencan carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with aconcealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken offthe table. The San Diego County policy specifies that concern for “one’s personalsafety alone” does not satisfy the “good cause” requirement for issuance of apermit. Instead, an applicant must demonstrate that he suffers a unique risk ofharm: he must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish [him] from themainstream and cause[] him . . . to be placed in harm’s way.” Given thisrequirement, the “typical” responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego Countycannot bear arms in public for self-defense; a typical citizen fearing for his“personal safety”—by definition—cannot “distinguish [himself] from themainstream.” (This one just tickles me to death )Judge O'Scannlain begins ripping into CA2, CA3, and CA4 and doesn't stop Our reading of the Second Amendment is akin to theSeventh Circuit’s interpretation in Moore, 702 F.3d at 936–42,20 and at odds withthe approach of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits in Drake, 724 F.3d at431–35, 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 purposeof self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms. See Moore, 702F.3d at 941 (criticizing the court in Kachalsky for “suggest[ing] that the SecondAmendment should have a much greater scope inside the home than outside” andnoting that the “interest in self-protection [and thus in the Second Amendmentright] is as great outside as inside the home”). And further, they failed tocomprehend that regulations on the right, although permissible to an extent, couldnot go so far as to enjoin completely a responsible, law-abiding citizen’s right tocarry in public for self-defense. Such regulations affecting a destruction of theright to bear arms, just like regulations that affect a destruction of the right to keeparms, 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 thechallenged gun regulations and the goal of “public safety and crime prevention”the Second Circuit concluded that it owed “substantial deference to the predictivejudgments of [the legislature]” regarding the degree of fit between the regulationsand the public interest they aimed to serve. Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 97. Relying onNew York’s historical regulation of handguns from 1911 to the present, the courtdeferred to the state legislature’s “belief” that regulation of handgun possessionwould have “an appreciable impact on public safety and crime prevention.” Taking asimilar approach, the Third Circuit deferred to the legislature’s judgment that thepermitting regulations would serve its interest in ensuring public safety eventhough “New Jersey [could not] present[] [the court] with much evidence to showhow 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 ofhandguns 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 tworespects. First, the analysis in the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuit decisions isnear-identical to the freestanding “interest-balancing inquiry” that Justice Breyerproposed—and that the majority explicitly rejected—in Heller. . . . All three courtsreferenced, and ultimately relied upon, the state legislatures’ determinationsweighing the government’s interest in public safety against an individual’sinterest in his Second Amendment right to bear arms. In Drake, Woollard, and Kachalsky, the government failed to show that thegun regulations did not burden “substantially more” of the Second Amendmentright than was necessary to advance its aim of public safety. Indeed, as the districtcourt noted in Woollard, the government could not show that the challengedregulation served its needs any better than a random rationing system, wherein gunpermits were limited to every tenth applicant. . . . . In light of the states’ failure to demonstrate sufficient narrow tailoringin Drake, Woollard, and Kachalsky, the gun regulations at issue in thosecases should have been struck down even under intermediate scrutiny. Goodbye! The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summaryjudgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s“good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the SecondAmendment 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.Peruta.Opinion.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:01 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:01 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:02 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:02 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:05 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:05 PM Dang! CA9 calling out CA2, 3, and 4! I do love seeing Moore referenced even though it isn't binding on CA9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.