1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Breaking news: Ninth Circuit Rules California May Issue Unconstituional

Discussion in 'Legal' started by dc dalton, Feb 13, 2014.

  1. dc dalton

    dc dalton Well-Known Member

    Just amazing!

  2. Midwest

    Midwest Well-Known Member

    Will this only apply to California? Or can people from 'needs based essentially may issue' states like NJ, MD and HI can use this as an argument. What are the chances for this to affect New York State since both CA and NYS have may issue/shall issue areas.

    This is great news indeed.
  3. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

  4. dc dalton

    dc dalton Well-Known Member

    It could set precedence that other states could then be gone after with BUT you have to be about 99% sure the state is going to appeal this so I have to think this fight is far from over. More than likely it would be pushed up all the way to SCOTUS (if they would accept it)
  5. rbernie

    rbernie Well-Known Member

  6. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Yes, I believe that has far ranging influence. CA is unusual in that a CCW here isn't issued by the State but rather by each separate county...however, it is good anywhere in the state

    For those who want further confirmation, here is the article from the San Francisco Chronicle


    For those interested, here is the complete ruling.

    WARNING: it is 127 pages long

  7. pendennis

    pendennis Well-Known Member

    I was under the impression that Federal Court rulings applied generally within each circuit.

    But, since this ruling was by a three-judge panel, might this be further reviewed by the full court, if California requests it?
  8. danez71

    danez71 Well-Known Member

    And so many here said that because all of the liberal judges, politicians, and residents, CA was a lost cause and "get what they deserve". ....... :neener:

    Between IL, DC, and now CA, anyone who says that any state is a lost cause is a defeatist and was never 100% committed to the fight to begin with.

    This has serious POSITIVE National implications and should put more pressure for SCOTUS to take a case and there is a reasonably good chance that the entire Country can become "shall issue" or must allow open carry.

    Yes, "CA got what they deserved". Look at my sig on how they did it.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2014
  9. model4006

    model4006 Well-Known Member

  10. danez71

    danez71 Well-Known Member

    From the ruling link.

    Pretty strong words IMO.

  11. JellyJar

    JellyJar Well-Known Member

    Does that mean that since California already has procedures on the book for issuing CCW license that immediately everyone that qualifies and applies for a license must be given one now?
  12. danez71

    danez71 Well-Known Member

    I'm not done reading it....

    What I'm gathering, in regular words, is that since CA bans open carry, it must have a reasonable CCP process and would need to be "shall issue".

    Currently, CA is a "May Issue" and "must show good cause" of which 'for personal protection' wasn't enough of a reason (in the vast majority of CA). Residents needed to show some added need.

    The court said in its ruling (from the link above).

    Because he was denied, and open carry is banned, he sued.... and WON!
  13. gc70

    gc70 Well-Known Member

    Nice! Now to read the opinion.
  14. madsend81

    madsend81 Well-Known Member

    While it may be 127 pages long, most of it (at least 46 so far, I haven't finished it yet) are historical analysis, similar to what was done in Heller.
  15. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    Actually, what had some WP leftie readers upset that that the Volokh conspirators (about 20 lawyers including Eugene Volokh and David Kopel) retained fully editorial control over Volokh Conspiracy content.
  16. egyas

    egyas Well-Known Member

    That is just freaking Amazing! I can't believe this came from the 9th circus.
  17. Yo Mama

    Yo Mama Well-Known Member



    This is a huge win.

    If someone who has had the chance to review the ruling, I would like to know if they discussed no weapons zones, and the impact this has on an individual when they leave their home with a firearm to carry? This is what Chicago did, just make everywhere a no carry zone.
  18. Jim K

    Jim K Well-Known Member

    Interesting. Policy in MD is to issue a general carry permit only because of a specific known threat, by a specific person, and to revoke as soon as the State Police decide the threat is past. And they MAY issue if the applicant has been threatened, can prove he or she was threatened and reported repeated threats to the police at the time they were made. Highly restricted permits MAY be issued to business people who carry large sums of money, or for some other reasons. There have been reports that permits will be issued to those who make very generous contributions to certain political campaigns, but since that does not include me, I cannot prove or disprove such allegations.

    I once asked a state police officer (sarcastically) if a notarized statement from someone saying he wanted to kill me would be enough for me to get a carry permit. He replied, quite seriously, that it would not be, because there might not be a real threat.

  19. madsend81

    madsend81 Well-Known Member

    Starting on page 64, they start punching holes in the decisions made by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th circuit decisions on carry outside the home.

    Last edited: Feb 13, 2014
  20. morcey2

    morcey2 Well-Known Member

    I don't have time at the moment to read the opinion, but I wonder if there's something in there that would apply to reciprocity/recognition of non-resident permits. Maybe it's beyond the scope of this ruling, but it can't be possible that the 2A wouldn't apply to non-residents also.

    Great news though!


Share This Page