Breaking news: Ninth Circuit Rules California May Issue Unconstituional

[madsend81]

^ I like it, but don't get to far ahead of yourself yet.

 

[Yo Mama]

Thanks madsend81

I love it!!!

 

[Frank Ettin]

Geez! This will teach me not to leave the house.

Exciting news.

I'll need to read everything when I get home.

 

[Librarian]

This is a wonderful step, but we're not settled.

First, San Diego is going to appeal, apparently to an 'en banc' panel of the 9th Circuit. I believe they have made that intention known so today's opinion is 'on hold'.

Then, the loser there is likely, but not certain, to appeal to the Supreme Court.

If today's decision holds, CA residents would still have to apply, with all the procedures that entails; what changes is the requirement for some specific need acceptable to an issuing agency -

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.”

That goes. 'Personal safety' would become sufficient 'good cause'.

And then there will be the San Francisco and Los Angeles and State of California following suits claiming 'oh, but we are special ...'. One can hope those will be slapped down hard.

 

[danez71]

And then there will be the San Francisco and Los Angeles and State of California following suits claiming 'oh, but we are special ...'. One can hope those will be slapped down hard.

I think they will.

We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated 76 into the Due Process Clause.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.

I'll need to read everything when I get home.

Please. I'm interested in getting your take on this.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

Hawaii's "license to carry" is pretty doggone restrictive too:

"In an exceptional case, when the applicant shows reason to fear injury to his person or property, the respective chief of police may grant a license to carry a concealed firearm on his person within the county where the license is granted to a U.S. citizen or duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation age 21 or older."

Note that the license is only good in the county in which it was "...granted." That means that it's not good on the other islands.

Since Hawaii falls under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it is time for a citizen of the State of Hawaii to apply for a license to carry a handgun for personal protection and sue when it is denied.

ECS

 

[MagnumDweeb]

Yes, this is why we can't forget California. We need more though, we need more wins. Each victory must embolden us, drive us to organize and seek more ground from the enemy. Let this not be our last step, let it be the first in a great journey to getting California back, piece-by-piece.

 

[Ryanxia]

Elmcreek Smith & MagnumDweeb make EXCELLENT points.

They stirred the hornet's nest, it's time they get stung bad.

 

[Trent]

YEEEES!

HAHAH!

HAHAHAHAH!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh man I haven't been this happy to see news since *Illinois* got the right to carry.

But... there is a potential downside here. The Supreme Court is GOING to have to grant cert somewhere now if the En Banc panel affirms the decision... too divided amongst districts.

 

[tomrkba]

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.

Get the right to keep and bear arms in your state constitution. This will stop the California legislature from passing bad laws and nullify most of the current laws. You'll still have to hold them to it, but why not add a "bad law prevention" clause. Something to the effect of: any legislator creating or supporting a bill that violates the "California Second Amendment equivalent" is guilty of a felony punishable by not less than 20 years hard time, no parole. You'll still have to hold them to it, but that is much easier to do when you can point to a constitutional violation.

But... there is a potential downside here. The Supreme Court is GOING to have to grant cert somewhere now... too divided amongst districts.

Given the past behavior of SCOTUS, do you believe they will apply original intent to the 2A? Or will they give us more legal shenanigans, such as the "common use standard" horse-pucky?

 

[armoredman]

While incredible, I see this going the way of Nordyke. I really hope I'm wrong.
Congrats, Cali, and to all the wonderful people who worked very hard to get us this far! I hope the Leftist Liberal elite of California get stymied in their efforts to overturn this decision, and time will tell.

 

[wildbilll]

Where is the statutory deadline for issuance of a permit once the application is made? Looks to me like it could take an indefinite amount of time to actually get the permit. Also I see the permits are good for 2 years and cost $100 plus the training, extra fees, etc.

 

[pendennis]

Where is the statutory deadline for issuance of a permit once the application is made? Looks to me like it could take an indefinite amount of time to actually get the permit. Also I see the permits are good for 2 years and cost $100 plus the training, extra fees, etc.

Courts have generally been less than patient, no matter the issue, when someone drags their feet after the dust settles.

When a jurisdiction becomes "shall issue", unless someone has a defect in the application, things should move quickly. They also can't make the training time and costs, or raise processing fees so much, that poorer folks can't afford to get permits.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

This is just outstanding.

 

[Doc7]

Thank you! Please for the love of all that is great let this go to SCOTUS and bring NJ and other states up to speed.

 

[danez71]

Get the right to keep and bear arms in your state constitution. This will stop the California legislature from passing bad laws and nullify most of the current laws. You'll still have to hold them to it, but why not add a "bad law prevention" clause. Something to the effect of: any legislator creating or supporting a bill that violates the "California Second Amendment equivalent" is guilty of a felony punishable by not less than 20 years hard time, no parole. You'll still have to hold them to it, but that is much easier to do when you can point to a constitutional violation.

Pssst... CA did point to a constitutional violation. The 2A. Remember the 2A.... the 2A that SCOTUS already ruled that it applied to the states?



I agree with the "bad law prevention" idea. I think FL has one.... EVERY state should have one.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_25134832/?source=redbar

.
San Diego could seek "en banc" review by a larger, 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit appeals court. And if that is denied, or if either side chooses to appeal the larger panel's ruling, the case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court..

What's the chance of them bypassing a full review from the 11 judge panel and appeal right to SCOTUS?
.

 

[tomrkba]

Pssst... CA did point to a constitutional violation. The 2A. Remember the 2A.... the 2A that SCOTUS already ruled that it applied to the states?

Hmmm...I do not want to take this off topic into the types of citizenship and the limited citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment.

So, let's just gloss that over. In that case, why are most of the California laws still active? Challenging every one of them will take a few centuries...

 

[ECVMatt]

The irony of all this is that the places where the Democrats have done the most damage and have trumpeted as examples of their "wisdom", now pave the way for victory after victory for 2A rights. We have more to come here in CA and hopefully they will have national implications as well.

 

[danez71]

Hmmm...I do not want to take this off topic into the types of citizenship and the limited citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment.

So, let's just gloss that over. In that case, why are most of the California laws still active? Challenging every one of them will take a few centuries...

Maybe I dont understand your question because the my answer is "For several obvious reasons."


CA hasn't had this type of case or ruling before. Neither did DC or IL.

Laws can get passed faster than can be challenged and run thru the court system. That's true nationally.

Laws get passed and then get challenged for constitutionality. That how our system works in the US.

That's how the system works nationally for every state whether or not something is in the States Constitution or in the US Constitution.

The District courts and SCOTUS don't hear a lot of cases per year so things take time.

CA wasn't so anti in the past. Its taken decades to get to this point. IL didn't turn around over night. DC didn't get turned around over night.

.

 

[barnbwt]

I think these panel judges saw an opportunity and took it. They knew a ruling heavily borrowing from recent SCOTUS rulings would be very unlikely to be heard by SCOTUS. I think they also knew that the state would be disinclined to bring the case before en banc because it could then only be strongly rejected by biased judges and flawed logic, by definition in contradiction with the logic of recent SCOTUS rulings cited therein.

I'm sure they don't want to allow shall-issue, but I'm certain they don't want to flatly contradict the contents of the most recent high court rulings in their entirety. I'm not entirely sure of what exact consequences result from low-court judges bucking their superiors, but I assume they don't get promoted or invited to fancy dinner parties any more (and their ruling gets overturned, anyway )

SCOTUS has made it plain they don't want to rule on carry issues, or even gun issues in general at the moment (quite possibly because they've moved pretty quickly to redefine the conventional wisdom of the issue over the last decade or two by SCOTUS standards). It seems likely they've also made it plain that the lower courts had better not overplay their hand and force the Supreme Court to make a ruling.

Still, we have five of the district courts in conflict (so far), and an ever increasing number of RKBA vectors making a B-line for DC.* I really do think there is a watershed over the horizon, but just how fast it can materialize within our intentionally-braked system remains to be seen. 30 or so years from nearly no CC access to mandatory signoff? That's pretty darn fast for such a philosophically polarized issue.

*May/Shall Issue, AWBs, gun free zones, growing insanity of the NFA & BATFE enforcement, open carry, reciprocity, 'reasonable restrictions,' the list is getting to be quite long and we're pushing firmly on all fronts and making actual progress. When you look at it that way, the oppositions' localized advances look pretty weak and defensive, even if they will be difficult to dislodge.

TCB

 

[Bobson]

I'll be holding my excitement until we get to see the real-world effect of the decision - assuming things get better in California. And frankly, I think that's a steep assumption.

All the same, my best wishes go out to those in California.

 

[charlie echo]

Bravo. Now I and my wife are shopping for actually concealable and legal CA CCW pistols: 45 ACP for me, 44 Special+P for her.

 

[Ryanxia]

This can't be overstated enough: FIGHT NOW. Push hard and take our Freedoms back. This is the push that they didn't expect, we have them on their heals, push and do your worst.

As Shakespeare said, "Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!"

 

[gc70]

This decision may also be a reminder about the importance of judicial appointments. O'Scannlain and Callahan were respectively appointed by Reagan and Bush; Thomas was appointed by Clinton.