Skip to comments.Federal Court Says ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Conceal-Carry Permits Violates the Second Amendment
Posted on 02/13/2014 12:43:07 PM PST by neverdem
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed gun rights advocates a major victory today by invalidating San Diego, Californias requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued to those gun owners who have a good cause to carry a concealed gun in public. According to local officials, ones personal safety is not considered good cause. In his opinion for a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain rejected the local governments approach as an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.
In California, the ruling observes, 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.
As Brian Doherty noted on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether it will take up two other cases that also center on the Second Amendments reach outside of the home. This new ruling from the 9th Circuit makes it all the more likely that the question of gun rights in public will soon be addressed by the Supreme Court.
Today's ruling by the 9th Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego is available here.
Wow. 9th circuit. Unexpected.
9th circuit actually got one right?
Well, that explains the weather. Hell’s froze over.
9th circuit actually got one right?
Well, that explains the weather. Hell’s froze over.
an amazingly intelligent result from a really awful court...
all this should be avoided....
“,...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!” (emphasis mine)
why are we even having to respond to attempted licensing, background checking, restricting.... all sorts of krapo that is patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL entoto!?
The 9th circus decided that? Wow.
It WAS a divided opinion....
The most liberal federal circuit in the country.
I think they too are becoming alarmed at the dictatorial actions of the nutcase in the WH. Let’s hope so!
Agreed. We musn’t forget that they don’t have the right to infringe as much as they already do.
So the state and local governments have to tolerate open carry or freely grant concealed carry permits. I predict cognitive dissonance, brain freeze and payment of lots of 42 USC 1983 attorney fees.
I am shocked that California did something right for a change, meanwhile, on twitter, Piers Morgan(Who has armed guards protecting his Beverly Hills Mansion) is freaking out LOL..love it when Commie loons have a meltdown
yes ...they don’t have any right to infringe at ALL
Overall, yes. But federal appeals courts sit in randomly-drawn 3-judge panels, and the panel here included two conservative judges. (There are some on the 9th Circuit; they're just outnumbered.) There will probably be a motion for rehearing en banc, and I'll bet it gets granted. (In most circuit courts, that means rehearing by all of the judges on the Circuit, but the 9th Circuit is so big that an en banc rehearing is before 11 randomly-selected judges.)
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed gun rights advocates a major victory today by invalidating San Diego, Californias requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued to those gun owners who have a good cause to carry a concealed gun in public. According to local officials, ones personal safety is not considered good cause.
We have the same bs up in Northern California. Due to the increases and constant threat of criminal attacks in many of my fly fishing areas, I don’t go to those places any more.
Then come two more problems:
1. C&C permits are only granted for the county you live in. I seldom fish, hike or kayak in remote parts of my county. So if I ever got a permit, it would only be valid in my county not in the many other areas I would like fly fish, hike or kayak in.
2. Here in my county, even without a traffic violation, I can’t get a C&C permit for my personal safety, my wife’s or any grand kid with me.
It has been suggested that I get a waterproof pistol and carry it in plain sight when, I fly fish, hike, kayak or even drive in some areas.
I’m sure they were “mistaken,” from their viewpoint.
Do criminals need a good cause statement to conceal carry?
Yes, but it is the liberal opinions that are over-turned, not the conservative.
And this Supreme Court has been surprisingly OK on 2nd Amendment.
3 judge panel. An en banc panel might be next.
There are still draconian “may issue” states out there?
I wonder how many years this case has been moving through the judicial system?
I’m about half way through the ruling. This opens up a very interesting avenue to achieve a sort of backdoor Constitutional carry; if the state must allow either concealed carry OR open carry and it elects a preference for concealed carry, as CA has, then it could be argued that gun permits must be issued free of charge to the indigent.
“There are still draconian may issue states out there?”
Yes. Several. NY, HI, CA, NY, MD, NJ, MA to name some of the guilty states. I’d add TX because of the very high cost of their permit.
But California state & local governments will fight everything to the end. We just now know how it will end on open carry. That's not something local governments can restrict - only the state government can.
As was mentioned above this is a divided opinion by 3 judge panel. Judges ina favor of right to bear arms were: O’Scannlain - Reagan apppointee and Callahan - G.W.B appointee, dissenting judge was Thomas - Clinton appointee. That pretty much explains the ruling.
You sure about that? I have a friend with a concealed carry permit (He lives north of Guernville) and he told me it's good for the entire state of California. I did a search on the Internet and found nothing on point.
CA ccw permits are valid anywhere in the state, subject to some restrictions, court houses, state gov offices and so forth. CCW holders can even carry in a school. Check the California Rifle and Pistol Association web site.
Oh cynical me; a few weeks ago a CCW holder from Florida drove his car up the east cost going through a state where a highway patrolman pulled him over for no apparent reason. The officer obviously checked the Florida CCW registry and saw the man held a permit to carry. This cop asked the man if he had any firearms in his car, which the man answered no. The cop then told him to exit the car and as another patrol unit arrived on scene, the cops starting searching the mans car looking for firearms. The man fortunately left his pistol at home, otherwise he would have been arrested by these cops and would have had his firearm confiscated.
I don't believe for a minute that I am alone when I say I am very distrusting of cops, judges and politicians so I proceed accordingly.
9th Circus rules in favor of the individual right to bear arms? Pigs are flying, people. Look up.
>> 9th circuit actually got one right?
Not sure this is the first time.
Even the Ninth Circuit knows that the Second Amendment deserves as much respect as the rest of the Bill of Rights. Definitely a pleasant surprise.
According to usacarry.com, the permit allows you carry throughout the state. The picture of the CA license seems to bear this out:
And just as the queers are saying that other states have to recognize sodomite marriage, it seems to me that there has to be reciprocity when it comes to carry “licenses”.
Good grief; that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
“Good Cause” req. always forgets that a person rarely knows, specifically, when they will need a gun and hence, have “good cause.”
I understood CCW issued in any county to be valid in all counties.
The only problem is defining counties who have settled on policy:
Siskyou is a shall issue and they have to look for a reason not to give you CCW, which is valid in all counties.
Santa Clara County is a “May Issue” and Laurie is a political gal. She just won’t issue them.
Thanks for the info!
Very good news. Now the idjits in Sacramento will think of something new to keep people from having guns.
Thanks for the clarification.
When my repaired foot gets its final okay, I may take up this issue again.
“Oh cynical me; a few weeks ago a CCW holder from Florida drove his car up the east cost going through a state where a highway patrolman pulled him over for no apparent reason. The officer obviously checked the Florida CCW registry and saw the man held a permit to carry. This cop asked the man if he had any firearms in his car, which the man answered no. The cop then told him to exit the car and as another patrol unit arrived on scene, the cops starting searching the mans car looking for firearms. The man fortunately left his pistol at home, otherwise he would have been arrested by these cops and would have had his firearm confiscated.”
What state did this?
Because of Presumption.
Look up my “One Stone, Two Powers.”
What the hell does fly fishing, hiking or kayaking have to do with the right to carry a firearm?
This is from the 9th Circuit???
Knock me down with a feather.
This is different from the source I found it on but it is the same incident. The one I read had a bit more detail.
IIRC, NJ or MD or possibly both are the worst offenders. May issue by law, but “no issue” by practice, unless you are a retired cop, know someone, etc.