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, California’s 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, “one’s 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 government’s 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 Amendment’s 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...
but... still...
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....
Incredible.
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, California’s 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, “one’s 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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.