Posted on 11/12/2014 12:59:34 PM PST by petro45acp
Law-abiding Californians may not need to justify their need to carry concealed weapons, after the same three-judge panel that struck down restrictions on the permits earlier this year ruled Wednesday that it is too late for new opponents to join the fight against the ruling. The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would bar other law enforcement officials, including state Attorney General Kamala Harris, from appealing its ruling in a case originally brought by an independent journalist who sued the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department over its policy of requiring a specific reason for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public. San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore has said he will not fight the ruling, meaning there is no one with standing left to challenge the decision made in February. “Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature’s responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality,” Gore wrote in a letter to the county board of supervisors earlier this year, in which he said the court’s decision gave him clarity on the issuance of licenses. “Law enforcement’s role is to uphold and enforce the law.” Edward Peruta sued Gore’s department over its policy of requiring a specific reason for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public, restrictions other counties around the state also had in place. In its bombshell ruling earlier this year, the 9th Circuit found those policies to be unconstitutional and held that law-abiding citizens have a right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment and could not be required to justify their reasons for carrying concealed weapons.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Be still my heart!
LOL!
Next, need to allow any US citizen to carry while visiting California, DC, or any other state.
Free men don’t ask permission. Our support of CCW laws only further denigrates the 2nd Amendment. It doesn’t say, “Shall not be infringed, as long as you have a permit” or “Shall not be infringed, as long as you have a background check” it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
When the 9th Circuit eliminates gun control, you know the fat lady is done singing and the debate is OVER.
Wow. Good for the 9th Circuit.
So, apparently 9th circuit is saying that “may issue” is unconstitutional (which it of course is). This means CA is now a “shall issue” state. It also means the supreme court should pick this up since the 9th conflicts with some back East circuit courts on this point.
“Law enforcement’s role is to uphold and enforce the law.”
Eric Holder would disagree.
It also means Bloomberg will be making his “grumpy face” which makes it a good day for me.
Somthing wrong here. They setting a trap or something? Maybe theywill weigh in on I594 when it gets held up.
...and that’ll be a good thing.
Blind hog, nut.
:^)
The original ruling was by a three judge panel, not the whole court. Also, though the San Diego sheriff has dropped his appeal, the Yolo County sheriff hasn’t. So a basically identical case is going before the whole 9th, which could overturn it. Don’t break out the champagne yet.
Strangest thing, over the last three years or so the 9th Circuit Court has actually come up with some rather decent rulings. Don’t think they’re done uncorking some massive mistakes, but at least we’re winning some here and there now.
That was not the case for decades.
Can this still request this go en bank?
They ruled a few years ago that home-made machine guns were outside the feds reach. The case was “Reynolds.” SCOTUS stepped in and told the 9th Circuit to apply Raich (all pot is commerce clause pot), which resulting in the law being upheld.
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.