Posted on 04/27/2014 11:19:16 AM PDT by Theoria
Pete Alexander celebrated the news that a federal court in California had thrown out this state’s strict requirements for obtaining a concealed-handgun permit — among the toughest in the nation — by calling the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to apply for a permit he had long wanted.
“I’m a gun enthusiast,” said Mr. Alexander, a construction contractor who lives in Fullerton. “Crime is encroaching on our neighborhood, and I don’t feel as safe as I used to. This is adding to the police force.”
Mr. Alexander turned out to be the beginning of a flood. In the two months since the court sided with a group of gun owners and found California’s law on concealed-weapons permits unconstitutional, nearly 4,000 residents in this county of 3.1 million people have applied for one, eight times the number usually logged in a year. While no permit is required to own a gun, California residents must obtain one to carry a concealed weapon outside their home or business.
The surge in Orange County and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other counties stunned law enforcement officials and offered a striking demonstration of the frustration of California gun owners. It also showed the complicated politics of weapon regulation in a state with a large and ever-expanding catalog of gun control legislation.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, one of the most liberal appeals courts in the nation, sets up a potential battle over gun control before the Supreme Court. If the full Ninth Circuit court upholds the panel’s decision — which is hardly a foregone conclusion — the Supreme Court is likely to take the case, to reconcile the conflicting decisions of different circuit courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Criminals have been carrying concealed weapons for years. It’s only fair to also allow law abiding citizens to do the same.
The linked story includes this : “Martin J. Mayer, the counsel to the California Police Chiefs Association, which also appealed the decision, said, “We all know a proliferation of weapons will increase the potential of them being used, whether you are talking about a domestic violence dispute, a road rage situation or a barroom brawl.”
OK, twenty years ago, before CCW permits were “shall issue” in a majority of states, this was at least a respectable line of argument, or at least a testable hypothesis. Now, we don’t have to speculate, since we’ve got crime data going back to the mid 90’s when the “shall issue’ movement started to grow.
There is no longer room for disagreement on the facts: shall issue CCW laws do not lead to more “road rage” shootings, shootings following a bar room brawl, or any such thing. All that’s left to dispute is to what degree, and for which crimes, does shall issue reduce crime.
Anyone who continues to use this long-discredited trope of the “wild west” should be publicly mocked and shamed. They do not deserve the courtesy of a reasoned argument.
Thanks Theoria.
Cops don’t like citizens being “equals.”
BTW, the Lawyers for Peruta v. San Diego have filed a brief saying that while the State Attorney General really doesn’t have “standing” to request an en banc 9th Circuit review, they won’t object to it. But they additionally claim that both the Brady Campaign and the CPCA and the COPA don’t have any standing and have asked the court to disallow their claims for an en banc.
The usual sniffish, condescending - and irrelevant - crap we’ve come to expect from the NYT.
Molon Labe!
If I lived in Fullerton I would be wary of the police as much as the thugs.
roadmap to future confiscation
“Its the WILD WEST! Its the WILD WEST!”
If you get a CCW, they let you shoot dogs?
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.