9th Circus Court of Appeals strikes down Calif restrictive gun law

[Little-Acorn]

Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

The 9th Circuit Court (the most overturned court in the country) actually got one right. They ruled that California can't require people demonstrate a "good cause" for carrying a handgun, but must be allowed to carry as long as they are law-abiding, etc.

Another small step in the right direction.

Link to PDF of the decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

------------------------------------------------------

Ninth Circuit strikes California?s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns

Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns

By David Kopel
February 13 at 1:17 pm

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

 

[thereisnospoon]

Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

The 9th Circuit Court (the most overturned court in the country) actually got one right. They ruled that California can't require people demonstrate a "good cause" for carrying a handgun, but must be allowed to carry as long as they are law-abiding, etc.

Another small step in the right direction.

------------------------------------------------------

Ninth Circuit strikes California?s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns

Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns

By David Kopel
February 13 at 1:17 pm

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

Not only does it violate the 2nd, it also brings in the 14th which has the 'equal protection' clause.
That means the law must apply to everyone. This one clearly does not.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The gun-rights-haters are going to have to be dragged into the light one at a time, kicking and screaming as they always do when prevented from cracking down on law-abiding citizens, and told explicity in case after case that their fondest plans for eliminating guns are not going to be allowed any more, and will be declared illegal every time they try.

Expecting them to simply concede, and to obey the law (particularly the 2nd amendment), isn't on their schedule, and never will be. So it will have to be rammed down their throats. By their own choice.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, that was a long read. But well worth it. I wonder if this will be appealed to the SCOTUS. If it is, I'll be quite glad when they uphold.