Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As I noted earlier, todays Ninth Circuit decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014), concludes that Californias broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. Ive now finished reading the opinions, and had a few general thoughts.
1. California law essentially leaves most law-abiding adults without the ability to carry guns in public for effective self-defense, period. People are barred from carrying guns either openly or concealed. It is this broad policy that the majority holds unconstitutional.
In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court strongly suggested that (1) the right to bear arms means the right to carry them, but that (2) bans on concealed carry are constitutional:
I was somehow under the impression that Illinois was the last state that for the most part did not allow open nor concealed carry.But a broad ban on all gun carrying in public, the court held, violates the Second Amendment.
I was somehow under the impression that Illinois was the last state that for the most part did not allow open nor concealed carry.But a broad ban on all gun carrying in public, the court held, violates the Second Amendment.
I guess there are still states out there that violate the Second Amendment.
I was somehow under the impression that Illinois was the last state that for the most part did not allow open nor concealed carry.But a broad ban on all gun carrying in public, the court held, violates the Second Amendment.
I guess there are still states out there that violate the Second Amendment.
I was somehow under the impression that Illinois was the last state that for the most part did not allow open nor concealed carry.But a broad ban on all gun carrying in public, the court held, violates the Second Amendment.
I guess there are still states out there that violate the Second Amendment.
Yeah, both are "may issue" states, meaning it is very hard to get a CCW permit.I was somehow under the impression that Illinois was the last state that for the most part did not allow open nor concealed carry.But a broad ban on all gun carrying in public, the court held, violates the Second Amendment.
I guess there are still states out there that violate the Second Amendment.
NY and NJ
I was somehow under the impression that Illinois was the last state that for the most part did not allow open nor concealed carry.But a broad ban on all gun carrying in public, the court held, violates the Second Amendment.
I guess there are still states out there that violate the Second Amendment.
Illinois was the last state that didn't permit carry for anyone. They didn't even appeal the decision that overturned that law, which shows how far this has come.
I was somehow under the impression that Illinois was the last state that for the most part did not allow open nor concealed carry.
I guess there are still states out there that violate the Second Amendment.
Illinois was the last state that didn't permit carry for anyone. They didn't even appeal the decision that overturned that law, which shows how far this has come.
Illinois appears to have implemented a "shall issue" law. After passing a 16 hour training course, CCW permits are generally granted. The exception being when an applicant appears to be unstable, a danger to himself or others or a threat to public safety.
I believe Chicago is included since it is a part of Cook County, and CCW permits will be granted in Cook County.Illinois was the last state that didn't permit carry for anyone. They didn't even appeal the decision that overturned that law, which shows how far this has come.
Illinois appears to have implemented a "shall issue" law. After passing a 16 hour training course, CCW permits are generally granted. The exception being when an applicant appears to be unstable, a danger to himself or others or a threat to public safety.
How about in Chitown?
If the Supreme Court upholds this finding will it affect the whole USA or just the 9th District?
And doesn't this decision now govern the entire 9th District until the Supreme Court overturns it?
If the Supreme Court upholds this finding will it affect the whole USA or just the 9th District?
If the Supreme Court were to issue an essentially equivalent ruling, the precedent would apply to the entire country. It would not, however, instantly invalidate any particular laws of other states or localities that might be believed to be contrary to the precedent.
And doesn't this decision now govern the entire 9th District until the Supreme Court overturns it?
The precedent applies to the entire 9th circuit.
Can't find anywhere in the constitution where it says the right to bear arms is at the discretion of the government.
If the Supreme Court upholds this finding will it affect the whole USA or just the 9th District?
If the Supreme Court were to issue an essentially equivalent ruling, the precedent would apply to the entire country. It would not, however, instantly invalidate any particular laws of other states or localities that might be believed to be contrary to the precedent.
And doesn't this decision now govern the entire 9th District until the Supreme Court overturns it?
The precedent applies to the entire 9th circuit.
If the Supreme Court upholds this ruling wouldn't states that have restrictive May Issue laws have to adjust their laws accordingly?
Doesn't make sense that Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, DC, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, would have to have equivalent lawsuits in each state for their laws to be changed.
Yeah, both are "may issue" states, meaning it is very hard to get a CCW permit.I was somehow under the impression that Illinois was the last state that for the most part did not allow open nor concealed carry.
I guess there are still states out there that violate the Second Amendment.
NY and NJ
The 9th Circuit just shot down California's scheme to keep people from being able to defend themselves in public.
As I noted earlier, todays Ninth Circuit decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014), concludes that Californias broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. Ive now finished reading the opinions, and had a few general thoughts.
1. California law essentially leaves most law-abiding adults without the ability to carry guns in public for effective self-defense, period. People are barred from carrying guns either openly or concealed. It is this broad policy that the majority holds unconstitutional.
In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court strongly suggested that (1) the right to bear arms means the right to carry them, but that (2) bans on concealed carry are constitutional:
More on the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit?s right-to-carry-a-gun opinion
Shall/May confuses me in the early morning hours. 
