Federal Court Just Dealt a Major Blow to Anti-Gun Advocates in California

[dcselby1]

This will put the lib's knickers in a twist![h=1][/h][h=1] Link Removed
[/h]

 

[BluesStringer]

This ruling is as remarkable for the court that made the ruling as for the state it ruled against. The 9th Circuit is as liberal as any court in the nation. It also happens to be the most often overturned court of the 12 circuit courts in the system. Don't know how well that bodes for this ruling, but it's true in any case.

Having not read the ruling yet, and going only by what I read at the Blaze (OP link), I have to say I agree with the justices' rationale. For some reason, I feel kinda funky having just said that. Gotta go take a shower now....

Congrats CA. Hope the 9th's batting average for being overturned doesn't continue for y'all.

Blues

 

[gunnerbob]

Another link...

Second Amendment Victory: Liberal Court Rules Unconstitutional For Government to Restrict Concealed Carry Permits Based on "Need" - Katie Pavlich

I hope the ruling stands and provides precedent that will help return us to firearms carry as it was intended.

 

[RobbK]

I would not get my hope to high this is California after all and they hate Mom apple pie and moms there .

 

[2dogs1name]

GREAT NEWS...I know we have a long way to go, but hell...even Illinois has a "Shall issue" now!

 

[coachdb18]

Losing their precious gun banning laws AND watching every gun supplier and manufacturer leave that hadn't already done so, you'd think they'd see the handwriting on the wall, if not in John Hancock's signature.

 

[S&W645]

Another story. Link Removed

 

[S&W645]

This ruling is as remarkable for the court that made the ruling as for the state it ruled against. The 9th Circuit is as liberal as any court in the nation. It also happens to be the most often overturned court of the 12 circuit courts in the system. Don't know how well that bodes for this ruling, but it's true in any case.

Having not read the ruling yet, and going only by what I read at the Blaze (OP link), I have to say I agree with the justices' rationale. For some reason, I feel kinda funky having just said that. Gotta go take a shower now....

Congrats CA. Hope the 9th's batting average for being overturned doesn't continue for y'all.

Blues

If you want the ruling, it is at Link Removed

 

[Rhino]

This ruling is as remarkable for the court that made the ruling as for the state it ruled against. The 9th Circuit is as liberal as any court in the nation. It also happens to be the most often overturned court of the 12 circuit courts in the system.......

It wasn't the full court. It was a 2-1 decision. The ruling:

Link Removed

 

[Rhino]

This is rich. They used Ruth Ginsburg's definition of 'bearing arms' from Muscarello v. United States to show that the 2nd amendment includes carrying a gun. And she didn't say that was an interpreted meaning. She said it was the “natural meaning of ‘bear arms,’” I bet Ginsburg will hate that.

So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self defense,though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

This is interesting:

To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. Historically, the preferred form of carry has depended upon social convention: concealed carry was frowned upon because it was seen as“evil practice”that endangered “the safety of the people”and “public morals” by“exert[ing]an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the wearer [and]making him less regardful of the personal security of others.”Reid, 1 Ala. at 616–17. States thus often passed laws banning concealed carry and state courts often allowed prohibitions on concealed carry so long as open carry was still permitted.Id.; see also Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251(“o far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, th[en] it is valid. . . . But [to the extent it]contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.”).

I find this VERY interesting:

We are unpersuaded by the decisions of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits for several reasons. First, contrary to the approach in Heller, all three courts declined to undertake a complete historical analysis of the scope and nature of the Second Amendment right outside the home....As aresult, they misapprehend both the nature of the Second Amendment right and the implications of state laws that prevent the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense purposes....

...Because the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits eschewed history and tradition in their analysis of the constitutionality of these regulations, despite the Supreme Court’s admonition that “the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification” is a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation,” we find their approaches unpersuasive. See Heller,554 U.S. at 605. Our independent analysis of history and tradition leads us to take a different course....

...All three courts referenced, and ultimately relied upon, the state lgislatures’ determinations weighing the government’s interest in public safety against an individual’s interest in his Second Amendment right to bear arms. See Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 100 (deferring to the state legislature’s determination “that limiting handgun possession to persons who have an articulable basis for believing they will need the weapon for self-defense is in the best interest of public safety and outweighs the need to have a handgun fo ran unexpected confrontation” (emphasis added))....As we previously explained, such an approach ignores the Heller court’s admonition that “the very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government . . . the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 634; see also Drake, 724 F.3d at 457 (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (recognizing that the Hellercourt “rejected this sort of balancing inquiry as inconsistent with the very idea of constitutional rights”).

A court that recognizes inalienable rights, and the 9th Circuit no less. Who'da thunk?

We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.. . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.”

Wow. Really, really, REALLY finding it hard to believe this came out of the 9th. Except maybe for the "police forces provide personal security" comment. Since when do cops provide personal security?

 

[BluesStringer]

It wasn't the full court. It was a 2-1 decision.

So?

 

[Rhino]

So?

Might have gotten more of the liberal justices had it been the full court. Can't tell for sure. I don't know the political leanings of the individual justices on that court. I just know that some surprising decisions have come out of the 9th before when the entire court wasn't ruling, and people familiar with the court said it was due to the particular justices who were sitting at the time, so I'm surmising that may be the case here as well.

 

[NavyLCDR]

A while back there were threads that vilified the California open carry groups for their "activism" that was blamed for California banning unloaded open carry. The thoughts expressed were "Don't exercise that right, because if you do, the government will ban it" and "just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should."

If California had not banned unloaded open carry without a license, then the first question the court would have had to answer would have been is unloaded open carry sufficient for the purpose of "bearing arms" under the Second Amendment. I am willing to wager they would have found it sufficient and we would have had a different outcome in this case. However, the ban on unloaded open carry removed that option, "Under California law, open carry is prohibited in San Diego County regardless of whether the weapon is loaded or unloaded. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 25850, 26350. Because California law has no permitting provision for open carry, cf. id. §§ 26150, 26155 (providing licensing only for concealed carry), it is illegal in virtually all circumstances." I commented then that it is better that the government be forced to play it's hand and enact a real ban because only a real ban can be fought in court - not just a perceived threat of government action.

So to those members who were all hot and bothered over the California open carry "activism" and said those "activists" should just have caved in to the government pressure:

 

[nogods]

This a good decision for promoting 2A rights.

What I find curious though is that many of the posts and headlines about the case (like this thread) are focused and cheering more about the "loss" to the gun control interests rather than the win for 2A rights.

Did the Seattle papers have headline proclaiming "Bronco's loss Supper Bowl"?

 

[gunnerbob]

This a good decision for promoting 2A rights.

What I find curious though is that many of the posts and headlines about the case (like this thread) are focused and cheering more about the "loss" to the gun control interests rather than the win for 2A rights.

Did the Seattle papers have headline proclaiming "Bronco's loss Supper Bowl"?

Yeah, so what? Stop being argumentative and/or all other means of provocateur... Why shouldn't we be happy (and express it) that those who wish to limit and/or ban our Right to carry/own firearms freely lost a legal fight?

Lawyers... geesh!

 

[BluesStringer]

This a good decision for promoting 2A rights.

What I find curious though is that many of the posts and headlines about the case (like this thread) are focused and cheering more about the "loss" to the gun control interests rather than the win for 2A rights.

Did the Seattle papers have headline proclaiming "Bronco's loss Supper Bowl"?

Hint: No one in CA (or almost anywhere else in the country) is fighting over any semblance of rights as contemplated by the writers and ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment. They (we) are only scratching and clawing to hang onto the privileges that government deems allowable under some doctrine of authority that doesn't exist in writing in any of our founding documents.

Blues

 

[nogods]

Yeah, so what? Stop be argumentative and/or all other means of provocateur... Why shouldn't we be happy (and express it) that those who wish to limit and/or ban our Right to carry/own firearms freely lost a legal fight?

Lawyers... geesh!

It makes the 2A community look like a bunch of adolescents who are more interested in beating the other side than promoting their interests.

When the great majority in the middle are needed to overcome the other side, they'll probably decide against joining the adolescents.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

more interested in beating the other side than promoting their interests.

Link Removed

Oh yeah!


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by gunnerbob View Post
Yeah, so what? Stop be argumentative and/or all other means of provocateur... Why shouldn't we be happy (and express it) that those who wish to limit and/or ban our Right to carry/own firearms freely lost a legal fight?

Lawyers... geesh!

It makes the 2A community look like a bunch of adolescents who are more interested in beating the other side than promoting their interests.

When the great majority in the middle are needed to overcome the other side, they'll probably decide against joining the adolescents.

How does one take care of a bully in school? You, and maybe a friend or two, take the bully off in the corner and kick his ass and then tell everyone the bully isn't so tough after all.... encouraging others to also kick that bully's ass, and maybe even laugh at him, until the bully slinks off and leaves everyone alone.

In this case the anti gun bully got his ass kicked in a legal battle and folks are telling all and sundry that the anti gun bully isn't so tough after all... and that can encourage other folks (who have been afraid to do anything because they are scared they will lose the right to bear arms if they actually dare to... bear arms) to join the fight against the anti gun bully.

One other thing.... in a fight the winner isn't the one who stands aloof and tries to wear a mantle of moral superiority... the winner is the one who gets in and fights against the enemies tooth and claw with tooth and claw of their own being just a little more viscous, a little more ruthless, and a little more tenacious than the enemy.

 

[Warbirds]

A while back there were threads that vilified the California open carry groups for their "activism" that was blamed for California banning unloaded open carry. The thoughts expressed were "Don't exercise that right, because if you do, the government will ban it" and "just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should."

If California had not banned unloaded open carry without a license, then the first question the court would have had to answer would have been is unloaded open carry sufficient for the purpose of "bearing arms" under the Second Amendment. I am willing to wager they would have found it sufficient and we would have had a different outcome in this case. However, the ban on unloaded open carry removed that option, "Under California law, open carry is prohibited in San Diego County regardless of whether the weapon is loaded or unloaded. See Cal. Penal Code §§ 25850, 26350. Because California law has no permitting provision for open carry, cf. id. §§ 26150, 26155 (providing licensing only for concealed carry), it is illegal in virtually all circumstances." I commented then that it is better that the government be forced to play it's hand and enact a real ban because only a real ban can be fought in court - not just a perceived threat of government action.

So to those members who were all hot and bothered over the California open carry "activism" and said those "activists" should just have caved in to the government pressure:

That was a hell of a roll of the dice. Even with all the history they used in their decision and quoting there other courts opinions and the rational given of no open carry, there was still a dissenting vote.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk