Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm sure this will have no impact whatsoever on the pending SCOTUS confirmation and POTUS elections...

A federal appeals court in California ruled today that local authorities have the right to require people to obtain permits before carrying concealed weapons in public.

In a 7-4 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not include carrying a concealed gun. The ruling upholds a California handgun permit law, one of the toughest in the country. The opinion is binding only in the Western states covered by the 9th Circuit.

The decision reverses a 2014 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit which found California's handgun control law unconstitutional.

Judge William Fletcher wrote for the full-court majority:

"The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of 'good cause,' however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment."

The case involves gun owners in two California counties – San Diego and Yolo – who were denied permits to carry concealed weapons. Under state law, applicants have to show good moral character, have a good cause and take a training course.

At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of "good cause."

AS NPR's Kirk Siegler reported for NPR's Newscast Unit:

"Basically applicants for a concealed-carry weapons permit in San Diego County had to demonstrate that they were in some sort of immediate danger — they were, say, carrying a large sum of money, or their life was clearly at risk. In other words, they couldn't just get a concealed-carry permit on the basis of self-defense alone."

Gun rights groups challenged California's handgun law as an infringement of the Second Amendment. Agreeing with them in a dissent was Judge Consuelo Callahan:

"The Second Amendment is not a 'second-class' constitutional guarantee .... the majority fails to recognize the real impact of the counties' policies on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms."

Just getting in early with a general warning, for what it's worth.

Remember rule 1 applies here in the OT as well

Presidential race sideshow aside, the appeals process on this I'm sure will have it's own interesting political circus.

Also, makes me glad I'm no longer in CA, even if I'm still in the 9th circuit

Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.

A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.

Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.

Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.

If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

This is all I needed to see in the title.



The 9th Circuit is infamous for ruling more based on leftist ideology, and less on what is actually Constitutional or not.


The 9th Circuit is a joke that Congress should have abolished ages ago.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

This is all I needed to see in the title.



The 9th Circuit is infamous for ruling more based on leftist ideology, and less on what is actually Constitutional or not.


The 9th Circuit is a joke that Congress should have abolished ages ago.

You ever think that maybe they believe their rulings are Constitutional?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

This is all I needed to see in the title.



The 9th Circuit is infamous for ruling more based on leftist ideology, and less on what is actually Constitutional or not.


The 9th Circuit is a joke that Congress should have abolished ages ago.

You ever think that maybe they believe their rulings are Constitutional?

The 9th Circuit? Not a chance in hell.


And if by some slim chance that they do, they need to go back to law school.

 whembly wrote:
Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.

A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.

Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.

Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.

If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.

Doesn't matter if it's shall issue or may issue because either way once we agree that you need the permit at all the right is regulated and infringed to an extent. Concealed Carry Permits are required in all 50 states because that level of regulation, needing a permit to carry concealed where it's permissible is a level of regulation that doesn't qualify as an unconstitutional infringement as evidenced by judicial acceptance of the permitting process.

As long as the state doesn't exercise unconstitutional infringement on the ownership of firearms the requirement of a permit to carry concealed is constitutional. I don't need a govt issued permit to own a gun I just need the permit to carry it concealed.

I can't believe that a Circuit Court that has made no constitutional rulings is somehow still open. You think that the SCOTUS constantly over-ruling them on every single case would make somebody act on that kind of thing.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.

A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.

Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.

Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.

If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.

Doesn't matter if it's shall issue or may issue because either way once we agree that you need the permit at all the right is regulated and infringed to an extent. Concealed Carry Permits are required in all 50 states because that level of regulation, needing a permit to carry concealed where it's permissible is a level of regulation that doesn't qualify as an unconstitutional infringement as evidenced by judicial acceptance of the permitting process.

As long as the state doesn't exercise unconstitutional infringement on the ownership of firearms the requirement of a permit to carry concealed is constitutional. I don't need a govt issued permit to own a gun I just need the permit to carry it concealed.

Vermont and Alaska do not require permits for law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon where allowed by law.

So how long before the appeal?

The issue here isn't the constitutionality of the existence of concealed carry permits the issue is that some counties in CA have sherries that circumvent the process. CA state law says you can get a carry permit if you follow the application process with your county sheriffs. Plaintiffs in 2 CA counties filed suit because their sherrifs were denying permits on specious grounds and essentially negating the ability for county residents to get permits. State law doesn't define what constitutes "good cause" for applying for a carry permit so sherrifs are denying upstanding law abiding citizens from getting permits based on subjective arbitrary definitions of "good cause" which is bad practice. The CA legislature needs to clarify the law otherwise state residents will continue to see inconsistent enforcement of the law with residents getting permits in one county that wouldn't be granted permits on other counties. A state resident shouldn't lose his/her legally obtained permit just by moving to a different county with a sherrif who has a diametrically opposed interpretation of the same permit law that a resident's previous sherrif.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.

A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.

Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.

Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.

If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.

Doesn't matter if it's shall issue or may issue because either way once we agree that you need the permit at all the right is regulated and infringed to an extent. Concealed Carry Permits are required in all 50 states because that level of regulation, needing a permit to carry concealed where it's permissible is a level of regulation that doesn't qualify as an unconstitutional infringement as evidenced by judicial acceptance of the permitting process.

As long as the state doesn't exercise unconstitutional infringement on the ownership of firearms the requirement of a permit to carry concealed is constitutional. I don't need a govt issued permit to own a gun I just need the permit to carry it concealed.

Vermont and Alaska do not require permits for law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon where allowed by law.

Alaska is special since they don't require permits but still issue permits so that residents can get reciprocity with other states.

 whembly wrote:
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason

I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.

Prestor Jon wrote:The issue here isn't the constitutionality of the existence of concealed carry permits the issue is that some counties in CA have sherries that circumvent the process. CA state law says you can get a carry permit if you follow the application process with your county sheriffs. Plaintiffs in 2 CA counties filed suit because their sherrifs were denying permits on specious grounds and essentially negating the ability for county residents to get permits. State law doesn't define what constitutes "good cause" for applying for a carry permit so sherrifs are denying upstanding law abiding citizens from getting permits based on subjective arbitrary definitions of "good cause" which is bad practice. The CA legislature needs to clarify the law otherwise state residents will continue to see inconsistent enforcement of the law with residents getting permits in one county that wouldn't be granted permits on other counties. A state resident shouldn't lose his/her legally obtained permit just by moving to a different county with a sherrif who has a diametrically opposed interpretation of the same permit law that a resident's previous sherrif.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Age old "may" issue vs. "shall" issue CCW license.

A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason.

Such that, the applicant must convince the state/city authority of this need.

Folks cheering this on need to realize the dangerous slippery slope.

If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.

Doesn't matter if it's shall issue or may issue because either way once we agree that you need the permit at all the right is regulated and infringed to an extent. Concealed Carry Permits are required in all 50 states because that level of regulation, needing a permit to carry concealed where it's permissible is a level of regulation that doesn't qualify as an unconstitutional infringement as evidenced by judicial acceptance of the permitting process.

As long as the state doesn't exercise unconstitutional infringement on the ownership of firearms the requirement of a permit to carry concealed is constitutional. I don't need a govt issued permit to own a gun I just need the permit to carry it concealed.

Vermont and Alaska do not require permits for law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weapon where allowed by law.

Alaska is special since they don't require permits but still issue permits so that residents can get reciprocity with other states.

The point was that Alaska doesn't REQUIRE residents to have a CCW to carry a concealed weapon. I'm aware of the reciprocity issue with Alaska, and the option to get a permit because of it.


And with California being a "needs based" State when it comes to CCW, this kind of crap is SOP.

Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason

I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.

You must have missed the part about "Keep and BEAR ARMS".


Carrying a concealed weapon for personal defense is "Bearing Arms".

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason

I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's the “good cause” provision in that CA which effectively allows certain jurisdictions to get rid of CCW altogether.

To me, this ruling fails the Strict Scrutiny doctrine.

If the CA legislature updates what it meant by "good cause"... then, it'll probably pass strict scrutiny.

Leaving aside the legal/political debate, am I the only one amused by the use of the phrase "concealed weapon in public"? Sounds like a contradiction in terms.

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason

I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.

...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's the “good cause” provision in that CA which effectively allows certain jurisdictions to get rid of CCW altogether.

To me, this ruling fails the Strict Scrutiny doctrine.

If the CA legislature updates what it meant by "good cause"... then, it'll probably pass strict scrutiny.

And you trust a government which considers reasonable scrutiny to effectively the same as spying on every single citizen at all hours of the day?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucRWyGKBVzo

Open carry of handguns is also illegal in most of CA*, and many of the counties, although technically "may issue," for CCW, are de facto "no issue" for the average law abiding citizen. If a law abiding citizen can't open carry and also can't concealed carry, how are they supposed to bear arms? I think it would be pretty difficult to seriously argue that someone who is not permitted to carry openly or concealed is not having their right to bear arms infringed.





*According to Wikipedia, it seems that "long guns may be carried in unincorporated rural areas where open carry is permitted by local ordinance. In a county with a population of less than 200,000 residents, a permit to carry a handgun 'loaded and exposed' may be issued by the county sheriff." So in the vast majority of cases, this isn't something that applies to the average law abiding CA citizen.

 Hordini wrote:
Open carry of handguns is also illegal in most of CA*, and many of the counties, although technically "may issue," for CCW, are de facto "no issue" for the average law abiding citizen. If a law abiding citizen can't open carry and also can't concealed carry, how are they supposed to bear arms? I think it would be pretty difficult to seriously argue that someone who is not permitted to carry openly or concealed is not having their right to bear arms infringed.





*According to Wikipedia, it seems that "long guns may be carried in unincorporated rural areas where open carry is permitted by local ordinance. In a county with a population of less than 200,000 residents, a permit to carry a handgun 'loaded and exposed' may be issued by the county sheriff." So in the vast majority of cases, this isn't something that applies to the average law abiding CA citizen.

One thing you missed about California....Celebrities, judges, sports figures, and politicians have no problem with getting a carry permit. Just ask Diane Feinstein, Steven Tyler, and Robert DeNiro (just to name a few),.

 Ahtman wrote:
, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.

Yeah, but since judge Scalia is gone, do we really believe that the court is going to rule in favor of anything pro-firearms?

Randomrolls wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.

Yeah, but since judge Scalia is gone, do we really believe that the court is going to rule in favor of anything pro-firearms?

The Court is going to rule in favor of anything pro-Constitution.

And it is up to the voters to decide what their interpretation of Constitution is so that the Court accurately reflects the population.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Open carry of handguns is also illegal in most of CA*, and many of the counties, although technically "may issue," for CCW, are de facto "no issue" for the average law abiding citizen. If a law abiding citizen can't open carry and also can't concealed carry, how are they supposed to bear arms? I think it would be pretty difficult to seriously argue that someone who is not permitted to carry openly or concealed is not having their right to bear arms infringed.





*According to Wikipedia, it seems that "long guns may be carried in unincorporated rural areas where open carry is permitted by local ordinance. In a county with a population of less than 200,000 residents, a permit to carry a handgun 'loaded and exposed' may be issued by the county sheriff." So in the vast majority of cases, this isn't something that applies to the average law abiding CA citizen.

One thing you missed about California....Celebrities, judges, sports figures, and politicians have no problem with getting a carry permit. Just ask Diane Feinstein, Steven Tyler, and Robert DeNiro (just to name a few),.

Yes. That's also a very problematic aspect of CA firearms laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Randomrolls wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.

Yeah, but since judge Scalia is gone, do we really believe that the court is going to rule in favor of anything pro-firearms?

The Court is going to rule in favor of anything pro-Constitution.

Unless they make a mistake, of course.

Any SCOTUS ruling is, by the very definition, a constitutional ruling on the actual text of the Constitution and based on the actual meaning and intend of the Constitution.

SCOTUS is the legal version of the Bible. It's biblical because the Bible says so, and it's constitutional because SCOTUS says so.

Of course it's also only constitutional until SCOTUS changes their mind and makes a different ruling that is now constitutional.

 whembly wrote:
If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.

I guess you're missing the fact that we do this all the time? There are all kinds of restrictions on exercising your second amendment rights, and somehow life goes on just fine. Everyone agrees that private ownership and use of nuclear weapons is a bad thing, even though they're "arms". Most people agree that concealed handgun permits are a good thing, and such laws are pretty clearly constitutional (including the state having the ability to set requirements for getting a permit). So there's no constitutional issue here, only a question of whether CA policy matches what the voters want it to be. If you don't like it then vote for people who will change that policy.

 d-usa wrote:
Any SCOTUS ruling is, by the very definition, a constitutional ruling on the actual text of the Constitution and based on the actual meaning and intend of the Constitution.

SCOTUS is the legal version of the Bible. It's biblical because the Bible says so, and it's constitutional because SCOTUS says so.

Of course it's also only constitutional until SCOTUS changes their mind and makes a different ruling that is now constitutional.

Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were still talking about the 9th Circuit Court but I see now you were referring to SCOTUS. You are correct sir!

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Any SCOTUS ruling is, by the very definition, a constitutional ruling on the actual text of the Constitution and based on the actual meaning and intend of the Constitution.

SCOTUS is the legal version of the Bible. It's biblical because the Bible says so, and it's constitutional because SCOTUS says so.

Of course it's also only constitutional until SCOTUS changes their mind and makes a different ruling that is now constitutional.

Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were still talking about the 9th Circuit Court but I see now you were referring to SCOTUS. You are correct sir!

A loony bunch they are, those SCOTUS folks

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If the state authority can demand some sort justification to exercise your right... don't cry when it's philosophically applied in the same manner to other rights.

I guess you're missing the fact that we do this all the time? There are all kinds of restrictions on exercising your second amendment rights, and somehow life goes on just fine. Everyone agrees that private ownership and use of nuclear weapons is a bad thing, even though they're "arms". Most people agree that concealed handgun permits are a good thing, and such laws are pretty clearly constitutional (including the state having the ability to set requirements for getting a permit). So there's no constitutional issue here, only a question of whether CA policy matches what the voters want it to be. If you don't like it then vote for people who will change that policy.

Nah... I get it.

Had the CA legislature actual defines what it meant by "good cause", meaning that there's a compelling public interest, then it'd be kosher imo.

However, if the local officials simply ignores the applicant's request? Dick move imo... dick move.

 whembly wrote:
However, if the local officials simply ignores the applicant's request? Dick move imo... dick move.

Dick move, possibly, but that's not the same as being unconstitutional.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
However, if the local officials simply ignores the applicant's request? Dick move imo... dick move.

Dick move, possibly, but that's not the same as being unconstitutional.

That's the crux of the argument in this case.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A fundamental right, which is spelled out in the US Constitution, is curtailed because of....reason

I keep reading the Amendment and I don't see the part about hidden weapons. As far as I can tell it doesn't say anything about hidden pistols so perhaps you can you be more clear where the Constitution says that? This ruling doesn't seem to say people can't have a pistol, just that they have no right to a concealed one. Not having a concealed weapon isn't the same as not being allowed one at all, and as pointed out there are still sweet, sweet appeals to be had.

To be fair, there's the part *bearing* arms, not just being allowed to have one. Given that open carry is illegal in CA (outside of a very tiny number of places where almost nobody lives), and concealed carry is effectively illegal for most people that live in CA (as the "may issue" is in most places effectively "no issue", Los Angeles County has a grand total of ~500 issued permits, San Francisco Country has...2 active permits) there very much is a case for there being infringement on the *bearing* aspect of the 2A. To put it in another perspective, CA's northern neighbor, Oregon, has 1/10th the population of CA, but has nearly triple the number of CC permits issued statewide that CA does as it is a "shall issue" state.