Court Strikes Down California's Concealed Carry Restrictions

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's restrictive concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit rules today, saying they are in direct conflict with the Second Amendment, as noted at Reason 24/7 earlier and in an earlier blog post by Damon Root.

In its ruling, the court wrote that "to forbid nearly all forms of public arms bearing would be to destroy the right to bear arms entirely." California issues concealed carry permits on a "may issue" basis, meaning that in many counties, citizens must apply to the county's sheriff department and show "good cause" to have a CCW. A majority of states have a "shall issue" rule, which forces local governments to justify the denial of a permit by citing a criminal record, mental health issue, or some other potential public safety risk.

Approximately 0.1% of California citizens have CCWs, which is almost 20 times lower than in the average shall-issue state, a statistic that supports the court's opinion that the "good cause" rule is destroying, or at least severely hindering, the right to bear arms.

Reason TV covered this issue in 2011, when Gov. Jerry Brown upset California gun rights activists by signing a bill banning the practice of "open carry," in which one wears an unloaded, holstered gun on the outside of the clothing. Open carry gained popularity in some parts of California, including San Diego county, the county targeted in the suit, precisely because of the bans on concealed carry.

In the above video, California Assembly member Anthony Portantino, the author of the open carry ban, explained his rationale for prohibiting open carry to Reason TV:

"Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

For now, Portantino need not worry about Californians being made uncomfortable by the open display of firearms in public places, as the open carry "loophole" he worked so hard to close is gone. But in its absence, a giant concealed carry portal just blew open. 

The full ruling is available here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Rich||

    Gov. Jerry Brown upset California gun rights activists by signing a bill banning the practice of "open carry," in which one wears an unloaded, holstered gun on the outside of the clothing.

    So the gun has to be *loaded*. That's a good thing -- isn't it?

  • Hugh Akston||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    Thank you, Assemblyman, for tirelessly defending my right to be comfortable at all times. Can you please do something about the elderly Armenians trying to stare me down when I walk home from work?

  • PapayaSF||

    So, is this a basic principle? Would Mr. Portantino be fine with "weapon" changed to (say) "sexuality"?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Well, to be fair, Warty has inspired a new class of crime known as weaponized sexuality.

  • fish||

    With associated literature......

  • Number 7||

    his assholery makes me uncomfortable, who do I see about that?

    He is explicitly saying that we have a right (endowed by our creator no doubt) to be comfortable.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    hat tip to 24/7???

  • DH||

    "In the above video, California Assembly member Anthony Portantino, the author of the open carry ban, explained his rationale for prohibiting open carry to Reason TV:
    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    I'm gonna have to reread that part of the constitution about not infringing on other people's right to feel comfortable!!

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Well liberals are big believers in the concept of affirmative rights and they are constantly dreaming new ones up out of thin air.

    So his remarks, while totally incorrect since there AREN'T actually any such thing as affirmative rights - is consistent.

  • DH||

    According to Tony, rights are whatever government says they be.

  • Doctor Whom||

    It's a penumbra and emanation from the "right not to be offended" clause.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Oh, yeah, and just because one person is comfortable with their control freakery doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    California will be awash in blood.

  • Root Boy||

    They have another method to prevent the inevitable bloodshed - just defacto-ban all kinds of guns by preventing them from being sold there:

    http://www.ammoland.com/2014/0.....z2t1MdQsfP

  • rts||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    So... cops are going to stop open-carrying, right? Right?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Oh, that is totally different since they are emblematic of the New Professionalism.

  • ||

    The New Professionalism makes me very uncomfortable.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Don't worry, cops usually conceal it.

  • Tejicano||

    "cops usually conceal it."

    ...which is to say that they don't exhibit professionalism to the extent that they can get away with not doing it.

  • ||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    If that's an actual right then there are a shit ton of things we can ban, from street mimes to fat people to public displays of affection.

  • DH||

    Yoga Pants. I don't know how many times I've taken my eyes off the road near the local colleges.

  • mr lizard||

    Micro-aggressions have consequences... Or if you like your distractions then you can keep them... Or I'm not a Dictator, but I am a rolling pimp

  • ||

    YOU MONSTER!!!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    If that's an actual right then there are a shit ton of things we can ban, from street mimes to fat people to public displays of affection.

    How about lawmakers and do-gooders trying to legislate the fuck out of every human behavior thinkable? That makes me uncomfortable.

  • Sigivald||

    There's already a group of people in California who openly carry firearms, and who should - as a group, if not all individuals - make one exceedingly nervous about both their intentions and gun-handling abilities.

    They're called police officers.

  • ||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    How is it that this fuckwit was not held down and made to explain this in minute detail?

    Oh, and now that the courts have struck down the 'may issue' rule, I am sure thousands of permits will be issued immediately.

  • Tejicano||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    Yeah, just what are these "rights of other people" which my carrying a gun would infringe against? The right to act lawlessly without threat of impedence? The right to force others to their unlawful will? Just what is it that others have a right to which my carrying a weapon would interfere with?

    OK, we all know what he is getting at but doesn't have the balls to quite lay out clearly - the right to not be scared by the sight of an armed citizen.

    So I will law out exactly what I see is the problem here - the rights of others to not be scared of anything ends where my rights, as defined in the constitution, begin. I would bet that there are still plenty of people who are scared - even more so - by young, non-white males who dress in gang-related attire. When do the powers that be intend to start legislating on that?

  • Rich||

    "Just because one person is comfortable with their weapon legislative power doesn't mean that gives that person the right to infringe on the rights of other people who aren't comfortable."

    FTFY, and FY.

  • Paul.||

    Approximately 0.1% of California citizens have CCWs

    So, Dianne Feinstein has one.

  • juris imprudent||

    I think Sean Penn too. Don't you feel safer?

  • Paul.||

    by signing a bill banning the practice of "open carry," in which one wears an unloaded, holstered gun on the outside of the clothing.

    Huh?

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    In CA, you could only open carry if your firearm was completely unloaded (nothing in chamber or magazine). Some OC activists got particularly aggressive in using that "loophole" and as a result the legislature decided to ban it completely.

    This all happened only a few months after a court ruled that CA's may-issued concealed carry rules were OK because open (unloaded) carry was an option. So the CA legislature sort of shot themselves in the foot there, as them banning unloaded OC lead directly to this ruling.

  • Paul.||

    by signing a bill banning the practice of "open carry," in which one wears an unloaded, holstered gun on the outside of the clothing.

    Huh?

  • Paul.||

    by signing a bill banning the practice of "open carry," in which one wears an unloaded, holstered gun on the outside of the clothing.

    Huh?

  • Paul.||

    effing squirrels.

  • Boisfeuras||

    In the above video, California Assembly member Anthony Portantino, the author of the open carry ban, explained his rationale for prohibiting open carry to Reason TV

    One problem is lack of accountability for elected representatives (and at the federal level, explicit immunity under Article I). They are free to enact laws, prima facie unconstitutional, where the worst consequence is losing reelection—and maybe, overturn of the offending law, usually after many years, where citizens are deprived of their rightful liberties.

    We need a form of graphe paranomon, where the Athenian citizen who proposed a law faced legal consequences if it was illegal or proved detrimental.

  • Rich||

    We need a form of graphe paranomon, where the Athenian citizen who proposed a law faced legal consequences if it was illegal or proved detrimental.

    So much this. If you have such faith in your legislation, put your skin in the game.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    So if Rand Paul proposes legislation banning NSA phone record collection, and then there's a terrorist attack perpetrated by people who made phone calls about it beforehand, he goes to jail?

  • Tejicano||

    When the NSA can prove how many times this has made a difference in the past, well, maybe that line of BS might stand.

    Just like your tenuous, conjectured contact with reality, any real useful purpose for the NSA to have access to the details of our day-to-day lives has yet to be proven.

    Fuck off slaver!

  • Acosmist||

    Aren't you supposedly a math professor? Negative and positive are the same now? Stunning.

  • RishJoMo||

    The Kangaroo Courts really crack me up man.

    www.GoAnon.tk

  • cheap soccer jerseys||

    I'm gonna have to reread that part of the constitution about not infringing on other people's right to feel comfortable!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement