Guns

California Seeks to Invalidate 9th Circuit Win for Conceal-Carry Guns Rights

|

On February 13 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit invalidated a San Diego County, California requirement which allowed for the issuance of conceal-carry gun permits, but only when the gun owner had "good cause" to carry a concealed weapon. And according to county officials, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." That restriction, the 9th Circuit ruled, eliminated "the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense," and therefore amounted to an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.

In a petition filed yesterday, California Attorney General Kamala Harris has urged the 9th Circuit to wipe that gun rights ruling off the books. "This case adopts a theory of the Second Amendment with sweeping implications for the constitutional permissibility of hitherto routine state and local regulation of the public carrying of dangerous weapons," the California petition argues, and it also "inappropriately discounts legislative policy judgments to which it should defer."

Harris is seeking what's known as en banc review, meaning the state of California has requested that a full panel of 9th Circuit judges reconsider the case (this month's ruling was by a 3-judge panel). Should the 9th Circuit refuse to review en banc, the state's next move would be a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and overturn the ruling.

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.

33 responses to “California Seeks to Invalidate 9th Circuit Win for Conceal-Carry Guns Rights

  1. I am just a law student and Kamala Harris is a state Attorney General, so she must know something I do not, but I could really have sworn there was a part in the 2nd Amendment about ‘bear’ing arms, not just keeping them.

    1. That’s half of the argument.

      It is basically that the right to KEEP arms have been established, and being that BEARING arms is listed separately that it points to a separate right. The court also ruled that since that is the obvious case, that the state may prohibit concealed carry or open carry, but not both.

      Surely they’ll still be able to ban guns in government building etc, but it seems that carrying will be a formally defined right soon enough. At some point SCOTUS will have to grant cert to one of the many carry cases that have gone to the court and clarify the issue.

      1. The State must provide either concealed or open carry, to any normal citizen, and may provide both.

        1. I’d say the default is both.

          The government doesn’t decide to allow one to bear arms, but takes away options.

          Remember: liberty is the default state of the human condition. Government can only take away liberty.

  2. Oh look…someones running for higher office….

  3. It would make long accepted police practices, such as beating black men to death, much more problematic.

  4. “This case adopts a theory of the Second Amendment with sweeping implications for the constitutional permissibility of hitherto routine state and local regulation of the public carrying of dangerous weapons,” the California petition argues, and it also “inappropriately discounts legislative policy judgments to which it should defer.”

    Oh honey. You’re right, it is sweeping, and all this “hitherto routine” shit you’ve been doing is illegal. As a Chicago resident, I know it will take you a while to process this. Maybe you should set up a support group with some of the folks out here.

    1. Charles C. W. Cooke at National Review has made this point, that the Second Amendment is very broad, and that all the licensing and other restrictions are prima facie infringements. But rather than face that reality head on, we have people of Harris’s ilk trying to argue away the plain meaing of the words.

    2. Nikki, I lived in the ‘burbs for 20 years. When I moved to Maine, I asked about getting a permit to own a gun. The guys at the Kittery Trading Post didn’t understand the question. If I had a Maine driver’s license to prove residency, I could buy a gun. They simply did not believe me when I told them handguns were illegal in the city of Chicago.

      1. When my aunt moved from the northern suburbs of Chicago to Las Vegas, she walked into a gun shop and said that she wanted to apply for her FOID card. One guy looked at her like she was crazy, and another, after giving her a blank stare for a few seconds, said, “…You’re from Chicago?” She then laughed, bought a gun, and then stepped onto their range. The end.

    3. As a Chicago resident

      Hello, neighbor.

      Speaking of the 2A and Chicago…

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..6877.story

  5. “inappropriately discounts legislative policy judgments to which it should defer.”

    Aren’t Constitutional provisions supposed to OVERRIDE legislative judgments?

  6. Meanwhile, over at the New York Times, some snarky douchebag who is a self-described professor at Boise State has written a har-dee-fucking-har-larious piece titled, “When May I Shoot a Student?” (no linky- find it yourself), in response to an Idaho legislature proposal to allow teh scary gunz on campuses of state educational institutions.

    Oozing with scorn and loathing for the young men and women who actually pay his fucking salary and justify his miserable existence, Professor Peabrain gleefully accuses them of being violent criminal savages.

    I wonder what the Board of Regents has to say.

    1. Sounds kinda like he might be the violent criminal savage based on the title.

    2. Unfortunately they support it. Or rather they oppose the legislation. Dickwads were on the morning news whining about additional costs for security (body armor, metal detectors, etc) if CWP holders were allowed to carry on college grounds. Even if it passes, K-12 would be remain unarmed victim zones.

    3. Who does this guy think he is? A cop?

  7. according to county officials, “one’s personal safety is not considered good cause.”

    Fucking awesome.

    1. FUCK YOU CITIZEN

  8. Also, FYI, Boise State students are all apparently degenerate dope fiends and drunkards. It could be time for a road trip.

    1. In other words, they are students at a large state college.

  9. Harris is seeking what’s known as en banc review, meaning the state of California has requested that a full panel of 9th Circuit judges reconsider the case

    aka, Do-over

    1. While the en banc 9th might rule for the state, they are also the most frequently overturned circut in the nation.

      1. It’s almost certain that the 9th Circuit will rule in favor of the state, and it’s almost certain that the SCOTUS will overturn the 9th Circuit.

        SCOTUS has fucked up all manner of shit lately, but gun rights isn’t one of those things. Despite a few similar cases coming to the court recently, they’ve denied cert to each of them. I get the feeling that they’re just waiting for the right case to come along.

        1. I would agree with that statement. I think the ones that you are referring to (the NRA ones, Lane v. Holder, etc.? Right?) were too broad. They dealt with multiple issues at once, such as the right to carry outside of the home, the age of who can apply for a permit, etc.

          Judge O’Scannlain from CA9, in his opinion, called out CA2, 3, and 4 and explained exactly why they were wrong. It was definitely a fun read.

          I have little doubt that this will be taken up by the Supremes, since this created a circuit split with CA7 and 9 on one side, and CA2, 3, and 4 on the other in defiance of previous SC rulings. Unless the SC wants to set the precedent of allowing lower courts to ignore the higher court’s rulings, then they will have to take it. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point of the Supreme Court?

          1. Yes, those are the cases to which I refer.

            I also agree that they were simply too broad, or didn’t frame the issue in a way that the Nazgul saw fit to loom over. And I would agree. There needs to be a clear cut case, and hopefully one that isn’t litigated by the NRA but the 2AF, as per Heller and McDonald.

      2. They recently lost that title to CA6. Still, CA9 has had the most total number of over turns since they hear a lot more cases.

        …with the 9th Circuit coming in as the second most reversed?100 out of 128 cases, or 78.1 percent.

        http://www.abajournal.com/maga…..ed_appeal/

        1. Jesus Christ. Can a consistent record of averaging more than 50% overturns over a six year period cause an automatic impeachment proceeding?

        2. Where do you think this is? Somalia?

  10. While the en banc 9th might rule for the state, they are also the most frequently overturned circut in the nation.

    I think this thing will land on the SOTUS docket, no matter which way it goes. It’s pretty much inescapable. It would have been fun to be there for the howls of shock and outrage when the three judges announced their ruling.

  11. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point of the Supreme Court?

    I have been asking myself that, lately.

  12. 5 members of SCOTUS made it pretty clear that States had to allow some form of carry. What kind of libertarian genius convinced California to end their “unloaded open carry” law? Were it not for that, the 9th could easily have ruled the other way.

  13. Would somebody explain to me how Kamala Harris has standing to appeal this in the first place? I note that “appeal” is not used in the report, but “petition,” which is just a fancy way of saying “please do this.” But that’s something anybody could do, and the court could (should?) simply ignore it.

  14. “Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon,” Harris said in a statement announcing the court filing.

    What could go wrong with that?

    Did anything go wrong when local law enforcement used their discretion to determine whether to engage in racial profiling?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.