California Carry

Second Amendment lawsuit

|

With the help of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, four people are suing the state's attorney general and Los Angeles County's sheriff over a set of restrictive policies that combine, they argue, to rob them of their Second Amendment rights.

Flanagan v. Harris challenges the fact that California heavily limits the open carry of firearms, and L.A. County makes concealed carry very difficult as well. Together, the suit states, those state and local policies mean "the vast majority of the population…cannot obtain a license to publicly carry a firearm."

A recent federal case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Peruta, upheld restrictions similar to Los Angeles' and concluded that concealed carry was definitely not protected by the Second Amendment, in that court's opinion. The precedent, which covers California, will likely make winning Flanagan a lot harder, though the Peruta decision acknowledges that the open-carry question remains undecided.

Flanagan's plaintiffs hope to establish that the Constitution does protect a right to carry a gun for self-defense in public in some manner, whether concealed or open. Lower courts have offered contradictory answers to that question, making this ripe for eventually appearing before the Supreme Court.

NEXT: What Do Crime Victims Want From Criminal Justice Reform?

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.

  1. Fist’s head must be exploding right now.

  2. The courts have erected many procedural obstacles in order to have “standing” to challenge a law. One of those obstacles is it is necessary to articulate a concrete plan to violate the law. Simply stating that one abstains from violating the challenged law is insufficient. Simply stating that one someday, somewhere intends on violating the law is also insufficient.

    Should you ever trouble yourself to read the Complaint filed in this case, the Plaintiffs did not articulate any plan, let alone a concrete plan, to violate California’s Open Carry bans. The Plaintiffs did state that they had been denied concealed carry permits which gives them standing to challenge the denial of their concealed carry permits but in light of the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego/Richards v. Prieto, they are not entitled to concealed carry permits as concealed carry is not a right.

    My lawsuit which seeks to overturn California’s Open Carry bans is currently being briefed on appeal and will be decided long before the NRA files its notice of appeal.

    The briefs in the Flanagan case can be read at my website here -> http://blog.californiarighttoc…..ge_id=5113

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.