Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: CCW court ruling for the Good

  1. #1

  2. #2
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    Wow..........Not the ruling I would have expected from the 9th Circus. But a victory is a victory and I'll take it.
    Now what ?

  3. #3
    Member Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    3,334

    Default

    Hopefully it will open the doors for similar states like NY that make it almost impossible to carry..... Good news for gun owners for sure...
    When asked what state I live in I say "The State of Confusion", better known as IL....

  4. #4
    Member duckslayer56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Maryland...not by choice
    Posts
    2,058

    Default

    Same for Maryland. You can't carry here unless you have a reasonable threat to your life. It's almost impossible to get a CCW permit in this state.
    Some people call it sky busting... I call it optimism
    "Swans are a gift" -DucksandDogs
    I am a shoveler's worst nightmare!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    629

    Default

    The current analysis is that this ruling sets up a SCOTUS case. With this ruling there is a split in the courts on the issue. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th districts finding that it's not unconstitutional and the 7th and the 9th finding it is unconstitutional. This ruling even points out that split and explains why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th are wrong on the issue. It's the most sound defense of 2A rights I've seen in a while.

    BUT, it's a given that CA will appeal. There is already an appeal to the SCOTUS for a case in the 3rd that is nearly identical. Some of the commentary is that the SCOTUS will either hold on this one while they decide the other or they might combine the 2. What's interesting is that this ruling relies heavily on the precedent set by SCOTUS in the Heller ruling. Let's hope the case is heard before one of the pro-2A justices dies or retires and Obama appoints another anti-rights justice in the vein of Sotomayor.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    629

    Default

    Just thought I'd give an update on this if anyone is following. And BTW, if you're not following, there is some thing about this that might apply to you even if you don't carry a gun for self defense. First the update. San Diego declined to ask for a review en banc. Which means the full 9th circuit will not hear the case. They have not indicated if they will follow up with an appeal to SCOTUS. In the mean time, Orange County has declared that they will ignore the "good cause" portion of their laws in light of the ruling and will issue as a "shall issue" county until the matter is settled in courts.

    SCOTUS declined on the case involving the 3rd circuit. That's odd and really causes a problem. By declining they let stand the 3rd's ruling that states can require good cause to be shown, but the 9th ruling is 180 degrees opposite. Which means there are 2 different standards being used now. Confusion is probably going to mean SCOTUS will have to settle it.

    So why does it matter? The crux of the issue here is not carrying a gun. The crux here is do you have the right to defend yourself with a gun out side the home. SCOTUS ruling in Heller settled that you do have the right in your home, now the question is does the 2A apply outside your home? 2nd, 3rd, and 4th districts have all ruled no. 7th and 9th have both ruled yes. What matters is what and how you handle firearms outside the house. If you don't have the right to carry firearms outside the home, the means by which you take a firearm from home to hunting or home to range or whatever and even the type of firearms you use to hunt may be changed. Restrictions on types of guns you can hunt with and types of ammo for anything that is outside the house can be essentially unlimited because you would not have the right to carry it. It's a dangerous precedent that I'm sure would not be received well.

  7. #7
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevelyn View Post
    Wow..........Not the ruling I would have expected from the 9th Circus. But a victory is a victory and I'll take it.
    No kidding. Completely astonishing, coming from the most overturned circus court in the land!!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    No kidding. Completely astonishing, coming from the most overturned circus court in the land!!
    I had the same reaction. What's even more amazing is reading the opinion. It's about the most solid defense of the 2A I've ever seen. Couple highlights:

    They ruled that the word "bear" in the 2A means carrying. Not owning. They were very clear to say that keeping and bearing are different actions keeping is owning and bearing is carrying.

    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.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.
    And finally, they were clear that a state can chose the mode of carry (open or concealed) but cannot ban both.

    In this case, California will either have to accept open carry or allow concealed carry without "good cause" limitations.

  9. #9
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duckslayer56 View Post
    Same for Maryland. You can't carry here unless you have a reasonable threat to your life. It's almost impossible to get a CCW permit in this state.
    Isnt Baltimore in Maryland? That right there seems like a reasonable threat to your life. What kind of stupid wording is that for a CCW statute.

  10. #10
    Member Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    3,334

    Default

    Sadly one more way around allowing citizens of certain states the right to carry is simply to make the process so painful and expensive it denies many good people the opportunity.
    When asked what state I live in I say "The State of Confusion", better known as IL....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •