Court: California Concealed Weapons Rules Violate 2nd Amendment

[PAMedic=F|A=]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...2nd-amendment/

Court: California Concealed Weapons Rules Violate 2nd Amendment
February 13, 2014 12:05 PM


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court has struck down California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that California is wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens are entitled to carry concealed weapons outside the home for self-defense purposes.
The divided three judge panel disagreed with two other federal appeals courts that have upheld permit rules similar to California’s.
The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that law-abiding citizens can keep handguns in the home for self-defense purposes, but didn’t address whether that right extends outside the home.
© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...y-of-handguns/


The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Eugene Volokh may be too modest to say so, but the Court cites him four times, to his articles Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443 (2009); and The First and Second Amendments, 109 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 97 (2009). I got one cite, for The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century, 1998 B.Y.U. L. Rev 1359 (1998).
I had participated in the case by filing an amicus brief for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and the Independence Institute, although the particular issue addressed in the brief became irrelevant before the case was decided. At the time of the brief, California law allowed persons to carry an unloaded handgun openly for self-defense, without need for a permit. The District Court had said that this was sufficient for exercise of the right to bear arms for self-defense. The amicus brief explained the mechanics of defensive gun use, and why it is unrealistic to expect that most people will be able to load their firearms after the perpetrator has begun a violent felony attack. Subsequent to the filing of the brief, the California legislature changed the statute, so now defensive open carry in any form is also prohibited.
The Peruta decision employs the typical two-step test which has been adopted by many federal courts: 1. Does the conduct at issue involve Second Amendment rights? 2. If so, then apply heightened scrutiny. (But if the law destroys the right, rather than merely restricts it, the law is categorically unconstitutional, with no need for detailed analysis under strict or intermediate scrutiny.) The details of the two parts of the test vary among the Circuits.
The Peruta Court expressly stated that its ruling only applies to law-abiding citizens. The plaintiffs were in accord; they did not challenge the statutory requirement a permit applicant must be of “good moral character.”
The Peruta Court examines the text of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald, and the legal history of the right to bear arms. The Court pays particular attention to the historical cases and commentators that have been favorably cited by Heller and McDonald. The survey leads straightforwardly to the conclusion that the right to carry a gun in public places for lawful self-defense is part of the Second Amendment right. So plaintiffs pass step 1 of the two-part test.
As for step 2: the “good cause” requirement, as interpreted by San Diego, is a near-total destruction of the right to bear arms. “Heller teaches that a near-total prohibition on keeping arms (Heller) is hardly better than a near-total prohibition on bearing them (this case), and vice versa. Both go too far.”
Hence, San Diego’s policy is unconstitutional.
As Heller had observed, there are many 19th century cases which say that a state may ban concealed carry so long as open carry is still allowed. California might have been able to do the same. But it is unconstitutional to prohibit carrying in every mode; “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”

[internet troll]

Also being discussed here. Although your post includes part of the article which is helpful imo.

http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/2...ssue-soon.html