CA Concealed Carry Case Declined?

[MotorCycleDave]

"Gun-rights supporters from the Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco counties formulated an appeal to the strict laws restricting concealed carry in the state. They believed that they were being illegitimately deprived of permits to carry a concealed weapon outside of their home. However, the justices turned away this appeal with a 7–2 vote. They supported their reasoning by referencing the verdict from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which stated that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right for a member of society to carry hidden firearms in public."

Any thoughts from outside people living in CA?

full story: https://medium.com/@laxammo/no-time-for-california-gun-case-strict-limits-prevail-8f382f7f60f0

 

[Stats Shooter]

My thoughts are that most other states disagree with this opinion.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Chicago.

The justices are correct that the 2A does not convey a right to carry a firearm "concealed." However, it clearly does guarantee a right to carry a firearm. Since California doesn't allow people to carry loaded firearms exposed, then not allowing the carry of concealed firearms means there is a total de facto ban on carrying functional firearms for self defense.

That's a violation of the 2A.

 

[armoredman]

I believe that was when Peruta was declined some time ago. I disagree with the ruling, of course, but unlike some lawmakers both alive and historical, I don't have the option of ignoring it. I do believe there are other cases making their way up.

 

[dreaming]

There is now a decision of the D.C. Circuit directly at odds with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Peruta vs. San Diego; Wrenn v. District of Colombia. Unfortunately, Wrenn, which found the Districts requirement of "reasonable cause" to be barred by the 2A, will not be going to the Supreme Court because the District opted not to petition the court for the right of appeal.

 

[armoredman]

That was a move to "sacrifice" DC for Cali, New Jersey, Hawaii, etc. They lost their crown jewel for now, and it burns, but they "saved" the gun control paradises they love.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Peruta was denied cert on June 26 of this year. The writing you quoted is just sloppy reporting. Denials of cert are done per curiam - the court just says yes or no without comment. Occasionally, a justice thinks the denial was wrong and wants to explain why and they issue a dissent from the per curiam opinion.

In this case, Thomas and Gorsuch thought the court should have accepted the case. The fact nobody else joined the dissent doesn't necessarily mean the other 7 justices thought it was correct to refuse the case. And because the other 7 justices did not issue any opinion at all they certainly didn't reference the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to support their decision.

A high school student with an Internet connection could have done a better job on reporting that.

 

[ATN082268]

Chicago.

The justices are correct that the 2A does not convey a right to carry a firearm "concealed." However, it clearly does guarantee a right to carry a firearm. Since California doesn't allow people to carry loaded firearms exposed, then not allowing the carry of concealed firearms means there is a total de facto ban on carrying functional firearms for self defense.

That's a violation of the 2A.

I'm not sure if California has a complete ban on open carry. You might be able to open carry but only if you are in the middle of nowhere and aren't near civilization. If that is the case, I'm sure that state will say in court that it doesn't have a ban on open carry even though the restrictions on it make it essentially a ban. Anything short of a complete ban will probably pass muster in the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[dreaming]

That is basically what California argued in Peruta, when in fact open carry is essentially available to a very small part of its residents, to contra the argument that its statutory scheme bans any kind of carry, whether concealed or open.

 

[Metal god]

You might be able to open carry but only if you are in the middle of nowhere and aren't near civilization. If that is the case, I'm sure that state will say in court that it doesn't have a ban on open carry even though the restrictions on it make it essentially a ban.

The states argument was that geographically there are more places to open carry then the areas in which it is prohibited . This is actually correct because of the very large areas of unincorporated land in CA . This is going to be the hard sell we have here . Just making up numbers here but lets say the state is 1,000,000 sq miles and you can open carry in 800,000 sq miles of it . It's pretty hard to say open carry is banned in CA . While at the same time you can actually CC with good cause .

I don't agree with the arguments but the way the 9th seems to feel about the 2nd amendment and the SCOTUS refusing cert in just about every 2nd amendment case . I don't see a winnable way though this at this time for are side in CA .

The Nichols v. Brown case seems like are last best hope . This is an open carry case here at the 9th circuit right now . They've already ruled concealed carry is not protected . I suspect they will use the geographical data to say CA open carry restrictions are constitutional as well .
http://michellawyers.com/nichols-v-harris/

 

[Stats Shooter]

I feel for California gun owners...I honestly do. I hear people down here in the south say things like "well, if they don't like it they can move"! And it isn't just gun laws in California that I wouldn't like but thats for another discussion.

However, that is a very ignorant comment where people have businesses, farms, family and a multitude of reasons why they must stay. Not to mention the fact that it is your state too, and fighting is much more noble than just packing it in and surrendering.

Anyway, I just don't know how you guys can ever win at the state level with the way things are in that state demographically and ideologically. I have been to northern california...good folks, similar to the midwest and the deep south. But grossly outnumbered.

 

[62coltnavy]

The justices are correct that the 2A does not convey a right to carry a firearm "concealed." However, it clearly does guarantee a right to carry a firearm. Since California doesn't allow people to carry loaded firearms exposed, then not allowing the carry of concealed firearms means there is a total de facto ban on carrying functional firearms for self defense.

Well, technically you are right: the 2A doesn't say anything about the manner of carrying, just that there is a right to bear. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue. The 19th Century state cases held that concealed carry could be banned (for reasons of social policy) as long as open carry was allowed. So it could be that a state could choose to go the other way--as Texas did for many years, banning open carry but allowing concealed carry. So I think that the Ninth was wrong in concluding there was no right to concealed carry, and then refused to rule as to whether there was or was not a right to open carry (despite the fact that the issue was presented to the original panel since California passed a ban on open urban carry while the case was pending). It went the way it did for very political reasons, because it did not want to pen up the state to a "shall issue" law.
In my opinion, the correct answer is that there is a right to carry, and the state may regulate the manner of carry (under current decisions) as long as there is an adequate opportunity for all law-abiding citizens to exercise that right.
The really disgusting thing is that if the open carry ban in urban areas is overruled by Mr. Nichols' case, California will go back to its "open unloaded" law enacted in 1968, and on top of that, the GFSZA makes it practically impossible to carry in any city or town.
To respond to one other comment above, it is legal to open carry in every state or national forest and in most unincorporated areas in the state. A recent law was passed that allows counties to designate unincorporated areas where open carry is banned. Although it is nice to carry if you are afraid you might come across a dangerous animal in the wilderness (yes, there are a few), it will not allow you too carry where one is threatened by the dangerous animals of the urban landscape, which is, for most of us, the only place that really matters.