California gun owners, here's your chance

A

apr1775

New member
The California Supreme court recently ruled it is discrimination to not issue marraige licenses to same sex couples and therefore violates the state constitution and the practice must stop. Now, if we are going to talk about discrimination; let's talk about the way concealed carry permits are issued in California. It's not even a standard written into law, the issuing official can disapprove for whatever reason. The discrimination would normally be economic as normally one is only approved if they are rich or in certain occupations. A bunch of ya'll in California should apply for concealed carry permits and after being rejected, file an anti-discrimination suit using the recent same sex marraige case as your argument. It would be interesting to see how the other side would say that although discrimination in one case is bad but in another it is good. :D
 
That might work, although it seems a little thin. FYI, California does not have a right to keep and bear arms statement in its constitution, and the 2A of the Federal constitution does not, as yet, apply to the states.

Tim
 
It's coming. Assuming that Heller goes our way and the SCOTUS rules that the 2nd is an individual right. What's prevented a suit in the past is two fold. 1) The 9th Circuit sees the 2nd as a collective right not an individual right. Thus no rights are being violated by only issuing to government hacks and large campaign contributers (the current system). The second problem is that some left leaning judges feel that the public having a <1% chance of getting a permit under may-issue as substantially equal to near automatic issue to judges and DAs.
 
I doubt it would work since you would have to show you had been discriminated against based on color, religion, sexual preference, race, or gender. I bet they deny permits to people from all different walks of all these catagories.
 
Lawsuits have already been filed in federal court under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment... and the responsible parties are gearing up for several more lawsuits. There are several threads about this in the calguns legal forum; see this, for example.
 
Playboy nailed it. Discrimination only counts if it occurs under one of those categories or the couple he missed; age and national origin.

Me? They could just deny on the basis that I'm fat!:)
 
There should be some legal precedent for taking action based on economic discrimination. After all "discrimination against the poor" or in this case, anyone not rich or well connected. Recently, a case was decided by the US Supreme Court challenging a voter id act. It was argued based on the law discriminating against the poor, and although the law in question was upheld, they were able to get it heard by the high court which is no small feat. So there's no specific mention of RTKBA in the California Constitution, was there ever a specific mention of a right to marraige? I believe the same sex marraige case was brought to court under the equal protections clause of the CA Con.
 
May issue itself violates equal protection. That's very interesting that CA's constitution has an equal protection clause yet clear as day violates it by virtually all of its firearms laws.
 
Could you imagine if the marraige licenses were may issues. The court official saying. "you two are ugly, if you got married and had kids that would ruin the gene pool".:eek:

There's got to be a way ya'll could argue it as an economic discrimination issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top