Peruta v. San Diego

Status
Not open for further replies.
These judges are being frighteningly dogmatic.

They really think there's not enough evidence on whether licensed concealed carry might meaningfully increase crime?

And now they're trying to argue open carry with ammunition out of the gun is sufficient to satisfy intermediate scrutiny.

And there's some significant "risk" from people carrying concealed weapons? What do they think concealed carry laws do? Allow people to wave guns around? I don't think anyone would be able to (successfully) challenge any laws requiring holster carry of one kind or another, if the danger of unsecured carry is what they're concerned about.

"Carrying outside the home" is not the same as "carrying in public in an urban setting" according to the government. Is this person a moron? Does he have any concept of how concealed carry works? Oh, it's okay that you can only carry on private property that allows you to, because you can have the gun locked in a case on your way there?

My god, the mental gymnastics here are mind-boggling.

Now he's arguing rational basis for concealed carry (apparently ignoring the unavailability of open carry) restrictions, at least in urban areas.

And now he's confusing the right to carry firearms with the right to actually use them, for hunting deer or shooting pigeons within city limits. Compares restrictions on hunting with restrictions on smoking, to demonstrate that of course you can heavily restrict guns, just like we did with cigarettes. Big laughs all around. Nobody seems to catch that it's not illegal to carry cigarettes anywhere.

Not one mention by anyone about how concealed carry is allowed just about everywhere else in the United States.

Clements and Gura. They love drawing parallels, which I think are lost on the court, to other rights. Gura I think suggested that by the State's arguments, 4th amendment rights could be only granted to citizens who have an extreme need for privacy.

And now rebuttal, Clements points out that the open carry ban applies both to incorporated areas and prohibited areas in unincorporated areas, which is basically everywhere near streets, homes, businesses, so it's not a small portion of the places that someone might go, which is what the State was arguing (the state went so far as to say, metaphorically but completely ridiculously, that 99% of places someone might go outside of urban areas allow open carry, and only 1% are prohibited).

Gura closed with some case law points on other circuits, and pointed out that even if for the sake of argument gun carry were highly dangerous, that policy decision is taken away from the States by the 2nd amendment.

That's a very sketchy summary, and the live feed was glitching for me. The video is or will be up soon on the 9th circuit's youtube channel.
 
And now he's confusing the right to carry firearms with the right to actually use them, for hunting deer or shooting pigeons within city limits. Compares restrictions on hunting with restrictions on smoking, to demonstrate that of course you can heavily restrict guns, just like we did with cigarettes. Big laughs all around. Nobody seems to catch that it's not illegal to carry cigarettes anywhere.
Click to expand...

Yea that had me scratching my head to . Just because I have a CCW does not mean I get to shoot pigeons off the telephone lines .

Was it as big a deal as it appeared to me that the state and all on there side conceded that carrying outside the home is protected or a core right . That seems like a huge concession to me.

"Carrying outside the home" is not the same as "carrying in public in an urban setting" according to the government. Is this person a moron?
Click to expand...

haha yea you can't carry while walking down the street because nobody just walks down the street lol . you like walking the dogs or just taking an evening stroll to get out of the hot stuffy house . I could go on and on of reasons to walk down the street for no apparent reason . Further more if the store down the street says I can carry in there store . Did he give me the ok to carry while I walk to and from there because I now am going some place that allows me to carry .

And now rebuttal, Clements points out that the open carry ban applies both to incorporated areas and prohibited areas in unincorporated areas, which is basically everywhere near streets, homes, businesses, so it's not a small portion of the places that someone might go, which is what the State was arguing (the state went so far as to say, metaphorically but completely ridiculously, that 99% of places someone might go outside of urban areas allow open carry, and only 1% are prohibited).
Click to expand...

It was brought up in other parts of this case how all the places that are prohibited are the same areas you would have a more likelihood of needing to defend your self . The one judge started to say something to that point but realized know one had said in court yet . I'm thinking it was in a Ameci or brought up in other arguments . Why was that not brought up by are side . If I'm out in the middle of nowhere with nothing around for miles . What's the likely hood I'll need a firearm for self defense ?

I think it went well for are side but when it comes to the 9th , that does not mean anything .
 
oh and why did the judge on the lower left keep bringing up the point that the law had changed since the case was brought . Asking if they should rule as if the law was still the same as it was 5 years ago ????? Why would that even be an option ?? Lets reverse it and say the new law says you can carry CCW . Who in there right mind thinks it's OK to rule based on the 5 year old law that said you can't CCW . How does that ruling go . Sorry mr Peruta you can't have a CCW permit but everybody else can :confused:

Or a case that was brought before slavery ended . Well you were able to own slaves when this case was filed so you can keep yours . WTH am I missing something here was that as dumb a line of questioning as it sounded ????
 
The outcome seems a foregone conclusion to me. They drew a crummy panel (obviously) of appellate jurists. I guess the best we can hope for is that this just adds to the melange of contradictory lower court rulings that forces SCOTUS to either finish what it started with Heller and finally make it clear to lower courts that this bizarre notion that a foundational constitutional right does not end at our doorstop. Otherwise, it will reveal that Heller was never meant to be anything but a symbol, a paper tiger it never intended to give flesh and bones.
 
Wow, after watching the court hearing, I have no idea which way this is heading. I am confused on why NOW the state is being allowed to chime in on this issue when they have already said, "we aren't involved" that this is a local Sheriff issue. Well if it is a local sheriff issue and the sheriff does not want to take it any further, than I don't see what right the state has in the dispute.

I would love to hear these justice ask those same questions that they asked about the 2nd Amendment; in a 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendment case. "what is your good cause for remaining silent?" "Do you have a permit to pray?" "You'll have to take a safety class before you can be secure in your persons, houses, papers and effects." " concealed verses open speech" Yep, it would be a interesting discussion.
 
I don't know whether it was in the briefs, but I would have liked to see one of the lawyers rip into the judges' questions about different kinds of places being justified in having different restrictions on carry.

The "unsafe" nature of carrying guns does not come from the carrying of guns, it comes from the fact that there are gangs, drug dealers, etc who carry guns, and use them, on purpose, to commit violent felonies. Almost without exception, the street crime that concealed carry restrictions might conceivably be intended to address is disconnected from anyone who would seek to get a permit.

I realize that the 9th circuit is a dangerous place to be making ideological arguments about carry, but this whole open vs concealed carry thing is ridiculous. And anyone can see that it's stupid, because every place that bans either concealed or open carry, but not the other, has "good" reasons for doing so: Concealed is bad because if you're carrying a gun it should be visible so that you can't surprise anyone with your gun. Open carry is bad because it panics the general population (pun intended).

It's insane to have two mutually exclusive "good" reasons to prohibit open vs concealed carry, without any evidence that the reasons are valid, and then suggest that the Constitution allows you to impose those arbitrary restrictions on one or the other mode of carry for those $reasons, because you're going to conveniently ignore the equally implausible reasons that other people put forward for banning the other mode of carry.

Phoenix can deal with unlicensed open carry, and it has a lot of Los Angeles transplants. That should put to rest the "average citizen will be frightened" argument. And the vast majority of states allow licensed concealed carry for anyone who can pass a background check, which should put to rest the "concealed carry is only for sneaky criminals" argument.

Any argument against any sort of carry at this stage is just academic ideological navel-gazing.
 
I especially love the mouthpiece that the California AG's office put forth who, with a straight face, suggested that the only reason people walked in public places was to go to a place where carry was permitted in some form or fashion and that therefore a ban on public carry didn't significantly burden the right. It was a most extraordinary legal fiction concocted to maintain the fiction that California's laws reflect the citizenry's right to self defense in public places.
 
people walked in public places was to go to a place where carry was permitted in some form or fashion and that therefore a ban on public carry didn't significantly burden the right.
Click to expand...
Not that practicality seems a strong point in this case, but suppose that every place I want to visit in town would allow me to carry, but it would be illegal to carry on the street, as open carry is banned in cities and concealed carry is banned in cities without CCW.

So,
(1) I unload and lock my gun in its case, take it to the car, and drive to my doctor's office. (Disarm)

(2) I bring in that locked case, open it, reload the gun, place the easily handled paddle holster on my hip and holster the gun. (Arm)

Having completed my appointment, I want to shop for groceries. Leaving the doctor, (1). Arriving at the grocery store, (2).

Time for lunch - leave the grocery store, (1) and drive to the coffee shop, then (2).

I need a haircut, so (1) to walk 1 building over in the little strip mall and (2) at the barbershop.

After the haircut, (1), back to the car and a quick trip to the hardware store, (2) and then home again, (1) for the trip and (2) when I get home.

Carrying an unloaded gun in a locked case is hardly 'having a firearm ready for use in self defense'.
 
The "you can carry everywhere but on the street" is lame as all get out . It's one of those comments you just want to ask " did you just hear what you said"?

IMO , I think the state failed when they banned open carry (OC) , made it almost impossible to conceal carry (CC) then conceded in court yesterday that the right to bear arms extends outside the home . I can't see how any reasonable judge can think that's keeping with the 2nd . Yes this is the 9th but when the one judge asked " is it the states view that the core right extends outside the home" YES or NO ? When the state answered YES , that's when we won this case . What the state did there was say , yes the right extends outside the home but we will not give you an outlet . We win slam dunk case over in the real world .
 
Last edited:
They no longer hold that title and even the most reversed courts are not reversed all that often. Doesn't mean much.

The silliness at the oral arguments means more. "Public, except the street" just makes no sense to me but seems to make lots of sense to the panel.
 
From the Post-Gazette article:

Most analysts dismiss statistics on reversal as of little significance, given the small number of cases reviewed from most circuits.
Click to expand...


Which is another way of saying that even the most reversed courts are not reversed all that often. Of the opinions reviewed by the Supreme Court, most are reversed in most circuits. Of all opinions from all circuits, only a small fraction are reviewed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top