Richards v. Prieto appealed to 9th Circuit

D

Don H

New member
Was: Federal judge rules against Calif. gun advocates

May 16th, 2011 @ 7:15pm

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - A federal judge ruled Monday there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public _ a decision that dealt a setback to gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=15573207

Not a good day for the Second in CA. I'm sure this will getr appealed, upheld and maybe to the USSC.

ETA: Title changed to reflect new reality. Al.
 
I don't think SCOTUS will define the 2nd Amendment so specifcally to say that it equals the right to carry concealed.
 
"There is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public"

Lets hope that if you live in the Sacramento area you never ever have to defend yourself...

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A federal judge ruled Monday there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public — a decision that dealt a setback to gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits. U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. in Sacramento supported a policy by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto that says applicants must have a reason, such as a safety threat, to legally carry a concealed weapon in his county northwest of Sacramento.

"Regulating concealed firearms is an essential part of Yolo County's efforts to maintain public safety and prevent both gun-related crime and, most importantly, the death of its citizens. Yolo County's policy is more than rationally related to these legitimate government goals," England wrote.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/federal-judge-rules-calif-gun-advocates/
 
there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public
Click to expand...

There is no law which says you can't save for state a local laws, most of which will not withstand the required degree of scrutiny under the Second Amendment, should that ever be decided. Heller kind of left things in limbo there.
 
Josh Blackman has a few things to say about the ruling, here.

I should also say that this opinion was entirely expected by Kilmer and Gura. They filed their notice of appeal almost as soon as the Judge issued his opinion. Check out the Docket to see what I mean.

Over in the 6th column, you will see that 4 of us hit PACER within minutes of each other. Each time, a new entry had been made.
 
C0untZer0 said:
I don't think SCOTUS will define the 2nd Amendment so specifcally to say that it equals the right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...


You're right... It should not specify concealed or open or any other particular method... It should be no more specific than "bear arms". How, when and where is what freedom IS!
 
See this is the thing that I am afraid of in Illinois.

I'd rather accomplish things with the legislature than to try to accomplish things with the courts.
 
Unfortunately, my former home state's elected officials require the courts to remind them what is and is not legal all too often.
It's sad really.
 
Huh. The court used a "rational basis" standard. I would think after Heller's "individual right" decision that you would need at least intermediate scrutiny to prevent a citizen from bearing arms...law should need to further an IMPORTANT government interest and be SUBSTANTIALLY related to that interest. I'd like to see the way the SCOTUS handles some of these upcoming challenges.
 
The court used a "rational basis" standard. I would think after Heller's "individual right" decision that you would need at least intermediate scrutiny to prevent a citizen from bearing arms.
Click to expand...
...and you'd be exactly right. Heller explicitly ruled out rational basis.
 
This is the 9th Circus, er, Circuit. You were expecting maybe a decision in favor of the 2nd Amendment?
 
Folks?

Richards is just now at the 9th Circuit. This is the beginning of the appeal process from the District judges opinion.
 
There were two amicus briefs filed.

The NRA brief is filled with some delicious statistics that shred the trial Judges mantra of "Public Safety."

The CRPA brief is also filled with citations against the "in the home" mantra and calls into question the fallacy that Unloaded Open Carry (UOC - a CA thing) is sufficient for self defense.

Two very good briefs, that challenge previous 9th Circuit opinions.
 

Attachments

While the NRA's amicus might be very apropos for refuting the judge's reasoning, don't expect it to sway the 9th Circuit Court. The reality is that the left only uses the crime issue as a propaganda tool. The reality is that they really don't believe that ordinary citizens should be armed or can be trusted with guns.
 
I hope the CLEOs get pounded--it would be nice to see LAPD, LASD,SFPD and the rest actually issuing LTC/CCW with nothing more than a background check and a class similar to a security guard gun card
 
Although I reside in dirty old CA I must give a kind word here to our fine Sheriff in Humboldt County. CCW was even one of the main topics between the candidates for Sheriff in the election last year, and our electorate was clear enough that both candidates strongly and publicly stated they would continue Sheriff Phelps' policy of issue to anyone with a clear criminal record. Thus far it's going great as usual.
 
Question

Is a CA CCW permit good throughout the state?

I.e. a permit obtained in Humboldt County must be honored in an anti-gun county?

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top