Latest Breaking News

Judi Lynn

(160,661 posts) Fri Feb 28, 2014, 03:57 AM Feb 2014

California challenges concealed weapons ruling

Source: Associated Press

California challenges concealed weapons ruling
| February 27, 2014 | Updated: February 27, 2014 8:40pm

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California's attorney general on Thursday appealed a federal court decision that overturned San Diego County's concealed weapons restrictions.

Kamala D. Harris asked the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a decision made by a three-judge panel of the court on Feb. 13.

That panel struck down requirements by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department that applicants for concealed weapons permits must show "good cause," such as working in a dangerous job.

The appellate panel, in a 2-1 ruling, said that requirement violates the constitutional Second Amendment right to bear arms.

State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course. It's generally up to the state's sheriffs and police chiefs to issue the permits, and the vast majority requires an applicant to demonstrate a real danger or other reasons beyond simple self-defense to receive a permit.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/California-challenges-concealed-weapons-ruling-5275230.php

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

California challenges concealed weapons ruling (Original Post) Judi Lynn Feb 2014 OP

The practice of "may issue" for concealed carry permits is unconstitutional shedevil69taz Feb 2014 #1

Especially when need is often determined by pipoman Feb 2014 #2

California is fighting against the legal tide on this issue - they will loose hack89 Feb 2014 #3

shedevil69taz

(512 posts)

1. The practice of "may issue" for concealed carry permits is unconstitutional

Reply to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 04:59 AM

Feb 2014

and the practice of having to demonstrate and arbritary "need" to a local sherriff will have to be replaced with clear, objective guidlines for obtaining one.

pipoman

(16,038 posts)

2. Especially when need is often determined by

Reply to shedevil69taz (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 08:41 AM

Feb 2014

Political friendship and donations. They "may issue" system is corrupt.

hack89

(39,171 posts)

3. California is fighting against the legal tide on this issue - they will loose

Reply to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Fri Feb 28, 2014, 08:49 AM

Feb 2014

Heller is like US v Windsor - the impact is going to be far more reaching than anyone initially thought. Windsor was supposed to only be about the Federal government with no impact on the state's ability to regulate marriage. Now even conservative state judges and AGs have accepted otherwise.

Heller will have the same sweeping impact - as we saw from this ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court:

As the Seventh Circuit correctly noted, neither Heller nor McDonald expressly limits the second amendment’s protections to the home. On the contrary, both decisions contain language strongly suggesting if not outright confirming that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. Moreover, if Heller means what it says, and “individual self-defense” is indeed “the central component” of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, then it would make little sense to restrict that right to the home, as “confrontations are not limited to the home.” Indeed, Heller itself recognizes as much when it states that “the right to have arms *** was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”

This does not mean that CCW cannot be regulated. It does mean that the remaining handful of "may issue" states will move to "shall issue" CCW.

Reply to this discussion