• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

9th Circuit Court - No right to carry concealed weapons in public

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrokenFiction

Member
Wow. Appeals coming, but...wow.

http://bigstory.ap.org/fc5e6ce2770d45ebbe451152414720c4

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.

California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.


In San Diego County, the sheriff required applicants to show supporting documents such as restraining orders against possible attackers to show good cause for a permit. The requirement prompted a lawsuit by residents who were denied a permit.

During oral arguments before the 11-judge 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.

California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.

Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards.
Click to expand...
 
ElRenoRaven

ElRenoRaven

Member
Hmm. This is going to be interesting to watch. No doubt this is going to go all the way to the supreme court. Neither side will be giving up in this fight.
 
M

Marty Chinn

Member
I know someone who isn't going to be pleased with this. I can't say I completely agree with the ruling either. If you're going to give out a conceal carry license, then you should be allowed to carry based on that license. If you don't want them to conceal carry, don't give them the license to begin with. This will be interesting because we know this is going to go all the way up to SCOTUS.
 
Vestal

Vestal

Gold Member
Perfect storm would be this not making it to the SCOTUS till after the election.... \

EDIT:Actually STRIKE that, a tie in the SCOTUS means that the lower courts ruling is upheld!
 
JetBlackPanda

JetBlackPanda

Member
Bad timing with an election coming. There are people that will vote for Trump just because he sides on one side of this issue.
 
A

Archer

Member
anigif_original-grid-image-3445-1432149289-10.gif
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
The 9th Circuit upholding a restriction on gun ownership?!?! Damn!!! There's no way the Supreme Court would ever reverse this ruling!
 
G

gcubed

Member
Marty Chinn said:
I know someone who isn't going to be pleased with this. I can't say I completely agree with the ruling either. If you're going to give out a conceal carry license, then you should be allowed to carry based on that license. If you don't want them to conceal carry, don't give them the license to begin with. This will be interesting because we know this is going to go all the way up to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

right, so... thats exactly what this ruling says. The lawsuit came up from requiring reasons to be granted a concealed carry permit... its not ruling that permits are invalid, its saying that you have no right to just carry if the state requires a permit
 
T

Tall4Life

Member
This will most likely be on the Supreme Court docket for next year. I imagine the vacancy will be filled by then.

Unless someone is pushed through before then, whoever wins between Clinton and Trump will likely decide the justice who is the deciding vote in this case. Will certainly be interesting to see.
 
C

Casimir

Unconfirmed Member
Marty Chinn said:
I know someone who isn't going to be pleased with this. I can't say I completely agree with the ruling either. If you're going to give out a conceal carry license, then you should be allowed to carry based on that license. If you don't want them to conceal carry, don't give them the license to begin with. This will be interesting because we know this is going to go all the way up to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

...California already doesn't give permits without good cause beyond "I have Second Amendment rights!". The lawsuit and the subsequent ruling and article is about certain residents disagreeing with that policy.
 
M

Marty Chinn

Member
gcubed said:
right, so... thats exactly what this ruling says. The lawsuit came up from requiring reasons to be granted a concealed carry permit... its not ruling that permits are invalid, its saying that you have no right to just carry if the state requires a permit
Click to expand...

Oops, misread it. I thought it was saying that even though you had a license to conceal carry, you would only be allowed to do so if you could provide reasonable evidence at the time you were carrying that you needed to.

I think I'm okay with that being a requirement to obtain the license.
 
G

gcubed

Member
i think people are reading a bit too much into the topic. Some states require permitting, this is challenging that fact that either a)you dont need permitting or b)you basically need nothing to obtain said permit.
 
T

Tall4Life

Member
partyphone said:
yay. so I imagine this is getting appealed to the supreme court? a 4/4 there would actually be good...
Click to expand...

With the way the process works for getting a court to be heard by the Supreme Court, and how far ahead the current calendar is in relation to this case, it is extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court will still only have 8 justices.

The calendar goes from October to April with a break in between, and I believe its already been set for the next session.
 
BigBeauford

BigBeauford

Member
I'll be that guy. This won't stop people with ill intent from concealing a weapon. It only deters law abiding citizens.
 
H

Horns

Member
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Click to expand...

I thought this was already settled in 2009 during DC vs. Heller.
 
P

PeskyToaster

Member
BigBeauford said:
I'll be that guy. This won't stop people with ill intent from concealing a weapon. It only deters law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

I'm more Second Amendment than most on this forum but this reasoning has always bothered me. When has that been the litmus test for any law at any time ever in the history of law making? Try applying that reasoning to any sort of regulation and law. Why make any laws at all if criminals will break them anyways?
 
K

kmag

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
DC v Heller was 5-4. There's a good chance that the a Obama/Clinton court would uphold this
Click to expand...

Heller basically already stated in passing that the 2nd Amendment was limited, and that concealed weapons permits was an application of the limited nature of the Amendment. I think even given the courts current make up, the ruling would be affirmed. Only Thomas and maybe Alito would rule against.
 
E

ElFly

Member
BigBeauford said:
Yes, people with ill intent like George Zimmerman will still be carrying, someone who doesn't may not be.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman didn't have ill intent. He thought himself a righteous citizen protecting his community. Also he was a law abiding citizen, as him being declared innocent proves.

I bet he even considered himself a responsible gun owner.

Turns out being "without ill intent and a law abiding citizen" is not the minimum standard to not be considered a trash person.
 
N

No Love

Banned
Stupid San Diego County sheriff is a total douchebag that doesn't believe in following the law and just likes to be a control freak. Just give people their permits instead of making up bullshit reasons not to.
 
BigBeauford

BigBeauford

Member
PeskyToaster said:
I'm more Second Amendment than most on this forum but this reasoning has always bothered me. When has that been the litmus test for any law at any time ever in the history of law making? Try applying that reasoning to any sort of regulation and law. Why make any laws at all if criminals will break them anyways?
Click to expand...

Because owning a gun is not illegal. You're going along the lines of why is murder illegal if people do it anyways kind of thought if I am following your reasoning.
 
T

TS-08

Member
PeskyToaster said:
I'm more Second Amendment than most on this forum but this reasoning has always bothered me. When has that been the litmus test for any law at any time ever in the history of law making? Try applying that reasoning to any sort of regulation and law. Why make any laws at all if criminals will break them anyways?
Click to expand...

I believe the argument is these laws make people who would follow them "unsafe" since it may prevent them from having a gun to protect themselves or others from a criminal who will use a gun for something like armed robbery or a mass shooting, since said individual will likely not be deterred from committing such crimes just because concealing a handgun is illegal where he or she is. This mentality wouldn't apply to many of our most basic laws, like murder: "They've made murder illegal? Now how will us law-abiding citizens silence our enemies?"
So I guess the response would be: the effect of many other laws aren't comparable.
 
C

CrocMother

Banned
Isn't it quick to assume how the SC judges would vote on this? Given precedent, I kind of assume they would not uphold this ban.
 
M

Mammoth Jones

Member
Living in NY this is nothing new to me. Can't carry guns here. This is an issue that should be decided on the county/state level.

Conceal carry may work in Nebraska but not NYC. Just too crowded here. I'm about to walk through Times Square shit just not realistic.

I'm ok with this.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
CrocMother said:
Isn't it quick to assume how the SC judges would vote on this? Given precedent, I kind of assume they would not uphold this ban.
Click to expand...

This is within DC v Heller. The 9th circuit is already bound by that case

Mammoth Jones said:
Living in NY this is nothing new to me. Can't carry guns here. This is an issue that should be decided on the county/state level.

Conceal carry may work in Nebraska but not NYC. Just too crowded here. I'm about to walk through Times Square shit just not realistic.

I'm ok with this.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what this case is, its not overruling looser rules
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Apple Sued by DOJ for Illegal Monopoly over Smartphones
2 3 4 5 6
270
13K
PaintTinJr replied
Chinese government working on regulations to curb excessive spending on gaming.
News
35
3K
Bkdk replied
Your civil rights weren’t violated when you were muted out of a video game, U.S. court tells angry player
Cringe
4
1K
EDMIX replied
Being 'muted' in a game does not violate your civil rights, US federal court declares
Cringe
33
3K
PleaseDontBanMe replied
Billy Mitchell takes his Donkey Kong high-score cheating case to court
2
83
7K
Chupanibre replied
Top Bottom