CCW LAW – CALIF. WENT TOO FAR SAYS LIBERAL 9th DC

Calif. concealed weapon law tossed by fed appeals court

SAN FRANCISCO – A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California’s concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

By a 2-1 vote, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California was wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote for the majority.

Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, writing that the good cause requirement limited the number of people carrying concealed handguns in public to those legitimately in need.

“It limits the risk to public safety by reducing the number of guns in public circulation, but allows those who will most likely need to defend themselves in public to carry a handgun,” Thomas wrote.

Awarding concealed weapon permits is the responsibility of each of California’s 58 counties. Officials are required to follow the state rules requiring applicants to show good cause and moral character.

The San Francisco-based appeals court said those requirements were too strict and ran afoul of a 5-4 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban and said law-abiding citizens are allowed to have handguns in their home for self-defense.

The appeals court on Thursday reinstated a lawsuit filed in 2009 by Edward Peruta, who challenged San Diego County’s denial of a concealed weapons permit.

The ruling on Thursday also disagreed with three other federal appeals courts that have upheld permit rules similar to the one in California.

The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to CCW LAW – CALIF. WENT TOO FAR SAYS LIBERAL 9th DC

  1. J Soden says:

    What really amazing here is that the 9th Circus is the one that ruled the law was “too liberal.” Didn’t think that was possible!

  2. Tina says:

    “It limits the risk to public safety by reducing the number of guns in public circulation, but allows those who will most likely need to defend themselves in public to carry a handgun,” Thomas wrote.

    Ha! It would limit the number of guns carried by law abiding citizens and prevent them from defending themselves (and others) but it would not limit the number of guns carried and used by people who are dangerous intend to kill.

    • Post Scripts says:

      The liberal agenda in CA is quite clear, they can’t overtly attack the 2nd amendment so they find ways to make gun ownership too costly and complicated. Their agenda is to make guns obsolete, it’s an obsession. They’ve created such a fear in in our society that gun and ammo sales are at record levels. The liberals have caused ammo prices to rise by 300% in just the last 2 years. It’s an absurd situation created by small minds with big egos who makes laws in Sacramento.

  3. Pie Guevara says:

    This certainly has Piers Morgan’s sphincter oscillating —

    https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/434046262711562240

Comments are closed.