Cal 9th COAppeals Strikes Down C&C license requirement...What?

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25134833/gun-control-federal-court-guts-californias-concealed-carry

Everyone should be allowed to C&C outside of their home.

This has to be a pre-staged plan to get the gun law before the Supremes?

Rick

[Quoner]

What!? I don't know why the Supremes think they can just try something new here.Things are changing, but do they really got the power over C&C to make everybody dance around this issue now? I guess they just want this debate to keep hanging on, but it really doesn't seem like it's up for discussion.

[CaribbeanGreen]

What!? I don't know why the Supremes think they can just try something new here.Things are changing, but do they really got the power over C&C to make everybody dance around this issue now? I guess they just want this debate to keep hanging on, but it really doesn't seem like it's up for discussion.

Don't you understand? They're trying to take away our Freedom (Williams)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cerebus]

I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV, but this is a pretty big deal:

Concerning the precise methods by which that right’s scope is discerned, the Heller and McDonald Courts were hardly shy: we must consult “both text and history.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 595; see also McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3047 (reiterating that “the scope of the Second Amendment right” is determined by historical analysis and not interest balancing).

Since many gun laws are deemed constitutional because courts have argued that the right must be "balanced" with the interest of those that want gun control.


Also, LOL:

And a citizen may carry a loaded firearm in public if: (1) he is engaged in the act of attempting to make a lawful arrest; (2) he is hunting in locations where it is lawful to hunt; or (3) he faces immediate, grave danger provided that the weapon is only carried in “the brief interval” between the time law enforcement officials are notified of the danger and the time they arrive on the scene (where the fleeing victim would obtain a gun during that interval is apparently left to Providence). Id. § 26040 (hunting); id. § 26045 (immediate, grave danger); id. § 26050 (attempting to make a lawful arrest).

This all read very close to what the 7th district court ruled, which is going to force Ill-i-noise to create a CC law.


Last but not least, Alan Gura is a genius.

We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated 76 into the Due Process Clause.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044

Edited February 13, 2014 by Cerebus

[Quoner]

Don't you understand? They're trying to take away our Freedom (Williams)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just another thing that makes you go hmmmmm about the Obama administration.

[Cerebus]

This will warm the cockles of FFR's heart, hell it may spread even further, to the sub cockle region:

That’s because, with Heller on the books, the Second Amendment’s original meaning is now settled in at least two relevant respects. First, Heller clarifies that the keeping and bearing of arms is, and has always been, an individual right. See, e.g., 554 U.S. at 616. Second, the right is, and has always been, oriented to the end of self-defense. See, e.g., id. Any contrary interpretation of the right, whether propounded in 1791 or just last week, is error.

[TheTastyGreek]

Gonna make you reevaluate your conception and interpretation of a contrary foundation 'till you bleed.

Is that dope enough? Indeed.

[UNT90]

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25134833/gun-control-federal-court-guts-californias-concealed-carry

Everyone should be allowed to C&C outside of their home.

This has to be a pre-staged plan to get the gun law before the Supremes?

Rick

This was not a review by the full 9th circuit.

It will go to an en banc panel review (full court) and the 9th circuit will do what the 9th circuit always does, rule on the side of political correctness.

If the Supremes choose to review this, it will be after the 9th circuit has done their normal due diligence.

[TheTastyGreek]

This was not a review by the full 9th circuit.

It will go to an en banc panel review (full court) and the 9th circuit will do what the 9th circuit always does, rule on the side of political correctness.

If the Supremes choose to review this, it will be after the 9th circuit has done their normal due diligence.

You can't hurry due diligence. No, you just have to wait. You got to trust, give it time. No matter how long it takes.

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

I have no opinion one way or another on this issue. Carry on.

[FirefightnRick]

This was not a review by the full 9th circuit.

It will go to an en banc panel review (full court) and the 9th circuit will do what the 9th circuit always does, rule on the side of political correctness.

If the Supremes choose to review this, it will be after the 9th circuit has done their normal due diligence.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Rick