|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 16, 2011, 09:21 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Richards v. Prieto appealed to 9th Circuit
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. |
May 16, 2011, 10:01 PM | #2 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
This state bites. SCOTUS may fix it some day or make it much worse. Will see what 2012 brings.
|
May 17, 2011, 12:33 AM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
I don't think SCOTUS will define the 2nd Amendment so specifcally to say that it equals the right to carry concealed.
|
May 17, 2011, 06:38 AM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: July 23, 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 99
|
"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...gun-advocates/
__________________
ZCORR Products 10% Forum Member Discount Code ZCORR-FORUM2013 Free shipping on all domestic & APO/AFO orders over $75 |
May 17, 2011, 07:14 AM | #5 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
|
Quote:
|
|
May 17, 2011, 09:39 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
We've got this going twice. Threads merged
GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 17, 2011, 10:07 AM | #7 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
May 17, 2011, 10:13 AM | #8 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
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!
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
May 17, 2011, 01:23 PM | #9 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
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. |
May 17, 2011, 03:13 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
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.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
August 25, 2011, 11:37 AM | #11 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Richards have filed their opening brief (attached) to the 9th Circuit.
The brief is 90 pages, which I have only read about half. I'll have more to say later. |
August 25, 2011, 06:39 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
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.
|
August 25, 2011, 08:37 PM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 25, 2011, 08:56 PM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: April 5, 2011
Posts: 78
|
This is the 9th Circus, er, Circuit. You were expecting maybe a decision in favor of the 2nd Amendment?
|
August 25, 2011, 09:53 PM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Folks?
Richards is just now at the 9th Circuit. This is the beginning of the appeal process from the District judges opinion. |
September 1, 2011, 02:28 PM | #16 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
September 1, 2011, 06:00 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 130
|
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.
__________________
Gun laws are designed to extend and solidify the power of an elite over a peasantry. Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march. |
September 2, 2011, 01:33 PM | #18 |
Member
Join Date: February 4, 2008
Posts: 16
|
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
|
September 2, 2011, 02:29 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2009
Location: northern CA
Posts: 674
|
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.
|
September 2, 2011, 02:36 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
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 |
September 2, 2011, 03:13 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2009
Location: northern CA
Posts: 674
|
Can't honestly say. I'm an LEO so CCW isn't needed. I still am happy I live and work in an armed county.
|
September 2, 2011, 03:30 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
__________________
Jim March |
|
September 2, 2011, 03:32 PM | #23 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 988
|
Quote:
Quote:
Carry on the good work! --Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein. |
||
September 6, 2011, 06:13 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
You can add Orange County to the "enlightened" when it comes to issuing carry licenses. The lady who replaced Carona is a protege of Lee Baca, who runs LA County SD and who is definitely anti-citizen...only criminals and cops should carry. The rest of us are too squirrely or something.
She started out to reverse Carona's CCW policies but rapidly got the message that those policies were not what got him into trouble. If she didn't want to go ask Baca for a job after the next election, she better refine her "attitude". She likes wearing four stars so she did.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
September 6, 2011, 07:48 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
Some good statistics in the NRA brief. Hopefully the court won't see NRA on the cover sheet and throw it out the window before actually reading it.
|
Tags |
2nd amendment , ca may issue , firearm rights , saf/gura |
|
|