The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 16, 2011, 09:21 PM   #1
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
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.
Don H is offline  
Old May 16, 2011, 10:01 PM   #2
jmortimer
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.
jmortimer is offline  
Old May 17, 2011, 12:33 AM   #3
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old May 17, 2011, 06:38 AM   #4
ZCORR Jay
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
ZCORR Jay is offline  
Old May 17, 2011, 07:14 AM   #5
secret_agent_man
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2011
Posts: 463
Quote:
there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public
There is no law which says you can't save for state a local laws, most of which will not withstand the required degree of scrutiny under the Second Amendment, should that ever be decided. Heller kind of left things in limbo there.
secret_agent_man is offline  
Old May 17, 2011, 09:39 AM   #6
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,650
We've got this going twice. Threads merged

GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 17, 2011, 10:07 AM   #7
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 17, 2011, 10:13 AM   #8
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by C0untZer0
I don't think SCOTUS will define the 2nd Amendment so specifcally to say that it equals the right to carry concealed.

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!
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 17, 2011, 01:23 PM   #9
C0untZer0
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.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old May 17, 2011, 03:13 PM   #10
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,161
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 Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old August 25, 2011, 11:37 AM   #11
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Richards-v-Prieto-Opening-Brief-20110824.pdf (4.79 MB, 21 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 25, 2011, 06:39 PM   #12
Isk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 181
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.
Isk is offline  
Old August 25, 2011, 08:37 PM   #13
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,253
Quote:
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.
...and you'd be exactly right. Heller explicitly ruled out rational basis.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 25, 2011, 08:56 PM   #14
TCL
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?
TCL is offline  
Old August 25, 2011, 09:53 PM   #15
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
Folks?

Richards is just now at the 9th Circuit. This is the beginning of the appeal process from the District judges opinion.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 1, 2011, 02:28 PM   #16
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf NRA-Richards-Amicus-2011-08-31.pdf (1.85 MB, 23 views)
File Type: pdf CRPA-F-Richards-Amicus-2011-08-31.pdf (1.88 MB, 10 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 1, 2011, 06:00 PM   #17
TexasFats
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.
TexasFats is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 01:33 PM   #18
dvcrsn
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
dvcrsn is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 02:29 PM   #19
deadcoyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2009
Location: northern CA
Posts: 491
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.
deadcoyote is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 02:36 PM   #20
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 472
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
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 03:13 PM   #21
deadcoyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2009
Location: northern CA
Posts: 491
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.
deadcoyote is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 03:30 PM   #22
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,306
Quote:
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?
Yup.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old September 2, 2011, 03:32 PM   #23
Wag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Rio Rancho, NM
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadcoyote
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.
Very glad to hear that this is going on in CA. You just never know, that could end up being the kind of thing that will finally wear away the resistance to CC in the rest of the state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead0922
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
When I moved away from CA in 2006, the answer was "yes." Since then I haven't heard anything to indicate it has changed. What I have seen, however, is a map which shows there are a LOT more such sheriff's in the outlying counties who are issuing more and more CC permits on a "shall issue" basis. Warmed my heart, to be sure. I really do like CA and it's good to see this kind of thing happening.

Carry on the good work!

--Wag--
__________________
"Great genius will always encounter fierce opposition from mediocre minds." --Albert Einstein.
Wag is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 06:13 PM   #24
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 549
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
HarrySchell is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 07:48 PM   #25
Isk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 181
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.
Isk is offline  
Reply

Tags
2nd amendment , ca may issue , firearm rights , saf/gura

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15182 seconds with 8 queries