Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of [W:93]

Lutherf · Feb 13, 2014

Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns

From the decision - http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

We thus disagree with those courts—including the district court in this
case—that have taken the view that it is not necessary (and, thus, necessary not) to
decide whether carrying a gun in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is a
constitutionally protected activity. See, e.g., Drake, 724 F.3d at 431; Woollard,
712 F.3d at 876; Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89; cf. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 475.
Understanding the scope of the right is not just necessary, it is key to our analysis.
For if self-defense outside the home is part of the core right to “bear arms” and the
California regulatory scheme prohibits the exercise of that right, no amount of
interest-balancing under a heightened form of means-ends scrutiny can justify San
Diego County’s policy. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 634 (“The very enumeration of the
right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is
really worth insisting upon.”).

and

To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the
states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the
states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. Historically,
the preferred form of carry has depended upon social convention: concealed carry
was frowned upon because it was seen as “evil practice” that endangered “the
safety of the people” and “public morals” by “exert[ing] an unhappy influence
upon the moral feelings of the wearer[ and] making him less regardful of the
personal security of others.” Reid, 1 Ala. at 616–17. States thus often passed laws
banning concealed carry and state courts often allowed prohibitions on concealed
carry so long as open carry was still permitted. Id.; see also Nunn, 1 Ga. at 251
(“o far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain
weapons secretly, th[en] it is valid. . . . But [to the extent it] contains a prohibition
against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.”).

and

The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary
judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s
“good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.

Click to expand...

It's a lengthy decision (77 pages not counting the dissent) and covers a ton of history which I haven't gotten into yet but at first blush this seems like a great win for CA and has the potential to yank the rug out from under the remaining "may issue" states.

I suspect that this decision will be appealed but if SCOTUS decides to hear the case and uphold it we may find that it is every bit the landmark decision that Heller was.

Summerwind · Feb 13, 2014

Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

San Diego County gun law violates 2nd Amendment, appeals court rules - latimes.com

San Diego County gun law violates 2nd Amendment, appeals court rules
By Maura Dolan February 13, 2014, 12:29 p.m

The court said San Diego's policy was too restrictive under the 2nd Amendment because it required applicants to show a specific concern for personal safety.
“Given this requirement, the 'typical' responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County cannot bear arms in public for self-defense,” wrote Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, an appointee of President Reagan. He was joined by Judge Consuelo Callahan, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
In a dissent, Judge Sidney Thomas, a President Clinton appointee, said the majority ruling "upends the entire California firearm regulatory scheme."
Thomas said the majority had wrongly reasoned that because California bans the open carry of guns in most public areas, it must permit residents to carry concealed handguns in public without having to show specific concerns for personal safety.

Good! We came down once to go to Disneyland for the kids, it was 3 weeks after the Rodney King riots but it had been planned for almost a year. Well I tried to do the right thing and get registered and CCW'd for CA but NONONONO can't have an ordinary person carry a gun. I did anyway, quite illegally but that attests to the gun holster folks as no one knew at all. Anyway, I've still got mine, just have to leave it in the trailer.

Now probably with what I do/plan to do here, I could get one, but that's besides the point. This is a perfect ruling.

Spartacus FPV · Feb 13, 2014

Re: Good perhaps soon I can carry in CA,

If only Maryland were as sensible. We're still a "May issue" state that requires a "Good and substantial reason" that one judge rightly deemed unconstitutional, but it was overturned by an Obama appointee and the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case.

Congrats on possibly having your 2A rights extend past your front door. Damn I wish I could carry...

Summerwind · Feb 13, 2014