A Civil Rights Victory
The ninth circuit has ruled against may issue (usually may not) carry in California. Seems that having to show good cause violates the second amendment.
The tears of hippies are the sweetest.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 13th, 2014 at 6:13 pm
And Lyle puts it in perspective.
February 13th, 2014 at 6:28 pm
Lyle’s perspective is dead on..
February 13th, 2014 at 8:11 pm
But never fear… they will require all kinds of test and special equipment. Green ammo, environmentally friendly holsters, micro-stamping (non-existent but still they will require it), and limit the number of rounds carried and places you can go.
Does not matter who well ‘shall issue’ works in other states, why California is DIFFERENT!
February 13th, 2014 at 8:30 pm
Paul yes, I’m sure they’re burning up the wires ‘tween Chicago and Sacramento as we speak.
And reciprocity: “We don’t CARE if you had a background check in your home state; if California didn’t do it, it wasn’t done right!”
Yes, libations are in order. Many many many of them.
February 13th, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Paul,
“But never fear… they will require all kinds of test and special equipment.”
Bzzzt. Unlike IL, CA already has an CCW infrastructure in place that is effectively shall-issue in most of the hinterland. Only in metropolitan areas is it effectively “no issue”, and that’s because local authorities are requiring “good reasons” to issue permits. The court has ruled that practice unconstitutional.
Lyle’s perspective is word-for-word the kind of thing I used to write on TFL and THR fifteen years ago, when I subscribed to the Libertarian Underpants Gnome Theory of Constitutional Jurisprudence:
1) Gun laws are unconstitutional!
2) ?????????????
3) All gun laws are repealed! Hooray!
Robb said it best: “How can you tell that NFL coaches are not gun owners?”
I don’t need people up in the wagon giving me “perspective”, I need ’em down here in the mud helping me pull on this rope to get the thing unstuck.
February 13th, 2014 at 8:59 pm
If you drive a truck 30 miles into the muck, it’s still 30 miles to get it the fuck out. I’ll help pull the rope.
February 13th, 2014 at 9:09 pm
And, if there was still unloaded open carry in CA, would they have ruled the same way?
February 14th, 2014 at 1:45 am
A commenter at Joe’s (Rolf, I think) mentioned that we got here by the left’s incrementalism and it’s not unreasonable to get back to 1933 the same way. I seriously doubt it’ll take us anywhere near as long to get to 1933 as it did to 1994 from there.
It’s absolutely hippie tears; Tam’s pointed out several times that in 1994 many of us thought nothing but dark days ahead, but look where we are now. There are several cases working through various courts, some of which will get to SCOTUS in a year or so. There are a lot of cracks in the dam, and more coming; just remember that even a collapsed dam still has some water behind it.
In SC we just got restaurant carry, most of the CCW training requirement dumped, online CCW renewal, improved in-car carry/storage, and the governor said she’ll sign Constitutional carry if the legislature puts it on her desk. We probably won’t get it this year, but we’ve got until November to get people on record for and against it, and we will.
California’s going to change, sooner rather than later and in bigger ways than the lefties can imagine. There’s one hell of a comeuppance building in IL, although it’s going to be another court trip to get it. There’s a storm building in NY, and CT just discovered the limit to its power. FL Carry just had a state university roll over on CCW without a fight.
That’s winning, a couple steps at a time. Yes, we want it all and we want it now. Not going to happen that way. But it will happen. All we have to do is keep the pressure on with our donations, our letters and our votes, and take successes where we can get them.
February 14th, 2014 at 5:23 am
“the governor said she’ll sign Constitutional carry if the legislature puts it on her desk. ”
Too bad she’s married! (Me too, for that matter.)
February 14th, 2014 at 9:17 am
I think a lot of people called this ruling a few years back (myself, included). CA will be shall issue…someday.
This is a great win, but it’s kinda like soft concrete. There is a lot of room left for this to move. The defense is going to request an en banc review – meaning that they want a larger panel of the 9th Circuit to review the decision. The 9th will probably grant that review, which stays (holds) this decision until that review is over. That is more likely than not going to take better than a year. During that time, the decision is essentially null for the purposes of precedent.
When the 9th is done with their review, the losing party can then appeal to the Supreme Court.
OK, so that’s the downside. The upside is this is a really well written decision from our perspective. It is significantly more encompassing than need be (which might lend reason for the 9th to review), but the logic in here is designed to forestall any number of future regulations. The ruling is wuite explicit: any amount of regulation that has the result of reducing or eliminating the practical right to bear arms in public is almost surely unconstitutional on its face. Additionally, they dropped some language that says the creation of stiff penalties for non-violent infractions of regulation is tantamount to a restriction, if it causes people to fear carrying because of the potential they will be prosecuted for non-violent acts.
I could go on, but this ain’t my blog and I don’t want to hog screen space.
Again, if this logic is upheld all the way to SCOTUS, it will be a big effing deal.
February 14th, 2014 at 9:23 am
OK, one more thing. The NJ carry case (that we lost in both district and circuit) is called Drake, and it is up for cert review next month. If the Supreme Court wanted to hear from more circuits and get a solid split, they got one.
Drake is a SAF case, and the split increases the odds the court may pick it up. If so, then Peruta goes into limbo (as do all other carry cases and certainly a few more) until SCOTUS rules, probably in the June 2015 timeframe.
I’d love CA to go shall-issue this year, but unless the Sheriff folds up and takes this ruling it won’t happen.
February 14th, 2014 at 9:35 am
I don’t need people in the back of my truck to give me traction. I need them down in the mud where they and I have no traction….
February 14th, 2014 at 2:04 pm
Now, if we could just get this kind of energy and education behind the removal of the rest of the leftard agenda. Sitting here clinging to my AR is nice and all, but I can’t get incandescent bulbs, my toilet won’t flush, my washer won’t clean my laundry, the bugs eat my insecticides as food, etc.