Quote of the day—Irma E. Gonzalez

Unlike section 12031, the District of Columbia law did not contain, and the Supreme Court declined to infer, an exception for self-defense. Id. The Heller Court did not reach the question of whether the law would have been constitutional had there been an exception for self-defense. See id. As a consequence, the Court declines to assume that section 12031 places an unlawful burden on the right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Irma E. Gonzalez
December 10, 2010
United States District Court Southern District of California
Case 09CV2371-IEG (BGS), Order (1) Denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment
Page 8, lines 18-22.

[Sebastian also has a post on the topic  as does John Richardson.

I’m reminded of Aesop’s fable of the fox and the grapes—with a twist.

The Brady Campaign is quite pleased with this order because it says concealed carry is not a guaranteed right. But what they don’t mention is that the reason given by the judge that it doesn’t infringe is that an exemption exists for open carry. While the courts don’t always rule consistently this does imply that some sort of public carry is believed to constitutionally protected. Hence the Brady Campaign may be crowing about how sweet the grapes are because concealed carry restrictions are upheld while open carry becomes a guaranteed right beyond their reach.—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Irma E. Gonzalez

  1. The judge is misreading Heller. The question before the Supreme Court in Heller was whether or not an individual had a constitutional right to keep a handgun in their home for self defense under the 2nd Amendment. That was the ONLY question the Supreme Court addressed in striking down the DC handgun ban.

    The dicta included in the Heller decision noted that because the legal question before the Supreme Court addressed only in-home possession for self defense, all other current regulations on the books were not addressed in the Heller decision, and were left standing. All other local, state and federal firearm regulations were simply not addressed in Heller, they weren’t enshrined as constitutionally correct.

    Alan Gura knows this, and his incremental plan of judicial precedent-setting likely will result in SC decisions supporting open and concealed carry, in home and in public, with fewer restrictions than are currently legislated on time, place, and manner of carry, under rules of strict judicial scrutiny.

  2. Is there really an exemption for OC in California, given that the gun must be unloaded and you’re certain to have the cops harrass and/or draw down on you for daring to do it?

    What good is an unloaded gun for self-defense purposes?

  3. “While the courts don’t always rule consistently this does imply that some sort of public carry is believed to constitutionally protected.”

    She didn’t say this. The ruling specifically says:

    “Because Defendant’s policy for issuing concealed carry licenses under section 12050 would pass constitutional muster even if it burdens protected conduct, the Court does not need to decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses Plaintiffs’ asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public.”

    The Court does not need to decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses Plaintiffs’ asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public. She made no ruling on the Second Amendment. She ruled that current laws are sufficient for the plaintiff’s needs.

  4. My understanding of Kalifornistan law (which could be wrong, as I only read into it far enough to realize that was not a path I wanted to go down) is that for open carry purposes the firearm must remain unloaded unless you are in immediate fear for your life or danger, and, no, simply strolling around town does not count.

    As for what good that does you… well, drawing, loading, chambering, and firing a pistol is a hell of a lot better in some circumstances than bare fists…

Comments are closed.