May-Issue CCW struck down in California

It is time to hide the sleeping pills and Tequila from the anti-gunners.

California’s “may-issue” CCW has been ruled unconstitutional. This ruling is really big. Both California and Illinois have had their infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms struck down by Federal Courts.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for other states and D.C. to hold on to their oppressive CCW laws.

Here are some quotes from the decision:

The Second Amendment, Heller tells us, secures “the right to ‘protect[] [oneself] against both public and private violence,’ thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to public or private violence.”

Writing over thirty years later in what Heller calls the “most important” American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries, id. at 594, St. George Tucker, a law professor and former Antifederalist, affirmed Blackstone’s comments on the British right and commented further on its American dimensions. The right to armed self-defense, Tucker insisted, is the “first law of nature,” and any law “prohibiting any person from bearing arms” crossed the constitutional line.

We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the
safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.” Id. at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.

Repeating this exceedingly important part:

Nor may we relegate the bearing of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause.”

The Second Amendment must be respected just as much as the First, or any other article in the Bill of Rights.

This is winning. This is evidence to use at their trials.

33 thoughts on “May-Issue CCW struck down in California

  1. Pingback: California will be shall issue in 2014 | The View From North Central Idaho

  2. Little Hawaii gets overlooked, as it isn’t going to be a big part of the Circuit split discussion, but their “may-issue” regime was tighter than any other I’m aware of, even NJ. Zero permits issued. California had good counties and bad counties but -all- Hawaiians were denied their rights. This is huge for them.

    Question for those who know, if the Supremes decide the Circuit split in favor of the 9th and 7th, what implications does that have for reciprocity? If bearing is a right that must be allowed to all US citizens, then can states discriminate based on residency?

      • I am assuming you are talking about reciprocity in regards to recognizing licenses from other states since Oregon doesn’t recognize out of state licenses. Unfortunately I think it might still stand because OR allows non-residences to get an OR CHL.

        What I find ironic is that its not like Oregon has some serious licensure requires. You take a class (mine was about 4 hours I believe) and there is no dry fire test. In regards to what is exclusionary on the application I didn’t see anything that would appear on another state’s questionaire.

        • Oregon currently only offers concealed licenses to residents of the 4 contiguous states, CA, WA, ID, NV.

          And I’d rather not OC in Portland, personal preference. Of course, WA doesn’t recognize AK’s CHP because we don’t have the issuing authority look at you during the application process or something.

          • OC is not legal in Portland. Or Multnomah County (Portland-area), IIRC.

            Salem and Bend restrict OC to unloaded OC, and Ashland is considering adopting rules on carrying.

            Other than that, OC is legal, but as a precaution I’d be prepared to be stopped and questioned about it.

        • OR allows non-residents in bordering states to apply for a CHL. Only Washington, California, Idaho, and Nevada residents can apply, non-resident CHLs are “may-issue.” Technically, the State Police can choose to recognize out-of-state permits with training requirements substantially similar to ours, but they’ve opted not to, even if the training requirements are much more rigorous.

          I wonder if this Ninth Circuit ruling affects Oregon’s non-resident CHL application process as well as “may-issue” for residents.

          • Archer,

            OC is not “illegal” in any Oregon city. However with OR allows cities to preempt OR laws on open carry if the individual does not have a CHL.

            With a CHL you are only restricted by Federal laws and the exclusions zones in OR. If you don’t have a CHL you can OC in Portland but the gun can’t be loaded.

            However even with my CHL I wouldn’t OC in Portland. This is hearsay but my CHL instructor advised that its Portland PD’s policy that anyone that is OCing gets brought in and then released. I just don’t want to deal with that on an everyday basis.

  3. I like the fact that the 9th Circus said the state could disallow concealed carry, or open carry, but not both, because the right is fundamental. A bit more at Ace’s place. http://minx.cc/?post=347138
    A step at a time, but some steps are bigger than others.
    Ubu, this means it’s going to get easier for you to exercise your rights.

  4. Reallly really great news. We are slowly winning.

    I don’t like that either open or concealed can be banned- the text of the Second says nothing about only allowing one many of carrying.

    But baby steps I suppose. Now we need the Supreme Court to apply this the entire country. Can you imagine NYC Carry? Crazy.

    • Alaska went from effectively no carry to shall-issue in ’94 to “Con Carry” in 2004. Once the floodgates open with shall-issue the anti’s lose long-term (CO may or may not prove the exception).

    • They are bitter-clingers, gasping and grasping for control, for bureaucracy, for jobs filing and processing paperwork. They feel the need to be respected, to have their ah-thor’a-tay respected! They are emotionally dependent on power, the appearance of control. They have fragile psyches, and like a domestic abuser, they fear the independence of the abused they lord over.

    • I was thinking of making a short post on that tonight.

      Basically, there is no point in having a licensing scheme and it has been clearly recognized as a specific enumerated right which means it should not be encumbered with a licensing scheme as a matter of principle. Hence if there is no point and (it should be ‘or’ instead of ‘and’ but this makes the case even stronger) in principle it should not exist then the licensing should go away.

      I look forward to putting my CCW licenses in a museum along with “No Coloreds Allowed” and “Whites Only” public restaurant signs.

  5. Strictly speaking, its not striking down “may issue”. It is striking down the combination of “may issue” and no open carry.

    We’ll have to see what California does to conform to the ruling. Going to “shall issue” would be smarter for them, but I suspect that they will instead choose to adopt an open carry law with scores of hedges in it.

    • And thus unleash the attention-whore brigades again? 😉 I think they’ll go shall-issue and try to tighten their time/place/manner restrictions to Illinois levels.

      But shall-issue opens the floodgates, and the more carriers there are the looser the restrictions will get over time. Especially given the laws in their neighbors.

      • Ironically it was getting OC banned in Cali that contributed to it.

        And OC with “scores of hedges in it” is what the situation was before with their asinine unloaded OC.

        But this is Cali, so expect them to be stubborn and ignorant.

        Shall-Issue is the big crack in the window. And from there other things can be accomplished.

    • I think they’ll go with open carry too, if they have to. Maybe they’ll just repeal the open carry ban?

      • It’d be loaded open carry given this decision and the OC activists would have a field day waving their guns in the tyrants faces.

      • No, they will stick with the concealed permit setup. OC has no controls built in to it, although they could try to create one.

        Funny thing about the Cali carry laws, in that they have basically the least prohibitions on it, compared to other states. IIRC, court and .fed buildings are about it. I don’t think any businesses can ban carry, since the state has complete exemption coverage.

        ‘Course, carry in SF, even by outside police and .fed types is strictly verboten, according to that benighted pustule of a city.

        • Carry can be banned by businesses. Go read up on the security at the Nokia Theatre where all the televised events take place. They don’t even allow off duty LEO to carry.

          • Maybe they think they can, but such a ban is still an unlawful infringement. “Shall NOT be infringed is absolute a universal. The right inheres to the individual and any actor may not infringe.

          • There is nothing in the constitution that says private parties can’t deprive you of your rights.

          • There is nothing in the constitution that says private parties can’t murder you either. But common and explicit legislative law say otherwise. And so it is with deprivation of most rights when you are in public or on your own property. That said, in the context of someone else’s property as in your statement, you are correct. At least I have seen court rulings that agree with that assessment and none that disagree.

          • My stars! A “for the children!” law being used to ban an activity far beyond the stated purpose of said law.

            Course school zones don’t extend past the property line… unless you think cities are mostly school property…

            But it’s amusing in comments about a court striking down a rule that makes carry defacto banned, Ubu is wishcasting about a new rule that’ll defacto ban carry.

          • Within 1,000 feet of a school zone in fact. Yet another one of those common laws which if actually enforced would effectively ban carry in most cities. Effectively banning carry of course now being illegal in California.

          • If UOC were still legal, would the court have decided that that was enough to “bear arms”? We don’t know because that wasn’t the question asked of the court.

            If the legislature would outlaw UOC of long arms in populated places, that might stop all the drama over OC.

          • And THAT would, following the reasoning of Perulta, absolutely destroy the “Gun Free School Zone Act” and state analogs.

            Because the core holding in Perulta is that regualtions that de facto prohibit your AVERAGE citizen from excercising his ennumerated Constitutional rights are unconstitutional.

Comments are closed.