Pages

Jump to bottom

40 comments

1 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 1:14:34pm

It’s interesting that there is a circuit split on this issue. As noted in the article, that does increase the chances of SCOTUS considering the issue.

However, I agree that it would be unwise for gun control advocates to work toward getting any gun cases heard by this SCOTUS.

2 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 1:43:21pm

Pffft. If you live in Los Angeles you can prove good cause and good character to no avail. I did, in spades. Still got denied. What’s the point when cities like L.A. can flout state law anyway?

9th circuit is famously liberal, and the most overturned circuit by reputation. But I don’t think the 2nd Amendment protects concealed carry. That is a matter for states.

Thing is the locality issues the CCW permits. Not California.

3 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 2:06:52pm

Key thing to this decision is that it basically says “may issue” and “show good cause” is dead. From the decision:

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

So open or concealed carry are both fine. So outlaw one but leave the other?

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.”

Essentially you would have to repeal the 2nd as was done with the 18th/21st amendments.

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.

That last bit is the money quote. Since the SD county policy is based on state law, state law has to change unless this is overturned by SCOTUS.

I’d love to hear Lawhawk’s take though.

4 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 4:30:19pm

re: #3 William Barnett-Lewis

I ‘aint no Lawhawk :-)

But spent a lot of hours digging at this online.
I find it more likely anti open carry laws would be in peril more than anti CCW law or policies. Concealed is a wholly unspoken facet in the second. And so perhaps more vulnerable to bans or extreme policy. Like what LA has. That is best described as “will not issue”. And I understand the relief that gives those of an anti carry opinion.

But my question for those good folks is at what cost? A city like Los Angeles gets to flaunt state law?

What is that some kind of twisted “cities rights”? (yes riffing on states rights for a lil tongue in cheek)

Chuck and I know each other via my old defunct CCW lawsuit against the city and some current business relationships. I will give him a call and see if I can speak with him on the record for another perhaps broader Page on this.

William, feel free to correspond with me and co author the Page if i can pull the pieces together.

5 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 5:56:41pm

It’s an interesting opinion. The supposed focus of the case is San Diego’s effective ban on concealed carry. There’s all kinds of legal authority to cite in favor of laws banning concealed carry, as emphasized by the dissent and conceded by the majority.

So the majority gets around this inconvenient fact by noting that CA has a statewide and total ban on open carry, rules that the combination of an open carry ban + a concealed carry ban is clearly unconstitutional, therefore the San Diego concealed carry ban is struck down.

I thought one had to be on the Supreme Court before one could engage in leaps of logic like that as a judge.

6 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:05:30pm

re: #5 EPR-radar

What “leap”? Not the first time laws have been lined up like dominoes in the face of a tough decision. The problem is bans are problematic in the face of the confirmation of the second as an individual right by way of self defense.

7 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:17:07pm

re: #6 Political Atheist

What “leap”? Not the first time laws have been lined up like dominoes in the face of a tough decision. The problem is bans are problematic in the face of the confirmation of the second as an individual right by way of self defense.

In view of the authorities the majority cited, the simplest thing for the court to have done is struck down the ban on open carry. Why on Earth did they go after concealed carry instead?

8 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:37:11pm

Comment proved to be in error and was deleted.

9 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:41:28pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

Because concealed carry is less socially problematic in an urban area such as San Diego.

That’s pretty much my point. Had these judges been following legal authority like lower courts should do, then strike down the open carry ban and let the chips fall where they may.

Instead, we have an essentially political move to strike down the concealed carry ban instead, in direct contradiction to all kinds of legal authority that supports concealed carry bans.

That kind of entertainment isn’t really in the job description for lower courts in the US.

10 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:42:43pm

re: #7 EPR-radar

In view of the authorities the majority cited, the simplest thing for the court to have done is struck down the ban on open carry. Why on Earth did they go after concealed carry instead?

Because the denial of a concealed carry permit was the action being challenged. The SD Sheriff was defendant because they had issued the denial. A court can’t just swap out the issue and defendant brought before it out for those they would prefer to address.

In addition there’s a long history of states having a defensible prerogative to set gun laws that doesn’t necessarily extend to cities, which goes to why the defendant challenged the Sheriff and not the State. So according to the Court the State can continue to ban open carry, but in then also giving CLEO’s sole discretion over each applicant’s concealed carry the CLEOs have been given an unconstitutional and thus unenforceable power. Under the ruling a CLEO cannot be the determiner, upon whose sole, intrinsically subjective discretion the exercise of an applicant’s legal rights and (outside the home) protection of the 2nd amendment depends.

11 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:43:26pm

re: #8 Dark_Falcon

Because concealed carry is less socially problematic in an urban area such as San Diego.

No, that’s not why.

Jesus people, this is really basic shit.

12 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:50:52pm

re: #9 EPR-radar

That’s pretty much my point. Had these judges been following legal authority like lower courts should do, then strike down the open carry ban and let the chips fall where they may.

Instead, we have an essentially political move to strike down the concealed carry ban instead, in direct contradiction to all kinds of legal authority that supports concealed carry bans.

That kind of entertainment isn’t really in the job description for lower courts in the US.

As per my #4 I agree with you on the dagger aimed at open carry. Rather than a leap of logic I saw a choice made. Between setting up an open carry situation as a sudden surprise to law enforcement and society, and concealed carry as a surprise. The gap in the “leap” is there IMHO in part because we waited so long to sort out the 2nd A. That’s pretty new law, as is public SYG. Unstable, unsettled and rightly unsettling in implication.

I think it’s worth nothing SYG applies from the 1880’s as SCOTUS settled law at home, on your land and at your business. They did not say anything like that for out in public.

13 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:52:35pm

re: #10 goddamnedfrank

So this means “shall issue” for CCW? Whew that’s big.

14 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:53:45pm

re: #12 Political Atheist

As per my #4 I agree with you on the dagger aimed at open carry. Rather than a leap of logic I saw a choice made. Between setting up an open carry situation as a sudden surprise to law enforcement and society, and concealed carry as a surprise. The gap in the “leap” is there IMHO in part because we waited so long to sort out the 2nd A. That’s pretty new law, as is public SYG. Unstable, unsettled and rightly unsettling in implication.

I think it’s worth nothing SYG applies from the 1880’s as SCOTUS settled law at home, on your land and at your business. They did not say anything like that for out in public.

The notorious public-place SYG cases suggest that a great deal of work is needed in this area to come up with anything remotely acceptable.

15 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:55:23pm

re: #9 EPR-radar

That’s pretty much my point. Had these judges been following legal authority like lower courts should do, then strike down the open carry ban and let the chips fall where they may.

Instead, we have an essentially political move to strike down the concealed carry ban instead, in direct contradiction to all kinds of legal authority that supports concealed carry bans.

That kind of entertainment isn’t really in the job description for lower courts in the US.

I’m sorry, but it’s actually you whose advocating an unprecedented level of judicial activism. A court can only rule on the issue brought before it, which the 9th did. You can argue with the consequences, which may well suck, but the ruling itself has both a fairly strong and more importantly modern foundation - found in Heller, McDonald, and (especially) the 7th Circuit ruing in Moore v. Madigan.

16 Dark_Falcon  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:57:22pm

re: #11 goddamnedfrank

Point taken, comment #8 withdrawn.

17 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:57:33pm

re: #13 Political Atheist

So this means “shall issue” for CCW? Whew that’s big.

Yep, that’s exactly what it means. If it stands the State is best served by implementing solid training requirements, and perhaps a requirement for umbrella liability insurance coverage.

18 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:02:56pm

re: #14 EPR-radar

A little nugget from California law that is helpful is that barring extenuating circumstances an attack with fists is not a lethal attack. Grabbing that gun over a punch in the nose is not allowed. Well would not be of course California has no SYG in public. Maybe places with SYG obviously need such a thing, assuming they won’t drop SYG period.

19 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:04:33pm

re: #17 goddamnedfrank

If that pans out, I’ll be back in the biz of training folks up. And I’ll finally be able to carry as i might as per my jewelry biz career. Wow.

20 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:07:20pm

re: #2 Political Atheist

I know a guy up by Solvang who’s got a CCWP. He did it by being massively wealthy and buddies with the local Sheriff. He’s a major financial backer of the Sheriff’s election campaigns, has an epic level gun collection, and is deputized as a volunteer cop. It’s one of the worst cases of cronyism I’ve personally witnessed but what’s a guy to do, life is about who you know.

21 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:08:19pm

re: #13 Political Atheist

So this means “shall issue” for CCW? Whew that’s big.

I thought you realized that and was wondering why you were so “meh” about the decision.

22 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:12:05pm

re: #21 William Barnett-Lewis

Because it’s California. Just did not sink in as filed under ‘not happening in my lifetime” file. Honestly that’s what happened. Just wait until you see the fight to hold that off!

23 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:14:33pm

re: #19 Political Atheist

If that pans out, I’ll be back in the biz of training folks up. And I’ll finally be able to carry as i might as per my jewelry biz career. Wow.

It all depends on the SD Sheriff appealing the ruling. If he doesn’t it will apply across the entire 9th pretty quickly. If he does the ruling will almost certainly be put on hold until the Supremes either accept and rule or decline to hear.

Either way the CA legislature is probably best off coming up with some objective criteria and reasonable requirements. They could probably get away with requiring 16 to 20 hours of instruction and a million dollar liability policy. That alone would deter a lot of people from bothering.

24 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:22:14pm

re: #23 goddamnedfrank

It all depends on the SD Sheriff appealing the ruling. If he doesn’t it will apply across the entire 9th pretty quickly. If he does the ruling will almost certainly be put on hold until the Supremes either accept and rule or decline to hear.

Either way the CA legislature is probably best off coming up with some objective criteria and reasonable requirements. They could probably get away with requiring 16 to 20 hours of instruction and a million dollar liability policy. That alone would deter a lot of people from bothering.

From the quoted article, this decision could easily go the other way if the case goes to the full 9th circuit. If that were to happen the Supreme Court would doubtless step in to reverse. Given that, it would seem to be foolish for the SD sheriff to appeal.

I certainly agree that the state legislature needs to get out in front of this issue and do something useful.

25 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:23:00pm

re: #22 Political Atheist

Because it’s California. Just did not sink in as filed under ‘not happening in my lifetime” file. Honestly that’s what happened. Just wait until you see the fight to hold that off!

Heh. I get it. The California people at the Liberal Gun Club are bouncing off the walls over this. Fun diary at Dkos on it too (fun if you like watching people frothing at the mouth at least… O_o )

26 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:25:20pm

re: #23 goddamnedfrank

Our legislature?
10.000 hours training, 500 million liability, never got a ticket, revolvers only ans nothing bigger than .22 caliber. $500 a year for the permit. ///

27 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:26:19pm

re: #26 Political Atheist

Our legislature?
10.000 hours training, 500 million liability, never got a ticket, revolvers only ans nothing bigger than .22 caliber. $500 a year for the permit. ///

That’s just a recipe for another losing lawsuit, and would not be useful IMO.

28 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:27:40pm

re: #27 EPR-radar

Kidding, kinda. They will fight shall issue in many ways, in depth, and may well be as willing to waste money on it as the fundie Tea Party was on DOMA.

29 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:29:25pm

re: #28 Political Atheist

Kidding, kinda. They will fight shall issue in many ways, in depth,

If I were sitting in the CA legislature, I would not welcome this mess at all. God only knows what will happen in the cities with shall issue.

30 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:30:16pm

Considering what your current Governor vetoed recently, his office may have an impact on this as well.

31 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:31:45pm

re: #25 William Barnett-Lewis

Oh geez just wait till Uncle Obdicut gets back.

32 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:31:57pm

re: #29 EPR-radar

If I were sitting in the CA legislature, I would not welcome this mess at all. God only knows what will happen in the cities with shall issue.

One thing I’ve noted again and again is that the result of CC is never as good as the right wing would have it nor is it as bad as the left wing would have it. Crime rates are only slightly changed and blood does not run in the streets.

33 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:41:02pm

re: #32 William Barnett-Lewis

Man the majority Dems are going to flip right out. Whop wants to be the staff guy that explains this to Gavin Newsome? Just leave a note and run for the door.

34 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:43:04pm

re: #33 Political Atheist

Man the majority Dems are going to flip right out. Whop wants to be the staff guy that explains this to Gavin Newsome? Just leave a note and run for the door.

In the interest of having my side of this issue not make fools of themselves in public, I do hope that CA officials don’t emulate creationists in response to court decisions they don’t agree with.

35 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:44:33pm

re: #33 Political Atheist

Man the majority Dems are going to flip right out. Whop wants to be the staff guy that explains this to Gavin Newsome? Just leave a note and run for the door.

I’d rather be the fly on wall watching a certain US Senator lose it when told about this. Bet it would be reminiscent of the scene where the goblins tell Voldy that his cup was stolen … ;)

36 Political Atheist  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 7:48:59pm

re: #34 EPR-radar

In the interest of having my side of this issue not make fools of themselves in public, I do hope that CA officials don’t emulate creationists in response to court decisions they don’t agree with.

In that spirit I’m refraining from any schadenfreude as much as i can. This should be handled more carefully.

37 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 8:12:08pm

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Interesting part of the CA code. Presently it is forbidden in CA for a licensing authority to require liability insurances as a condition for CCW.

26190(g)

38 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 8:38:26pm

re: #25 William Barnett-Lewis

Heh. I get it. The California people at the Liberal Gun Club are bouncing off the walls over this. Fun diary at Dkos on it too (fun if you like watching people frothing at the mouth at least… O_o )

I killed a bit of time over at Dkos on this issue. I was amused that some enthusiastic flamers there took a brief time out to note that both Snowden and I/P were worse issues for flaming at Dkos.

That bit about Snowden is encouraging.

39 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Feb 14, 2014 1:02:45am

re: #24 EPR-radar

From the quoted article, this decision could easily go the other way if the case goes to the full 9th circuit. If that were to happen the Supreme Court would doubtless step in to reverse. Given that, it would seem to be foolish for the SD sheriff to appeal.

After thinking about this I am certain of neither how the Supremes would rule or of this particular Sheriff’s political stance on the issue. San Diego County is generally Republican by California standards, which still puts them way out far left of the national GOP. He’s probably safe going either way.

Between Kennedy’s random tidal oscillations and the conservative wing’s (especially Roberts’) sometimes conflicting allegiances to both conservative politics and near outright statism I’d hesitate to bet much either way. The defacto ban nature of the case might cause them to uphold, but if they do then via the 14th Amendment they’ll be making D.C. a shall issue city too, and that might strike too close to home.

40 EPR-radar  Fri, Feb 14, 2014 12:19:43pm

re: #39 goddamnedfrank

After thinking about this I am certain of neither how the Supremes would rule or of this particular Sheriff’s political stance on the issue. San Diego County is generally Republican by California standards, which still puts them way out far left of the national GOP. He’s probably safe going either way.

Between Kennedy’s random tidal oscillations and the conservative wing’s (especially Roberts’) sometimes conflicting allegiances to both conservative politics and near outright statism I’d hesitate to bet much either way. The defacto ban nature of the case might cause them to uphold, but if they do then via the 14th Amendment they’ll be making D.C. a shall issue city too, and that might strike too close to home.

From the article it appears that San Diego is appealing this to an 11-judge panel of the 9th circuit. A reversal of this decision at that level seems likely to me.

I agree that things are less certain at the supreme court than I indicated.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Dan Deacon - Sat by a Tree (Official Video) Dan Deacon - "Sat By A Tree", from 'Mystic Familiar', out 31st January 2020 on Domino Record Co.Please note: Viewers with an aversion to watching close up footage of insects should be advised against viewing this video.Hear Dan Deacon ...
Thanos
15 hours, 50 minutes ago
Views: 106 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Zero 7 - Somersault (Official Video) Ft. Sia Stream the brand new Special Edition of When It Falls here: smarturl.it 'Somersault', released in 2004, is a single taken from Zero 7's second album 'When It Falls'. The track debuted in the UK charts at #56 and remained ...
Thanos
23 hours, 52 minutes ago
Views: 138 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Tender Is the Night — Henry Mancini Provided to YouTube by Sony Music Entertainment Tender is the Night · Henry Mancini As Time Goes By ℗ 1992 BMG Music Engineer, Producer: John McClureComposer: Sammy FainComposer: Paul Francis WebsterMixing Engineer: Robert HartMixing Engineer: Grover HelsleyAssociated Performer: The ...
Thanos
5 days, 4 hours ago
Views: 270 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
A Facebook Fact-Checker Prepares to Propose a Solution to the Company’s False Ad Debacle New York (CNN Business)One of the companies that Facebook hired to fact-check posts on its platform will propose a change to Facebook's policy allowing politicians to run ads containing falsehoods, CNN Business has learned. Lead Stories, one of the ...
Thanos
5 days, 11 hours ago
Views: 6,907 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
How to Exercise the Power You Didn’t Ask For Yale Law School’s Jack Balkin has invoked these examples and proposed that today’s online platforms become “information fiduciaries.” We are among a number of academics who have been working with policymakers and internet companies to map out what sorts ...
Thanos
6 days ago
Views: 340 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - BonusI planted a cactus in 2008. Being it's Florida, I don't know why. It was small. It grew. About 10 arms, straight up, probably 10 feet high.Don't have a picture of that.Back in 2017 or so, we managed to prune ...
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)
1 week ago
Views: 402 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
#Thegreatpoolpondconversion - 191103What a satisfying and productive weekend we had.We hit some milestones (which we’re making up as we go) and accomplished some tasks that have drawn out way too long. On Saturday we finally managed to lever the cactus out of ...
DangerMan (misuser of the sarc tag)
1 week ago
Views: 364 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Jason Isbell — Runnin’ Down a DreamJason Isbell 10/25/19- Ryman Auditorium
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 435 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 4 • Share to Facebook
The Allman Brothers Band’s “in Memory 0f Elizabeth Reed” Covered by Jason IsbellJason Isbell and the 400 Unit (10/26/19) Ryman Auditorium.
Thanos
1 week, 3 days ago
Views: 599 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Van Morrison - Dark Night of the Soul (Audio)Music video by Van Morrison performing Dark Night Of The Soul (Audio). © 2019 Exile Productions Ltd. vevo.ly
Thanos
1 week, 5 days ago
Views: 676 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 4 • Share to Facebook