9th Circuit Strikes "Good Cause" Requirement for Licensed Carry of Handguns

[lawrocket 3]

Case is Peruta v. County of San Diego. The 9th Circuit said that banning law abiding citizens from carrying handguns unless they can affirmatively demonstrate "good cause" for needing to carry it is unconstitutional. It effectively banned most people from it.

I haven't read all of the opinion or dissent because they are almost 130 pages. But my predictions are:

It'll be taken en banc. If it isn't, then the SCOTUS will take it because the 9th Circuit now views it differently from other Circuits.

But for now, Californians are having a right being treated like a right instead of a privilege.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

lawrocket

Case is Peruta v. County of San Diego. The 9th Circuit said that banning law abiding citizens from carrying handguns unless they can affirmatively demonstrate "good cause" for needing to carry it is unconstitutional. It effectively banned most people from it.

I haven't read all of the opinion or dissent because they are almost 130 pages. But my predictions are:

It'll be taken en banc. If it isn't, then the SCOTUS will take it because the 9th Circuit now views it differently from other Circuits.

But for now, Californians are having a right being treated like a right instead of a privilege.

Good news
Let us hope this direction continues

And this from the 9th???

Wow

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[StreetScooby 5]

The NRA's push for reciprocal carry is going to get very interesting. Even though I have no desire to carry, I hope it passes.

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]And this from the 9th???[//quote]

Luck of the draw. O'Scannlain and Callahan and Thomas got the draw. Thomas dissented.

Same thing with en banc. Luck of the draw, and Thomas (dissenter) is the coordinator. So which 11 justices take a new look? That could make all the difference.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

lawrocket

But for now, Californians are having a right being treated like a right instead of a privilege.

For now? I presume any impact will be stayed until the state makes its appeal upward. And with at least two verdicts this way, and several on the other, it nearly has to be heard, no?

[1969912 0]

Here are the last couple of paragraphs:

"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
76into the Due Process Clause.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.

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.
22
REVERSED and REMANDED."

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[toolbox 0]

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]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,

This is a pretty clear statement of my belief that all rights are to be treated with equal dignity. There is no right that is more or less important than any other.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[BIGUN 1,483]

I carry not because the government has issued me a license and therefore; a privilege. I carry because it is my right... and not to be in some government database.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

There is no right that is more or less important than any other.

7th is ridiculously quaint as is the 3rd.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***There is no right that is more or less important than any other.

7th is ridiculously quaint as is the 3rd.

And yet they've lasted because nobody can rally enough support to get rid of them. Sure, Congress has the authority to issue Letters of Marque. It's still there. It doesn't mean that it should be ignored because someone thinks it "quaint."

If it's that quaint and enough people agree, then pass an Amendment abrogating these quaint Amendments or clauses.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

lawrocket

******There is no right that is more or less important than any other.

7th is ridiculously quaint as is the 3rd.

And yet they've lasted because nobody can rally enough support to get rid of them.

Maybe. More importantly I think people in the US love the number 10 and also love to hold up the Bill of Rights as something sacred. Of course, as I've just shown that's ridiculous in at least two cases.

What do you suppose is $20 could buy in 1789?

Anyway, you certainly must know it's not just me that thinks the 7th is ridiculously out of date.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2080345_2080344_2080381,00.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

lawrocket

[Quote]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,

This is a pretty clear statement of my belief that all rights are to be treated with equal dignity. There is no right that is more or less important than any other.

Powerful stuff. Made my day.

I think it is important to understand the US Constitution and it's amendments in context. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you find that the writers were talking about 'certain unalienable rights' that are 'granted by their creator'. That means we are born with these rights. They were not granted by the founding fathers, the US Constitution, or government. We were born with them. They are only enshrined the US Constitution to make clear that government has no business messing with them. The pre-existed any document.

Skip down to the 9th Amendment and you find there are others. The 10 were just a starting point.

Historically, these ten were part of a deal to get the US Government going at all. Many did not want a powerful central government. These restrictions were the cost of having any central government. That so many want to dismantle the ten is evidence that the founding fathers understood human nature and the nature of government.

I find it interesting that the dissent went on for 130 pages to try to overcome the powerful truth in that one paragraph.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

'certain unalienable rights' that are 'granted by their creator'

So what if you don't believe in a 'creator'?

How exactly did the big bang give rights?

[okalb 104]

SkyDekker

Quote

'certain unalienable rights' that are 'granted by their creator'

So what if you don't believe in a 'creator'?

How exactly did the big bang give rights?

Since you are not from here, allow me to explain. You only get rights if you believe in a creator. Oh, and you better make sure it is the right creator. If you choose the wrong one, you get nothing.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[rehmwa 2]

davjohns

we are born with these rights. They were not granted by the founding fathers, the US Constitution, or government. We were born with them. They are only enshrined the US Constitution to make clear that government has no business messing with them. The pre-existed any document.
.
.
.

Historically, these ten were part of a deal to get the US Government going at all. Many did not want a powerful central government. These restrictions were the cost of having any central government. That so many want to dismantle the ten is evidence that the founding fathers understood human nature and the nature of government.

This is my position - The government did not write the Bill of Rights to 'grant' these rights. We have them already, amongst so many others too. these 10 were specifically put down to represent our cultural foundation which needs protecting.

Government should be actively protecting these rights as pretty much its basic function, not debating how much they should be whittled on or whether they are necessary anymore. It's so opposite of what's right it's ludicrous.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

'certain unalienable rights' that are 'granted by their creator'

So what if you don't believe in a 'creator'?

How exactly did the big bang give rights?

I know you are being funny, but that particular gambit is such a crock (when others are serious when they use it). If you believe in a creator, fine. If you don't, then use it as a euphemism for natural law, common moral ground, or societal necessity. (frankly, my agnostic view just means that the 'useful' parts of religion had evolved as an expression of those anyway)

Pretty much, "rights" = those behaviors that respect the individual and his ability be self determinant rather than dominated unjustly.

Founding fathers simply acknowledged that those rights are things we should acknowledge that everyone has that no one has to 'earn' them. Everyone starts out with them and everyone has to respect that and live by that code. And when people don't, gov has a duty to step in and protect the people that can't protect themselves from those that ignore the social contract. (apply it to any right, but in terms of arms, we take guns away from those that abuse them in a way that violates other's rights, but we leave everyone else alone to make their own decisions. We don't stifle speech for those that use it well, but we will if they abuse it in a way that harms others by taking away their rights, etc etc etc)

Even more simply for the slow people "We don't tolerate bullies of any kind. Nor will we allow our government to become a bully"

Kind of makes simple sense considering the bullying behavior from England at the time.

Pretty much violations by the left and the right all along has been about government overstepping its bounds and bullying segments of the populace and couching it as the 'good of the people'. All the partisan crap here is infighting over who's view of what abuse "they" prefer should be dominant - while the outrage in the partisan crap is all about viewing the other team's bullying while ignoring their own team's. The FF's had it pretty correct for the time - erode the rights = erode the society we wanted.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

quade

***There is no right that is more or less important than any other.

7th is ridiculously quaint as is the 3rd.

I don't think either is quaint.

The only thing about the 3rd Amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases; jury's findings of fact not re-examinable) that's quaint is that there's no provision for adjusting the threshold dollar amount for inflation. ($20 in 1792 dollars is worth a little under $300 today.) Oopsie, that was a bit myopic. But other than that, it's bang-on relevant to modern times.

The 7th Amendment, prohibiting quartering of soldiers in private homes w/o owner's permission during peacetime, or in wartime except as provided by specific statute, still has relevance in the abstract, if you use a bit of foresight. Remember, in the 1970s - 1990s who'd-a thunk we'd ever again see the kind of abuses like the internment of Japanese-ancestry civilians during WWII or the McCarthy-era abuses of the law of the 1950s. And then came 9/11/2001, and the pendulum swung right back that way. (Patriot Act, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, NSA abuses, etc.). So Yes, I can envision some not-unrealistic scenarios in which an overbearing and overreaching government might abuse the property of civilians in the name of "necessity" or "security" if not kept in check by the 7th Amendment.

[lawrocket 3]

In the past few days, I've seen Quade's position be adverse the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. Now he's belittling the 3rd and the 7th.

That leaves only the 1st, 9th and 10th to erase the Bill of Rights from Quade's idea of usefulness. I think he can do it!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

lawrocket

In the past few days, I've seen Quade's position be adverse the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. Now he's belittling the 3rd and the 7th.

That leaves only the 1st, 9th and 10th to erase the Bill of Rights from Quade's idea of usefulness. I think he can do it!

I give Paul more credit for putting serious thought and energy into the discussions here than perhaps you do.

[lawrocket 3]

I'm not sure Paul is putting as much thought as he is feeling into the discussions.

You put thought and feeling into it. That's what makes you credible. I put thought into it. That's what makes me such a dick.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

lawrocket

You put thought and feeling into it. That's what makes you credible. I put thought into it. That's what makes me such a dick.

I'd like to use that as a quote if you don't mind.



I'm sure it will come in handy sooner or later

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

lawrocket

I'm not sure Paul is putting as much thought as he is feeling into the discussions.

You put thought and feeling into it. That's what makes you credible. I put thought into it. That's what makes me such a dick.

Yeah, but a lot of this is about feelings. Like how many people have their feelings hurt if they couldn;t have a gun and how many people have their feelings hurt seeing a gun.

In my opinion the thought that was put into the 2nd amendment has now turned into a feeling and a symbolism.

The US incarcerates more people than any other first world country. The US has a serious problem with violence and killing. An armed populace isn't what is keeping your government from going rogue and it certainly isn't making your society polite.

It is however seen as a strong symbol for being free and gives people the feeling of being safe.

[quade 4]

Andy9o8

I don't think either is quaint.

The only thing about the 3rd Amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases; jury's findings of fact not re-examinable) that's quaint is that there's no provision for adjusting the threshold dollar amount for inflation. ($20 in 1792 dollars is worth a little under $300 today.) Oopsie, that was a bit myopic. But other than that, it's bang-on relevant to modern times.

It depends on how you want to make that "adjusted for inflation" calculation.

$20 in 1789 could have reasonably had the power to purchase 20 acres of decent land. It was a significant sum. Enough money to actually warrant the time and effort of a jury trial.

When was the last time you saw anybody demand and get a jury trial in a civil case involving $20?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

quade

***I don't think either is quaint.

The only thing about the 3rd Amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases; jury's findings of fact not re-examinable) that's quaint is that there's no provision for adjusting the threshold dollar amount for inflation. ($20 in 1792 dollars is worth a little under $300 today.) Oopsie, that was a bit myopic. But other than that, it's bang-on relevant to modern times.

It depends on how you want to make that "adjusted for inflation" calculation.

$20 in 1789 could have reasonably had the power to purchase 20 acres of decent land. It was a significant sum. Enough money to actually warrant the time and effort of a jury trial.