25 votes

Big blow to California Gun Restrictions!

The California concealed carry law has been tossed by a Federal appeals court. It will now be left to the counties to decide permit requirements. A healthy step in the right direction for once here in California!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/13/calif-concealed-weapon-...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I read a lot of the opinion.

I read a lot of the opinion. They specifically got ti right on that the right to self-defense cannot be challenged and it isn't limited to the household. I also understood it to be that the permit requirements are unconstitutional. And that you do not need a permit, but I have to read the whole thing.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Permission from bureaucrats still required in California.

The court's decision only struck down the proof of need provision. A gun owner still has to have written permission to legally carry a firearm anywhere in California just as an applicant to purchase a handgun he/she had to get permission from the FBI to get the gun in the first place which is a result of the gift given to us through the effort of that great pseudo conservative Californian, Ronald Reagan. That gift is the Brady Bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/us/gun-control-bill-backed...

"In a shift meant to break a logjam in the House, former President Ronald Reagan today strongly endorsed legislation requiring a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun and urged President Bush to drop his opposition to the bill."

Thanks Ronnie. You were a real peach.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

from the blog @ http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=

Update February 13, 2014 - "The decision in Peruta v. San Diego has been published. Although it contains one sentence I did not like, and to which the AG is no doubt going to trumpet from the rooftops it was overall a very good decision which will provide me with paragraph upon paragraph to cite in my next notice of supplemental authority.

That said, the decision is a very narrow one and affects only the policy of the Sheriff of San Diego county and his interpretation of “good cause.” The decision is not binding anywhere else in the state and to anything other than the policy of the Sheriff of San Diego County.

There are lots of things the Sheriff can do. He can tweak his policy to accept “self-defense” as “good cause” for issuing a policy but put all kinds of restrictions on the issuance of the permit which are now valid under California law thanks to the decision in CalGuns.nuts v San Mateo County.

If the Sheriff wants to prohibit concealed carry, even with a permit, on all county owned property (streets, sidewalks, parks, open spaces, etc) he can. If the Sheriff wants to prohibit concealed carry in Gun Free School Zones, he can. If the Sheriff wants to make you wait a year for the required interview to get the permit he can. If the Sheriff decides that you are not of “good moral character” and deny you the permit he can.

Also, the decision applies only to concealable weapons for which the penal code provides for a permits, e.g., handguns. There are no permits/licenses in the state of California which provide for the carrying of long guns for the purpose of self-defense".

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

"the decision is a very

"the decision is a very narrow one and affects only the policy of the Sheriff of San Diego county and his interpretation of “good cause.” The decision is not binding anywhere else in the state"

Sorry, that is incorrect. Otherwise the Miranda warning would only affect Arizona. It does indeed affect California and other States within the ninth circuit.

Unless you believe that one county can ban concealed weapons and another can't pursuant to this decision.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

This is quoted from Charles Nichols

the bloger at the above link and waiting a pending decision on his lawsuit seeking to restore Loaded Open Carry to California – Nichols v. Brown.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

Sure, this way more people

Sure, this way more people register their guns and police will know if you CC when they pull you over.

Circle jerk

I read all 127 pages of the ruling and decent, and although they could have done worse in this ruling, they miss the point.

No person or group of persons have the right or say one way or another until your actions infringe on anothers life, liberty, property.

The burden for haveing a say in anothers actions ie; carrying a tool, is does this action infringe on anothers life, liberty, property.

They have no say otherwise.

If a individual is carrying a tool in a threatning manner ie; pointing it and waveing it around without justification than that is a different issue.

Initiating force or threatning with any tool is the crime that others have a say over.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

How could they have done

How could they have done worse? They struck down the permit law in California and sided with the argument that self-defense is a natural right that cannot be taken away, and it includes outside the home? They actually expanded the Supreme Court ruling in Heller.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

They said S.D. county cannot

They said S.D. county cannot require applicants to present some extraordinary circumstances beyond self-defense as a reason to be allowed to carry concealed, thus makeing it rare for the average person to qualify. They did not strike down the "permit law".

They upheld the view that the states can ban concealed carry, and can regulate concealed carry. They upheld the view that the states can ban open carry just not both at the same time (that would be a infringment on a protected right).

They only reasoned that this requirement of extraodinary circumstances in the permission process was a infringment of a protected right because of California legilators scheme of banning open carry, both loaded and unloaded.

Self-defense is a natural right that cannot be taken away.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

"Self-defense is a natural

"Self-defense is a natural right that cannot be taken away." That is EXACTLY what they wrote.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

They must think we are too stupid to see

what they are trying to pull. Turning a right into a privilege (asking permission for a cc permit), and banning open carry.

The creation, production and fair exchange of values is the business of evolving consciousness, love and life.--Craig Johnson

:) :)

I'm still moving but...
**dances around the room in celebration**

"You only live free if your willing to die free."