Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067948

    Default 9th Circus Court strikes down PRCalif restrictive gun law

    Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

    The 9th Circuit Court (the most overturned court in the country) actually got one right. They ruled that California can't require people demonstrate a "good cause" for carrying a handgun, but must be allowed to carry as long as they are law-abiding, etc.

    Another small step in the right direction.

    Link to a PDF of the decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...12/1056971.pdf

    ------------------------------------------------

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...y-of-handguns/

    Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns

    By David Kopel
    February 13 at 1:17 pm

    The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.

    California law has a process for applying for a permit to carry a handgun for protection in public, with requirements for safety training, a background check, and so on. These requirements were not challenged. The statute also requires that the applicant have “good cause,” which was interpreted by San Diego County to mean that the applicant is faced with current specific threats. (Not all California counties have this narrow interpretation.) The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.

    The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.


    (Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
    Last edited by Little-Acorn; 02-13-2014 at 05:50 PM.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  2. Thanks aboutime, Gaffer, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,176
    Thanks (Given)
    221
    Thanks (Received)
    966
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1660758

    Default

    I wonder what this will do to New York"s handgun law. Several of it's provisions are being disputed.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    7,396
    Thanks (Given)
    11
    Thanks (Received)
    1501
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    47
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2067948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WiccanLiberal View Post
    I wonder what this will do to New York"s handgun law. Several of it's provisions are being disputed.
    Nothing now, since the 9th Circus Court has no jurisdiction in New York.

    But hopefully it will be enough of a conflict that the Supremes will hear the case.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Studying my Lab Rat....
    Posts
    3,479
    Thanks (Given)
    154
    Thanks (Received)
    1643
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    14
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4167053

    Default

    The Sullivan law was unconstitutional when implemented and must be repealed.

    New York should be a MUST ISSUE state and not a MAY ISSUE state.
    You know, the last time I was in Germany and saw a man standing above everybody else, we ended up disagreeing.

    Captain America

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    54
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    7
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    32426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Voted4Reagan View Post
    The Sullivan law was unconstitutional when implemented and must be repealed.

    New York should be a MUST ISSUE state and not a MAY ISSUE state.
    Yes I always wondered how NYC got away with that one and how it stood the test of time without being overturned.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums