The Ninth Circuit
court
made a stunning ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. This may be THE most important ruling in favor of the second amendment since 2008 and 2010. The ruling potentially and for now, wrecks California's permit system which had a choke hold on those who wanted to carry a weapon
OUTSIDE the home. How many violent crimes take place outside the home and not always inside your residence? It is amazingly stupid that these politicians could think this was the reality of how crimes happen and the how criminals operate. Criminals always follow the laws, right? They always knock on your door, ask permission to come in, then rob, shoot, rape, beat, murder you or your family. Thugs always ask you first before they try to knock you out on the street or drag you from your car. Of course, you and I already know that criminals, including those who 'work' under the protection of the government or law enforcement agencies will ask first just like hardened criminals do. Hard to believe that actual, real common sense prevailed here, especially from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry
concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday,
striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns.
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second
Amendment by requiring residents to show “good cause” – and not merely
the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.
State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as
good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the
permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands,
would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral
character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection.
The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable
firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,”
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in the majority opinion.
This ruling does not win the war over the second amendment but this ruling is a major victory for the second amendment. I hope commie gun hating traitors like Bloomberg are wetting their red diapers
.
PatriotUSA
Entire article is below.
*********************
Ninth Circuit Court blows a hole in gun control
By John Hayward
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, aka the “Ninth Circus,” is hardly
a bastion of judicial conservatism. That makes its decision striking
down California gun-control laws all the more earthshaking. As is often
the case with landmark court rulings, the story is far from over –
there is some more wrangling to be done in the Ninth Circuit before the
scene shifts to the Supreme Court, which is likely to intervene due to
conflicts with other circuit court rulings. The next step will probably
be a full court review of the 2-1 ruling from this three-judge panel.
Perhaps we will come to view Thursday’s ruling as the beginning of
the end of the gun-control movement as we have known it in the United
States. If this decision holds all the way through the Supreme Court,
some core tenets of that movement will soundly defeated for a very long
time to come. For the moment, as
SFGate
reports, we have a challenge to a county ordinance that’s already
blossomed into the evisceration of California’s permit system:
California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry
concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday,
striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns.
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second
Amendment by requiring residents to show “good cause” – and not merely
the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.
State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as
good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the
permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands,
would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral
character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection.
“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable
firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,”
Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in the majority opinion.
As SFGate notes, this ruling disagrees with opinions from courts in
New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, but agrees with one from Illinois,
so it seems highly likely that the Supreme Court will step in. After
decades of agonizing debate, the political class may finally be forced
to acknowledge that the Second Amendment says what it says. What if
this is the beginning of a legal avalanche that obliges politicians to
admit the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights exist, too? What a
strange new world we might end up living in.
The Ninth Circuit decision is positively
brimming with common sense:
California has long had some of the nation’s strongest
restrictions on gun ownership, and, according to the court, is one of
only eight states that allow local governments to deny concealed-weapons
permits. The state formerly allowed residents to carry unloaded
firearms in public, with ammunition in a separate container, but
repealed that law at the start of 2013.
The ban on openly carrying guns made it impossible for most
law-abiding citizens in counties like San Diego to “bear arms” for
self-defense, O’Scannlain said in Thursday’s ruling. He said the Second
Amendment guarantee of the right to “bear arms” must include the right
to carry weapons outside the home.
The risk of armed confrontation “is not limited to the home,”
O’Scannlain said. He invoked the situations of “a woman toting a small
handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous neighborhood, or a
night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels to and
from his job site.”
C.D. Michel, lawyer for the National Rifle and Pistol Foundation and
individuals who challenged the San Diego County system, said sheriffs in
many rural California counties already comply with the court’s standard
by issuing gun permits to anyone who wants one for self-defense. But
urban counties require evidence of a special need for a weapon, the
requirement that the court invalidated, he said.
“The right to self-defense doesn’t end at your threshold,” Michel
said. He said the ruling is “probably the biggest Second Amendment win”
since the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling and a follow-up decision in 2010.
Oh my Gawd, he’s right, people
do get attacked outside their homes! It seems so
obvious now. The truth of the right to keep and bear arms was staring us in the face the whole time! There is even a passage in the
Ninth Circuit’s ruling that points out “the right to keep
and bear arms”
directly endorses carrying loaded and ready firearms around, because
that is that is the meaning of the verb “bear.” That must be why the
Second Amendment doesn’t protect “the right to store guns in your
closet!”
Another major issue in this ruling was whether citizens could be
forced to jump through hoops and prove they had a compelling need to
exercise their Second Amendment rights. The citizen was expected to
demonstrate a “unique risk of harm” – for example, serious physical
menace from a stalker – in order to secure a concealed-carry permit.The primary plaintiffs in the case were people whose applications for
concealed-carry licenses were denied because they couldn’t give the
authorities a good enough reason for wanting one. (People usually get
weeks of advance notice before they’re attacked by criminals, right?)
The court correctly sees this as an unreasonable infringement upon
the right to keep and bear arms. I would submit such requirements are
the
antithesis of an inalienable right. It’s not “inalienable”
if you have to beg the government to let you exercise it; the citizen
is placed on defense in a power relationship where the State was meant
to be submissive. Once we accept that core rights are negotiable, the
negotiations don’t end until the right in question has shriveled away to
nothing.
Restricting the access of known criminals to guns is one thing, but
the California laws went too far towards treating every citizen as a
criminal unless he could conjure a compelling and immediate reason to be
treated better by the authorities. Overweening state and federal
bureaucracies hold that “everyone is a criminal until proven otherwise”
mindset far too often. It’s a natural consequence of the growth of
government power.
Another tactic of left-wing jurisdictions that came in for a beating
in the California decision was the tendency to set hurdles so high that
exercise of a constitutional right became largely theoretical. In this
case, the court said it was impermissible to ban both concealed
and open carry. Economist John Lott, a prominent critic of gun control measures,
notes that the hurdles in California are so high that only political cronyism is likely to secure a concealed-carry permit:
Ironically, California may have opened the door to make
it much easier for people to get concealed handgun permits by recently
banning people from openly carrying guns. The court wrote that while it
might indeed be constitutional for a state to ban concealed handguns or
to ban people openly carrying handguns, it simply can’t ban both
options.
Counties such as Los Angeles have only let a few hundred
people get concealed handgun permits out of 7.5 million adults. In San Diego, only about 700 out of 2.4 million can carry. And in San Francisco, no one is granted a permit to carry a gun.
In Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the few lucky people getting
permits are big donors to a sheriff’s re-election campaign or a
sheriff’s personal friend. In other counties, such as Stanislaus County
in northern California, the key to getting a permit seems to be eitheran
influential politician or a prominent businessman.
There are over 11 million concealed handgun permits nationally.Yet,
the right to defend oneself in California has largely been limited to
the very well-to-do and to the politically powerful.
Behold the liberal utopia: only the Ruling Class is legally allowed
to carry guns, leaving everyone else at the mercy of well-armed
criminals as the streets run red with blood.
As Lott notes, even if the Ninth Circuit ruling stands and causes a
nationwide Second Amendment earthquake when it hits the Supreme Court,
gun-control zealots will continue attacking the right to keep and bear
arms by imposing ostensibly less onerous requirements that have the
practical effect of making guns nearly impossible for law-abiding
citizens to obtain, or make firearms incredibly expensive, so that only
the Ruling Class can legally afford them.
But the core principles of the gun-control movement are being
destroyed, hard on the heels of a disastrous political year for them, in
which they failed to rally significant public support behind their
cause despite media-fueled exploitation of horrible crimes. When you
take away the gun-control planks broken by these recent court rulings,
what’s left except a relatively minor debate over the precise details of
licensing? Who is a louder and more persistent voice for reasonable
gun safety than the NRA? ”Shall-issue” carry laws enjoy
overwhelming support from police officers (Lott pegs it at 91 percent currently.) Those who actually
know something about
the realities of self-defense are lined up against the gun control
movement, which stands revealed as the most dangerous incarnation of
“gesture liberalism,” the tendency to support laws and programs that
express ideological preferences and “good intentions” at the expense of
individual rights and common sense.
Source is here.
Tags: Second amendment, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Heller, Collectivists, Obama, Bloomberg, War on America, Communism, England, Australia, East Germany, Soviet Union To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the Patriot's Corner. Thanks!
