Court tosses California's concealed weapons rules

A federal Court has tossed out California's concealed carry permit rules:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A divided federal appeals court has struck down California's concealed weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday that California is wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens are entitled to carry concealed weapons outside the home for self-defense purposes. source

It would seem that one of the more restrictive concealed carry states could have its laws overturned if the Supreme Court either opts not to take this case or sides with the appeals court ruling. In many instances were there are divided rulings by appeals court the Supreme Court steps in and makes a final ruling.

In the interim one of the more restrictive concealed carry bans is overturned. As a resident of New Jersey where you need to jump through flaming hoops to get a handgun I am holding out hope that legal precedent can be used to overturn our even more restrictive concealed carry laws.

The court ruled that all law-abiding citizens are entitled to carry concealed weapons outside the home for self-defense purposes.

About half the articles say that and the other half only say this:

“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 wrote for the majority.

Source

I would be surprised if the judges ruled that conceal carry is legal without a permit. (I think some of the articles may be slightly incorrect). But interesting news, we'll have to wait to see how this develops...

Elton
I would be surprised if the judges ruled that conceal carry is legal without a permit. (I think some of the articles may be slightly incorrect). But interesting news, we'll have to wait to see how this develops...

Your source also says what the one in the Original Post reports:

By a 2-1 vote, the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California was wrong to require applicants to show good cause to receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Which would lead me to believe that you can concealed carry if you own a weapon or that the restrictive nature of obtaining a permit would be eliminated and the process streamlined enabling firearms owners to more easily obtain a permit.

Unlike New Jersey where they tell you to not even bother trying to get one.

This could be the thinking.. Lets make getting a concealed carry permit really easy so that we can track and therefore control more people with guns.

I can easily see how a "good thing" can be thus manipulated.

Wonderful. So we get crazys, criminals, psychopaths and gangbangers and cons carrying guns because they can now? No lessons, no training, no nothing?

Great...Im off then buy more hollowpoints...and another 40 cal...

Calif is strange.

In some counties like sierra county its easy to get a CCW.

In other counties like LA county you have to know someone and give money to there election campaign ECT ECT.

I gave up getting a CCW in calif but have a Non-Resident one in Nevada and i don't live there..

And my Nevada permit is Honored In:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont

The reference to showing a good cause suggests something different to me.

There are two kinds of CCW states. "Shall Issue" and "May Issue". "Shall Issue", like mine, means the law allows any citizen who takes the training course and passes the criminal background check to get the permit and carry a weapon. No cause or explanation is needed and I've never been asked at the Sheriffs Office. They just printed me the first time and took my little card saying I attended the 8 hour classroom and shooting range skills test. The Permit came a couple weeks later and just recently renewed for another 5 years. Nice in a Shall Issue state.

"May Issue" states are like California has been. They are CCW in name, and in some counties? Pretty realistic too, as I understand it. In most? Satan will be licking a snow cone down below before a normal person would get approved. I recall one of the LAPD Chiefs that came in, having to actually wait to get his for how L.A. county is.

This would be a real sea change if California is forced to become a Shall Issue. Nice... Anyone with a clean record that wants it, gets it. Period.

That's the way it should be everywhere Wrabbit...............Free people have a right to be armed....
We have regressed a long way from our roots......

JohnPhoenix
This could be the thinking.. Lets make getting a concealed carry permit really easy so that we can track and therefore control more people with guns.

How do you control someone through their concealed carry permit?

reply to post by Elton


There are states that require a concealed carry permits in order to carry concealed outside the home.

This ruling doesn't allow for that. What happened is California is a May Issue state, where the bulk of the states are Shall Issue. The court ruling says California cannot force people to show good cause in order to get a permit. Instead, it will be brought in line with other rulings. The state must comply with issuing the permits unless a person meets no issue criteria (adjudicated mentally etc).

Instead of the individual being required to show cause to obtain, the state has the burden to show cause if they are going to deny a permit.

ETA - Conceal carry laws vary from state to state in terms of who can carry concealed and where. Reciprocity between states when dealing with concealed carry also vary.

CHECK YOUR STATES LAWS for the specifics before making an assumption and getting in trouble for it.

mysterioustranger
Wonderful. So we get crazys, criminals, psychopaths and gangbangers and cons carrying guns because they can now?

Crazies, criminals, psychopaths, gang-bangers, and cons have always carried and had access to guns regardless of the laws. Unless you're lumping law-abiding citizens in with the above group of people.

The article and ruling states law-abiding citizens. It mentions nothing of the group of people you mentioned.

AugustusMasonicus

JohnPhoenix
This could be the thinking.. Lets make getting a concealed carry permit really easy so that we can track and therefore control more people with guns.

How do you control someone through their concealed carry permit?

As far as tracking goes, it varies from state to state. Missouri (Wrabbitts / My state) does not require an individual to register fire arms (including handguns). Again for MO, the legislature made changes to the Department of Motor Vehicles after the information on guns was provided to the Feds. The Sheriff is now responsible for all of the CCW, including issuing a separate ID card (Prior to the change the DMV performed that function).

As for control, I would say it depends on the state and what their laws are. The one definite control I am aware of is where a person can go with a concealed weapon. Those controls will vary state to state (One state allows the person to conceal carry while in a bar / some states require a CCW to have it concealed on your person inside your car / some states allow a person to conceal carry in a car without a CCW (EX: Traffic stop - Citizens are supposed to let the officer know that they are conceal carry if the officer asks them to step out of the vehicle). Kanas just changed their CCW laws, allowing citizens to enter government buildings with a concealed weapon. There are exemptions, like a court room. ** Check local laws**.

It sounds like California was trying to do what Chicago and Washington DC did when their respective laws were thrown out. DC made the red tape so long and detailed that people were waiting for 4-12 months just to get the permit. Chicago finally joined the rest of the country when their CCW law passed. I am wondering if the government purchase of ammunition is not an end run around. If they cant control who gets a gun, then the next best thing is to make the bullets harder to get.

The one interesting thing about all of the 2nd amendment chatter over the last decade is how bad gun control laws are in terms of blowing up in the face of certain groups. We see the "left" (in general for an example) push as hard as they can for control. The major rulings to date came from Illinois and Washington DC. Those verdicts applied to all states.

Now we have California...

I am not a fan of the 9th circuit however in this case I was absolutely dumfounded by their ruling (based on their judgment history).

If gun control groups are on "solid ground" with their position, then there never would be a need for the Supreme Court to overturn / invalidate the laws.

Didn't Calif. pass a law about micro stamping ? If that is the case then this is all for naught. Last thing I heard no weapon manufacturer is going to play that game and sell their products to Calif. Might as well add a $50 tax on a .22 bullet yet say sure you can carry... Reminds me of Barney Fifth of Mayberry and his one bullet he was allowed to carry while on duty .. On the other hand glad to see the court can read for a change...

reply to post by Xcathdra

Kanas just changed their CCW laws, allowing citizens to enter government buildings with a concealed weapon. There are exemptions, like a court room. ** Check local laws**.

Wow... I'd missed that. There are things about our law and off limit areas which I don't agree with. Gated amusement parks and school (read college/university, especially) campuses top my complaint list.

Government buildings are a real good idea for keeping guns out of though. First, it's where plenty of guns are always going to be already, so I shouldn't need mine to add my confused one to a coordinated set, with cops or armed security the gov't buildings have these days. (That's how citizens get mis-identified and shot by pure accident) More importantly tho...Government buildings are where business is done, most is unpleasant to someone, and much is emotionally charged these days for how unpleasant it can be. Bad place to have every Tom, Dick and Harry carrying with no real need (see above for being well covered) and handy for a snap reaction of dumb.

What a bad change of law, IMO.

727Sky
Didn't Calif. pass a law about micro stamping ? If that is the case then this is all for naught. Last thing I heard no weapon manufacturer is going to play that game and sell their products to Calif. Might as well add a $50 tax on a .22 bullet yet say sure you can carry... Reminds me of Barney Fifth of Mayberry and his one bullet he was allowed to carry while on duty .. On the other hand glad to see the court can read for a change...

edit on 14-2-2014 by 727Sky because: ...

Yeah I think the states that passed tougher gun control laws blew up in their face. The companies that threatened to leave states who passed tougher laws followed thru. Ill try and find the list but if I remember correctly 4 companies that made weapons / ammo followed thru. I think they went to Texas and I think one of those companies left California (again ill need to check).

Wrabbit2000
Wow... I'd missed that. There are things about our law and off limit areas which I don't agree with. Gated amusement parks and school (read college/university, especially) campuses top my complaint list.

Unless its changed, the business's where guns are prohibited (bar / hospital / movie theatre / Stadium / where 5k or more gather etc) has the option of allowing people onto the property with a weapon who are not commissioned law enforcement. 2 of the Hospitals in Springfield have armed public safety officers. Just a matter of getting the owner and asking if its ok. I would ask for approval in writing lol.

Wrabbit2000
Government buildings are a real good idea for keeping guns out of though. First, it's where plenty of guns are always going to be already, so I shouldn't need mine to add my confused one to a coordinated set, with cops or armed security the gov't buildings have these days. (That's how citizens get mis-identified and shot by pure accident) More importantly tho...Government buildings are where business is done, most is unpleasant to someone, and much is emotionally charged these days for how unpleasant it can be. Bad place to have every Tom, Dick and Harry carrying with no real need (see above for being well covered) and handy for a snap reaction of dumb.

What a bad change of law, IMO.

This discussion has come up on several occasions. As an example there was a push to allow teachers to be armed. While I would support that, the manner in which its being looked at is a bad idea. I've suggested that if we allow teachers to be armed they must lock themselves in their classrooms and use their weapon as self defense only, IE not engaging unless the suspect is trying to come through the door.

The last thing I want is to have an active shooter in a school with armed teachers who are roaming the halls. They aren't in easily identifiable uniforms which creates the possibility of shooting a teacher.

The biggest obstacle is how law enforcement responds to those situations. Patrol Officers were required to secure the perimeter and wait for SWAT to respond. That changed when Columbine happened. The shift to the new response is the first officers on scene can respond inside without swat (in general). Depending on location, that could very well mean the first officers might not be the agency where the incident is occurring.

I bring that up because I have seen people argue that cops knows the teachers so it would be ok. You get an outside agency there, they are not going to know the person is a teacher etc. Active shooter scenarios also shifted actions to stop the threat immediately. Based on the situation warnings aren't always possible when confronting an active shooter.


As for California, they are the state the Federal Government uses when modeling nation wide programs. With the latest ruling im curious if that is going to be changing.

I know Magpul left Colorado to come to Texas and I think PTR Industries left Connecticut for Texas recently and we are damn glad to have em come to our state!

I read STAG arms, COLT Manufacturing and Mossberg and Sons are rumored to be thinking of moving out of Connecticut as well based on the moronic decisions being made by the politicians. I read a AP story that Connecticut would lose about $1.75 Billion in revenues and around 3K jobs if these folks moved. Magpul does about $85 Million per year the article stated.

Texas would be a GREAT place to set up shop! We have common sense down here and still respect the Constitution and say the pledge at school....California and Connecticut can keep doing what they are doing, its good for my state!!!!

reply to post by Xcathdra



We have about 30 school districts here now that allow staff to apply to carry. MOST of these districts have a "gun vault" in each classroom with a fingerprint reader. Inside some of the vaults is a handgun, inside the rest is a can of pepper spray and a indicator they put on their chest that indicates to law enforcement that they are the "good guy". Staff are advised to lock the door, move the kids away from the door, open the vault and take out whatever is inside and protect THEIR classroom students and stay inside until the Police clear them to move. Not every teacher has a gun, only those that met whatever selection process the district set up and wanted to take the additional training with the Police department.

Most of these districts also have a select few staff members (like administrators or staff that are required to move from campus to campus during the day) that are allowed to carry all day on their person. I believe that all of these districts asked their community what they wanted and worked with the Texas Rangers, local law enforcement and other groups to implement a program IF the community expressed interest. Nothing is 100%, NOTHING. I will say however that I have 2 kids in school and I am fine with my school district having something like this in place. It is not for everyone and not for every community but, it is what it is. If my kids come home each day then it's been a good day.....

reply to post by Xcathdra

Unless its changed, the business's where guns are prohibited (bar / hospital / movie theatre / Stadium / where 5k or more gather etc) has the option of allowing people onto the property with a weapon who are not commissioned law enforcement. 2 of the Hospitals in Springfield have armed public safety officers. Just a matter of getting the owner and asking if its ok. I would ask for approval in writing lol.

Some can be carried in with consent and some can't. Here is Missouri's 5 page pamphlet on CCW laws at a glance and the 2nd to last page shows the itemized list of where one can't carry ..and whether it can be different with consent or not. Most not. The one thing I like about Missouri though is that we can have the gun in the car, anyway. A compromise for people running into the post office or something.

This discussion has come up on several occasions. As an example there was a push to allow teachers to be armed. While I would support that, the manner in which its being looked at is a bad idea. I've suggested that if we allow teachers to be armed they must lock themselves in their classrooms and use their weapon as self defense only, IE not engaging unless the suspect is trying to come through the door.

What is it about a school campus that is supposed to suddenly strike grown adults dumb and incapable of basic trust? I have a CCW now and the state trusts me to be armed in public in almost any location I go, anytime I am outside my home. The state verified I have no dis-qualifiers in my background and nothing to suggest questionable judgement under the law. Yet, I'm to be treated like a child the moment I cross a school property line, and as if all that goes out the door. A few instructors I know of are in the same boat for being permitted but unable to have any means of defense at work.

If we have an active shooter, and as DHS is pushing now with 'Run-Hide-Fight', the fight part will be short...bloody..and 100% one sided to the criminal winning the contest. No challenge and no hope to survive a direct encounter except by luck or happenstance. That's crappy odds, indeed ...and I don't see why I must suffer it on a campus because of the arbitrary line drawn, but don't have to worry about that at a retail store full of guns...for instance, or any variety of other large public places with a diverse group of people and ages.

It's perception and lack of realistic thinking. A knee jerk reaction to the mental image of a scary firearm on a table in a grade school classroom (as dateline did on a show years ago). That has no relation to college campuses and heck, there are off duty cops and members of the military attending classes at most universities or colleges too. Everyone gets to be unarmed ducks to a shooter, if that ever comes. There is something unarmerican about that, at a fundamental level.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Sure. But if you give everyone the right without controls to go out tonight and buy a couple guns of the street and start carrying them...how does law enforcement recognize the law-abiding citizens from law-breaking citizens? I had a background check for my license...and so...I have a license...and have training, thats all I meant.