Imaudigger Posted February 14, 2014 Report Share Posted February 14, 2014 Don't know if things go political around here...Sounds like there has been some good news in the San Diego area for those of you wanting to carry concealed firearms (or and firearms for that matter since open carry is illegal). For those interested, I think my signature quote at the bottomof this message says it all.www.crpa.orgView this email in your browserMajor Victory for CRPA,California and the Second AmendmentAccording to the Washington Times and Author David SherfinskiFederal Court deals gun-grabbers a blow in San Diego- Read more details here!Federal court deals gun-grabbers a blow in San Diego concealed carry rulingIn a major victory for gun rights activists, a federal appeals panel in California has rejected a law in San Diego County that requires applicants for concealed carry permits to demonstrate good cause as to why they need a gun for personal safety.A three-judge panel on Thursday rejected a district courts ruling in favor of the county after plaintiffs appealed.The plaintiffs argued that by defining good cause in San Diego Countys permitting scheme to exclude a general desire to carry for self-defense, the County impermissibly burdens their Second Amendment right to bear arms.PHOTOS: Top 10 handguns in the U.S.The district court erred because San Diego Countys good cause permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense, wrote Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs who were denied concealed carry licenses because they could not establish good cause, as well as plaintiffs who anticipated they would be denied. The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) was an additional plaintiff in the case, and no plaintiff is otherwise banned from possessing a gun.The case was appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.The 77-page majority opinion drew upon rulings on handgun bans in the District of Columbia and the city of Chicago, particularly the landmark 2008 District v. Heller ruling that struck down D.C.s longtime ban on handguns.Judge O'Scannlain wrote that neither case speaks explicitly or precisely to the scope of the Second Amendment right outside the home or what it takes to infringe it.Speakers of the English language will all agree: bearing a weapon inside the home does not exhaust this definition of carry, he wrote. For one thing, the very risk occasioning such carriage, confrontation, is not limited to the home.One neednt point to statistics to recognize that the prospect of conflict at least, the sort of conflict for which one would wish to be armed and ready is just as menacing (and likely more so) beyond the front porch as it is in the living room, he continued. To be sure, the idea of carrying a gun in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready, does not exactly conjure up images of father stuffing a six-shooter in his pajamas pocket before heading downstairs to start the mornings coffee, or mother concealing a handgun in her coat before stepping outside to retrieve the mail. Instead, it brings to mind scenes such as 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.In a a 48-page dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote that in addition to striking down San Diego Countys concealed carry policy, the majority ruling upends the entire California firearm regulatory scheme. In dealing a needless, sweeping judicial blow to the public safety discretion invested in local law enforcement officers and to Californias carefully constructed firearm regulatory scheme, the majority opinion conflicts with Supreme Court authority, the decisions of our sister circuits, and our own circuit precedent, he wrote. The state generally prohibits the open or concealed carry of a handgun in public, but delegates authority to localities to craft their own policies for obtaining concealed carry licenses.The good cause requirement has been in place in San Diego since 1999. Concern for ones personal safety alone is not considered good cause, rather, the policy requires [a] set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harms way.Follow us: @washtimes on TwitterCopyright © 2014 California Rifle & Pistol Association, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email bacause you opted in at our website: crpa.org Our mailing address is: California Rifle & Pistol Association271 Imperial Highway, Suite 620Fullerton, CA 92835Add us to your address bookunsubscribe from this listupdate subscription preferences Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.