Fed. Judge Rules Against Concealed Carry in Calif.

Federal judge rules against Calif. gun advocates

Published May 16, 2011

| Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – A federal judge ruled Monday there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public — a decision that dealt a setback to gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits.

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. in Sacramento supported a policy by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto that says applicants must have a reason, such as a safety threat, to legally carry a concealed weapon in his county northwest of Sacramento.

Prieto was sued by opponents claiming sheriffs, who issue most concealed weapons permits, must give the documents to any applicant as long as they are not mentally ill, do not have a criminal background and complete a training course.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/federal-judge-rules-calif-gun-advocates/#ixzz1McLe6X5q

Think the Supremes will overturn this? I read that conservative parts of California will issue permits pretty freely or if you are a celebrity. Sean Penn, paparrazi pummeler was given a permit for a pistol.

Only if Sacramento also has a complete ban on open carry do I think any appeal would have a chance at succeeding on the grounds that it was denying to a person their constitutional right to bear arms for their self-protection in arguing the may issue policy of the city. If Sacramento allows people to carry a handgun openly in public then they have not denied to anyone their natural right of self defense by adopting a may issue instead of a must issue stance with regards to arms that are carried concealed.

Like I said Give Cali. to the leftist

The Denver Post had a blurb today that the California assembly has essentially outlawed open carry in urban and suburban areas so we will have to see if the senate and Jerry Brown agree.

Well, the Supreme Court struck down Wash. D.C.'s gun law, so there may be some hope.

Almost all the people who carry a concealed weapon without a permit are criminals. How many CCW carriers have been convicted of homicide with said weapon?

2wlady wrote: Well, the Supreme Court struck down Wash. D.C.'s gun law, so there may be some hope.

Almost all the people who carry a concealed weapon without a permit are criminals. How many CCW carriers have been convicted of homicide with said weapon?

I would guess a very small percentage.

2wlady wrote: Well, the Supreme Court struck down Wash. D.C.'s gun law, so there may be some hope.

Almost all the people who carry a concealed weapon without a permit are criminals. How many CCW carriers have been convicted of homicide with said weapon?

And what was being challenged was the ability of a government official to decide if they thought you had a good enough reason to be issued a permit beyond your constitutionally protected right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Sacramento seems to think that they, not you, are the arbiters of whether or not you need that protection.

I do disagree with the "may issue" policy. I don't believe that a government organization should have the ability to decide who among those not deemed ineligible by society to keep and bear any arm are eligible to carry their arms concealed for the lawful purpose of defending themselves. If I am eligible to own the arm at all by the rules of society, and I seek to bear it concealed to enhance my own protection without alarming others, that is all that should be necessary. I need justify myself no further than this. If I squint really hard and hold my head at just the right angle I can see where the government might argue that they have the ability to require a permit be obtained for the safety of the LEO when they pull you over for speeding or stop you on the street because your behavior has drawn their attention, but I can't make the additional jump to their having the ability to deny a requested permit simply because they think you don't need it.

The Supremes have already ruled that the government can limit the 2nd Amendment such as with concealed weapons.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Supremes have already ruled that the government can limit the 2nd Amendment such as with concealed weapons.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Agree, there do need rules on gun ownership and concealed carry but when you see the super low crime rate for people who have CHL, it would seem to be a no-brainer.

Then again, laws against concealed carry didn't prevent Giffords or the students at VA Tech from getting shot.