TexasCHLforum.com

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

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.
..................
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.

I missed this earlier. Good news! Sales of Maalox are up in Sacramento!

More link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... n-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... arry-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actual decision:

Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014)

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

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.
..................
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.

Did any antis or libtards die from fright yet?

Anygunanywhere

Well thats certainly interesting.

9th Circuit?? Hades has officially frozen over.

This is a HUGE deal. I'm certain there will be appeals, likely to include a request for the case to be re-heard by the full circuit instead of just this panel of 3 judges... But it seems the Circuits are clearly split (7th concurring with the 9th) and recent SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald give some reason for hopefulness.

Reading some chatter elsewhere that the majority opinion here goes to great length to trash (eviscerate) the conflicting decisions made by the other Circuit Courts (2nd, 3rd & 4th). I'm still slugging my way through the 127 page read between phone calls.

wow... I am amazed that they gave that reading. I guess that they are starting to look outside at what's come down from the Supremes and decided making the right decision in first place is better than getting a very public 'polite reminder' from DC

RoyGBiv wrote:
Reading some chatter elsewhere that the majority opinion here goes to great length to trash (eviscerate) the conflicting decisions made by the other Circuit Courts (2nd, 3rd & 4th). I'm still slugging my way through the 127 page read between phone calls.

I've skimmed about 27 pages of the Opinion, and 1 page of the descent, lots of herp and derp in the descent. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDERN!!!

No time wasted ...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/C ... 232386.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

James Chapin, the San Diego deputy county counsel who defended the permit system, said the county will ask the full appeals court for a rehearing before an 11-judge panel. The ruling will be on hold while that request is pending.

RoyGBiv wrote:No time wasted ...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/C ... 232386.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

James Chapin, the San Diego deputy county counsel who defended the permit system, said the county will ask the full appeals court for a rehearing before an 11-judge panel. The ruling will be on hold while that request is pending.

Jerks. Tyrants. Wouldn't want to give citizens their 2A rights back without taking it all the way now would they? Use citizens money (taxes) to pay attorneys to prevent rights from being exercised.

I can't write what I really think.

Anygunanywhere

Very interesting coming from Kalifornia... Of course the state is appealing..

Redneck_Buddha wrote:9th Circuit?? Hades has officially frozen over.

My thoughts exactly! I can't believe a ruling like this came out of the 9th Circus.

ELB wrote:I missed this earlier. Good news! Sales of Maalox are up in Sacramento!

More link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... n-opinion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... arry-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actual decision:

Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014)

Peruta has taken a long time to wend its way through the courts, but gun advocacy groups were fairly optimistic from the beginning about ultimate success.

Now it remains to be seen if Sacramento pulls a "Chicago/DC" and tries to defy the court.

isa268 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:
Reading some chatter elsewhere that the majority opinion here goes to great length to trash (eviscerate) the conflicting decisions made by the other Circuit Courts (2nd, 3rd & 4th). I'm still slugging my way through the 127 page read between phone calls.

I've skimmed about 27 pages of the Opinion, and 1 page of the descent, lots of herp and derp in the descent. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDERN!!!

It's "dissent", not "descent". . . . .as in, we descended from people who dissented against the crown.