Ruling on concealed weapons keeps applications on hold

[onehandle]

Source: AP

[img][/img]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Thousands of California gun owners hoping to legally carry concealed weapons for personal protection were dealt a setback when a federal appeals court upheld a state law requiring applicants to show a good reason beyond simple safety.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Americans don't have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public and that California law enforcement officials can require applicants to show "good cause" such as routinely carrying large amounts of money before granting permits.

That ruling undid a previous 2014 ruling of the same court that tossed out the restrictions and prompted thousands of Californians to flood sheriff's departments with concealed weapons applications seeking the permits for personal safety.

The San Diego sheriff received some 2,463 applications that didn't show "good cause" and placed them on hold while the court sorted out the issue. Robert Faigan, a lawyer for the San Diego sheriff, said those applications won't be granted unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the ruling Thursday.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d18d5f9891ec40a18b1b7466375753db

[Angel Martin]

1. How come Feinstein and Boxer

can get carry permits to protect themselves in the most restrictive county in the state, but personal safety is not "good cause" when it comes to the little people ?

[onehandle]

2. How come Wayne LaPierre would kick a gun nut in the balls if it made him more money?

We all have questions.

[cstanleytech]

5. Probably because they were able to actually show "good cause" and in their case the good cause is

probably based around them being elected government officials thus there is a greater chance for them to need a weapon to defend themselves compared to the average person who probably doesnt have as large of a chance of needing one thus they have a more difficult time proving a good cause case in their application.
Edit: And BTW this case was only about the concealed carry and it had nothing to do with open carrying.

[scscholar]

30. Because the wingnuts constantly threaten them

They need them, but we don't.

[TipTok]

36. Sheriff doesn't want to get on her bad side...

Plus she's important... not like the peons she 'serves'

[Angel Martin]

39. Bingo !

gun control is for the "little people"

[paleotn]

3. 4 to 4 and the lower court ruling stands. n/t

[TwilightZone]

10. Yeah, this could be about to get rather interesting.

[TeddyR]

17. Stands

But not binding on other courts because of the 4-4 split. Because of the split I'd be shocked if the Court accepted cert on this one. Maybe wait to see what the 4th Circuit does with the case before it. I think the most we are going to get from the Court is a ruling on the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to these types of laws.

[phazed0]

4. Am I the only one that thinks this is silly?

Isn't it just going to force open-carry? So they want to be like Texas?

[7962]

7. Open carry is for suckers, IMO.

I sometimes carry large amounts of cash on me & I have a weapon. I know this would give me a pass on this law, but the reason I feel the way i do is 2 fold. 1, when you open carry if someone DOES want to do something to you the FIRST thing they'd do is grab that gun. And they'd have the element of surprise. 2, when you open carry, you INSTANTLY become the center of attention. I dont want to look any different than anyone else when I'm working. I dont need people to wonder why I'm carrying and follow me to find out.

And where i live, it seems as though the open carry folks are exactly the types you'd imagine. Meaning, they dont look like off duty cops

[phazed0]

8. +1 I agree.

I also carry on occasion, but rarely.

[Angel Martin]

13. exactly !

if one is a possible target for kidnapping, assassination or robbery the last things you want to do are: draw attention to yourself; give attackers a heads up that you are armed.

[NWCorona]

22. IMHO the problem with open carry is that it's time is gone.

The negatives far out way the positives and the people who do open carry in WA all look like douchebags.

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

9. Personally, if forced to choose

I'd rather have the open carry. Out in public I want to see which and how many nuts are packing, so I know how quickly and and by which exit I will leave. *I realize I've implied armed citizens are nuts. That IS my position. If you can't go to Krogers,Outback Steakhouse, a movie or even church, for cryin' out loud, without a gat, yeah, you are a nut.*

Of course, if I had my druthers, no one, even LEOs would have firearms. NO ONE!

[phazed0]

11. It just is that open carry seems to cause conflict...

a bad recipe.

I somewhat disagree with your assessment of nuttyness, however. Not to say I don't agree with the concept of "full-time armed" is absurd. But I've gone to the grocery with a concealed carry pistol - not that I was arming myself for conflict at the grocery, but because I needed to carry it earlier. I don't let it leave my side till it gets back in the safe, locked, and unloaded.

Sure, if there were no guns and no bad guys I wouldn't carry on the very few occasions that I already do.

[Angel Martin]

14. so what about Boxer and Feinstein ? n/t

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

18. I dunno, what about 'em?

I'm not going to debate phrasings or semantics. My issue is with the average Joe Sixpack, which Boxer and Feinstein decidedly are not, who can't function in public without a firearm. I understand, given the current dynamics, some people are targets. Politicians and other with high profiles. People who must transport enormous sums of cash or other valuables regularly.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Try it sometime.

[Angel Martin]

19. "I realize I've implied armed citizens are nuts"

does this apply to Boxer and Feinstein?

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

20. Again

Reading comprehension is your friend. You really must try it sometime.

If that is too difficult, refer to my remarks in reply #14, in which I clearly clarified what you ask about. Oh never mind. It would require reading comprehension.

[7962]

23. Your blanket accusation that all are "nuts" is ridiculous.

Again, I have reason to carry when I have large sums of cash on me. As do many people with varying reasons. And sometimes that also takes me into restaurants, bars & stores. But dont worry, YOU would never know I had one, so you wouldnt have to run to your "safe space"

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

24. As I said in subsequent post to replies to

Someone else with a marked lack of reading comprehension, I can understand, GIVEN CURRENT DYNAMICS,
that people of high profile or those who regularly transport large sums of cash and or other valuables, have the need. The average Joe who can't go out to buy a bag of Fritos without being armed, is who I consider some sort of nut. Again, given current dynamics. I was quite clear about such exceptions.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Take it for a test drive sometime, you might appreciate it.

[paleotn]

31. You.....

....are correct.

[TipTok]

37. Depending on your state...

You have been in thousands and thousands of encounters (being seated next to someone to a full on interaction) with someone who is armed.

At what point do you realize that your concern is not statistically sound?

[askeptic]

12. ... but likely Constitutional

There is all this dabbling around the edges and working to avoid answering the central question, which is open carry. As I understand it, there are very restrictive open-carry laws there too, which the court actually invited a suit on. I think it's going to eventually come down to States can regulate conceal carry but not open carry. Obtaining a weapon will depend on the federal background check.

On the other hand, I grew up in Montana where it is and was quite common to see farmers and ranchers with a sidearm, and most pickups had a gun rack with 2 rifles, but few thought they were carrying them to protect themselves against other people. That was the police's job to make sure there weren't enough of that ilk around.

[phazed0]

15. Background checks... all for it.

I think you're likely very right on the Open vs Concealed when it comes to the States.

[DustyJoe]

32. police for protection

That was the police's job to make sure there weren't enough of that ilk around.

If only that were the case. Unfortunately in many instances the police aren't protectors but attackers.

In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime.

http://overlawyered.com/2011/12/the-police-have-no-obligation-to-protect-you-yes-really/

The only people police protect are themselves, citizens deserve the same capability.

[hack89]

6. Limiting permits to celebrities and the politically connected is perfectly reasonable

it is hard to imagine sheriffs unfairly misusing their discretion.

[Angel Martin]

16. LOL ! nt

[Eleanors38]

21. "May issue:" one of those remnants of Jim (large, raucous black bird) Laws.

[7962]

26. Depends on what restrictions the "may" include.

If it restricts those who work with children, then you can hardly blame a Jim Crow type restriction. If they barred you based on your neighborhood, thats another story

[sarisataka]

28. The restrictions of may issue

Are those codified in law and the whim of the issuing authority. A person who passed every legal requirement, has a perfectly clean record and even "good cause" may be denied a permit.

OTH several 'may issue' jurisdictions are known for greatly increasing the odds of receiving a permit if a donation is made to the sheriff's re-election campaign.

[Eleanors38]

40. Trouble is, the "may issue" standards vary from sheriff to sheriff -- another JC characteistic.

Those advocating these may issue laws have old and "proven" templates.

[pablo_marmol]

29. May issue = corrupt issue.

Edited to add: see post #28

[guillaumeb]

27. Some good news!!!!

If only sanity and sense were the rule rather than the exception in the US.

[onehandle]

33. Gun culture defenders in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141484662

[askeptic]

35. Are you trying to say we should ignore the Constitution?

I wonder which other rights you might single out by showing them being abused...

The "culture" I represent is the one that honors the Bill of Rights. There's a procedure for changing the Constitution if you don't like it, but acting as if the Constitution doesn't matter seems to be part of the anti-gun culture....

[ileus]

34. Your life should always be reason enough for a CC permit.

What other reason beyond having the ability to defend your life effectively should be needed?

I know I value my life...


Hopefully the voters can force the issue, and "may issue" progress can be made in areas where begging for the ability to protect your life is still the rule.

[TipTok]

38. Controller types are absolutely comfortable with you losing your life...

... as long as they don't have to feel scared knowing that a gun in in their 2 mile radius.

A small price to pay...

Not counting the politically connected, criminals, police etc.. etc...

[roamer65]

41. Being gay should now be an adequate reason for a CC in California.

After this incident, they cannot deny without a major lawsuit.