Ninth Circuit Court blows a hole in gun control

BOP

Well-Known Member
Ninth Circuit Court blows a hole in gun control | Human Events

California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show “good cause” – and not merely the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.

State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection.

“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 said in the majority opinion.
 

mamatutu

mama to two
"State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection."

This is the part where the ruling could go off course. Who will decide the good cause and moral character part? Who will ultimately decide the granting of permits? I don't know if this was a win or not.
 

BigBlue

New Member
Ninth Circuit Court blows a hole in gun control | Human Events

California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show “good cause” – and not merely the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.

State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection.

“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 said in the majority opinion.


LOL ,:cds::cds::cds:
 

glhs837

Power with Control
"State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection."

This is the part where the ruling could go off course. Who will decide the good cause and moral character part? Who will ultimately decide the granting of permits? I don't know if this was a win or not.

The ruling strikes down the good cause portion, the bad part, like in MD, except in MD, the rules for that are pretty defined, documented threat to life, routinely carry large sums of money, doctor, lawyer, judge. In CA, good cuase was apparently decided on a county and ton/city level. So China Lake could say the above were valid reasons, while Kern County might say being a victim of domestic abuse was good too.

So we are now at only good moral character, not sure how thats decided, but I think it means not being a convicted felon. Maine uses the following definition, but I couldn't find one for CA

Applicants in good moral character are considered to be, among other things, those who haven’t been convicted of family abuse, convicted of three or more crimes punishable by less than one year, convicted of drug violations or found to have been engaged in reckless or negligent conduct within the past five years.
 

mamatutu

mama to two
The ruling strikes down the good cause portion, the bad part, like in MD, except in MD, the rules for that are pretty defined, documented threat to life, routinely carry large sums of money, doctor, lawyer, judge. In CA, good cuase was apparently decided on a county and ton/city level. So China Lake could say the above were valid reasons, while Kern County might say being a victim of domestic abuse was good too.

So we are now at only good moral character, not sure how thats decided, but I think it means not being a convicted felon. Maine uses the following definition, but I couldn't find one for CA

Thanks for the info, again! You have been a great mentor today! :smile: Isn't Holder trying to get back the right to vote for all felons? Everything is so willy nilly, anymore. I just wonder who will ultimately decide all of our fates? Of course, God will, but I am talking about the lawmakers/politicians that think they are God/gods! :lol:
 

glhs837

Power with Control
I did see that about Holder.


Eric Holder makes case for felons to get voting rights back - The Washington Post

[In a speech at Georgetown University Law Center, Holder said, “It is time to fundamentally reconsider laws that permanently disenfranchise people who are no longer under federal or state supervision.”

Holder said that current laws forbidding felons from voting make it harder for them to reintegrate into society. He pointed to a recent study that showed that felons in Florida who were granted the right to vote again had a lower recidivism rate.
 

mamatutu

mama to two
Should they be able to get their right to own firearms as well?

Well, they already do once they get out of prison because their right to bear arms is underground. The law abiding citizen may well be overwhelmed by the scrambling to get votes just to keep the libprog agenda alive, as in 'the new world order'. Certain people in the World think they should rule it. America be damned as long as they stay in power forever and ever, until the USA no longer exists. JMO
 
Last edited:
Top