Judge denies constitutional right to carry concealed gun

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Judge denies constitutional right to carry concealed gun

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.

Meanwhile, the California state Assembly approved a bill Monday to ban openly carrying unloaded handguns in public. Some gun-rights activists have carried unloaded weapons in public as a political statement

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015072053_guns17.html

get ready for another battle to scotus
 
this is actually a good ruling, in my opinion, because it absolutely shuts the door on cali's new ban on open carry. they MUST allow open carry now. of course they'll take that to the courts also.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is actually a good ruling, in my opinion, because it absolutely shuts the door on cali's new ban on open carry. they MUST allow open carry now. of course they'll take that to the courts also.
Click to expand...

i didn't take that from the ruling....what part of the ruling makes you think this?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
THIS ruling doesn't make me think that. Other court rulings will force the issue. If concealed carry is not a right, then open carry MUST be.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't hang my hat on the logical outcome....too much assumption and if you read the full article...cali wants to ban open carry as well.....
 
Yurt said:
i wouldn't hang my hat on the logical outcome....too much assumption and if you read the full article...cali wants to ban open carry as well.....
Click to expand...

cali has already passed the open carry ban. there are already 3 court cases winding their way up the line about carrying a handgun, so it's bound to make a circuit split. Top that off with Murdock v. pennsylvania, no state shall charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the constitution. So, either cali goes shall issue, in which case the license requirement will be challenged anyway, or they have their open carry ban ruled unconstitutional.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
cali has already passed the open carry ban. there are already 3 court cases winding their way up the line about carrying a handgun, so it's bound to make a circuit split. Top that off with Murdock v. pennsylvania, no state shall charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the constitution. So, either cali goes shall issue, in which case the license requirement will be challenged anyway, or they have their open carry ban ruled unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

has the governor signed that into law? have both houses signed it?
 
I've always figured open carry was a bigger deal than concealed, because it has much greater potential to cause a public disturbance...
 
St. Peter said:
I've always figured open carry was a bigger deal than concealed, because it has much greater potential to cause a public disturbance...
Click to expand...
Depends on the area. Open carry in Detroit is legal but not well received by some. Outside of Detroit most people don't give a damn. Up north it's almost expected.
 
Gen X is a tiny generation compared to the Kaboomers and Millenials. By the time the Kaboomers transfer their political power down, it will be immediately seized by the Millenials, and Gen X will be passed over. All they will get is elected officials and a few presidents (even though Obama was born after 1960, apparenly the cut-off is 1965, so he's a Kaboomer).
 
St. Adolphus said:
Because you have Boomers, GenXers, and a good bit of the current generation growing up with continually shrinking exposure to guns in a positive setting.
Click to expand...

There was 60% support for banning handguns in 1960. That's gone done continuously since then to around 30%, even as the amount of people who've owned guns has shrunk.
 
St. Albert the Great said:
There was 60% support for banning handguns in 1960. That's gone done continuously since then to around 30%, even as the amount of people who've owned guns has shrunk.
Click to expand...
That doesn't really pertain to my statement. Not banning something =/= acceptance of it. It's certainly more excepted today, as back in the 60's open carry would be pretty much unheard of anywhere.
 
Open carry in New Mexico is protected by our constitution. People have been doing it since 1912. No disturbances here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top