Ninth Circuits Allows Sheriffs To Deny Concealed Carry Permits "Just Because"

[amigocabal]

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.co ... 111226.pdf

– As an initial matter, the historical analysis approach is the wrong approach, under current Supreme Court precedent. If this approach had been used in Obergefell v. Hodges, the bans on same-sex marriage would have stood. Judge Callahan, in fact, cited Obergefell with approval in her dissent.

– The court only addressed the facial challenge to the county’s interpretation of good cause. However, due to an intervening change in law since the district courts issued their judgments, the appellants made, for the first time, an as-applied challenge in the context of California’s ban on open carry. The Court did not even imply that the plaintiffs were procedurally barred from making the as-applied challenge, which would have meant that addressing the facial challenge would be enough to dispose of the appeal. However, the Court reached a disposition of the judgment without addressing the as-applied challenge. As plaintiffs were not barred from adding the as-applied challenge, it would have been necessary to resolve it, as a resolution in their favor would require reversal of the judgments below. (Judge N.R. Smith, in his dissent, would have vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district courts to decide the as-applied challenges, while rejecting the facial challenges).

– finally, the court was wrong when it held that answering the Second Amendment question necessarily answers the equal protection question. These are independent issues. That a state may generally ban concealed carry does not necessarily mean that a state can ban concealed carry solely by young black males. In Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that states that neither the state nor its subdivisions “shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.”, because it established a right to discrimination. Allowing sheriffs unfettered discretion as to what constitutes good cause likewise, under Reitman, establishes the power to discriminate. (This would also equally apply to "good cause" requirements for obtaining a driver's license or a medical license or a law license. )

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah, it is highly likely that the supreme court will strike down this ruling.

Additionally, I am watching this thread. The mass shooting thread and this one shade into similar territory, and I dont want to see two threads repeating the same arguments at the same time with the same people. I will split and merge if I need to, but would rather not. Please dont make me. Keep The Discussion Novel.

Thanks and Best Wishes

~AD.

[Jub]

On the face of things, I like the spirit of the ruling open/concealed carry really doesn't need to be a thing for 90% of owners. That said the ruling seems ham-fisted and poorly thought out. This sort of change should be left to law makers and not a single judge.

[Marko Dash]

The whole point of CCW is to hope you never need it, but to have it just in case.

This is like saying you're not allowed to put locks on your doors unless you can prove you're likely to be robbed.

[Jub]

The whole point of CCW is to hope you never need it, but to have it just in case.

This is like saying you're not allowed to put locks on your doors unless you can prove you're likely to be robbed.

So why are CCWs common in Canada, the UK, Japan, Germany, etc? I understand that many areas of the US have issues with crime, but much of that is gang on gang with injuries to bystanders being collateral. How does a gun protect you from being hit by a stray round in a drive by? The average thief would rather rob you when you're out than risk a fight guns or no guns, and muggings aren't as common as people's fear makes them believe they are. So where do you foresee using a CCW and how are you at any greater risk of ending up in that scenario than people in less gun friendly nations?

[Joun_Lord]

So why are CCWs common in Canada, the UK, Japan, Germany, etc? I understand that many areas of the US have issues with crime, but much of that is gang on gang with injuries to bystanders being collateral. How does a gun protect you from being hit by a stray round in a drive by? The average thief would rather rob you when you're out than risk a fight guns or no guns, and muggings aren't as common as people's fear makes them believe they are. So where do you foresee using a CCW and how are you at any greater risk of ending up in that scenario than people in less gun friendly nations?

I assume you mean why AREN'T CCWs common in America's Hat, the land of tea and bad teeth, Japanistan, and Germany.

CCWs in those places aren't all that common because one, gun ownership is far less common then in Murica. Two, even when people can own guns in those places the same level of usage as Americunts is disallowed, very rarely if ever is someone going to be allowed to use a firearm for protection at any time even if they are allowed to own one. Triple, clearly all those people are fraidy kitty cats scared of guns, clearly.

A firearm will not protect a person from a stray bullet (the argument can be made for body armor being easier to get) but firearms aren't meant to protect someone from something like that but that doesn't mean a firearm for protection is less valid because its cannot protect from all situations. Its like the airbags or seatbelt on a car. They will not protect you if you get pancaked by a semi, if you slide into a lake, if a volcano opens up under your vehicle (hey, I'm sure its happened) but that doesn't mean they are useless.

The average thief might want to just rob you, might not. Most people don't want to rely on the humanity and niceness of a person already committing a crime. Same with muggings, they do happen and again relying on the good intentions of a damn criminal is not exactly the smartest thing to do, like admitting to liking Star Trek Enterprise Season 1 on most any Trek board, you're gonna have a bad time.

Few foresee using a firearms except to blast crappy overpriced puke green zombie posters at a shooting range. Few want to use it against any other person except maybe any version of Hitler including Hippie Hitler, especially Hippie Hitler. A firearm is in some ways like insurance, something you have but hope to never need to use.

But there are unfortunately times to use it, even if you can't predict it. People may attack you in public, not content to take your wallet or manpurse and leave with a tip of the hat. Someone may break into your house and attempt to menace you and your family, also steal your tv which depending on the person might be the most important thing. People do rape other people, men, women, and children, and considering how terrible rape is I believe someone is entitled to defend themselves even to the point of ending the person attacking them. Idiots with guns, knives, and BMWs who hates women because they have a small laughably small dick kill women....also men but nobody cares.

Most violence for most people is random and unforeseeable. One cannot foresee it, can only use earlier examples of times someone could have used a weapon to defend themselves to prepare just the same as someone who has never been in a motor vehicle accident will use examples of people wrecking, getting wrecked, crashing into lakes and other objects (can a lake be considered an object?), or just running out of gas to prepare for their own driving experience.

As someone who doesn't own a gun by choice, I don't feel like I have need for a firearm to protect myself. Of course I live in a relatively decent area, don't have many valuables or valuable people living with me I feel the need to protect, know the cops can respond relatively quickly should I call them (should I be able to find my damn phone), I've got other weapons and crappy 20 dollars swords to defend myself should someone attack me in my home and carry a pocket knife for in public which has been sufficient which I unfortunately know from experience, am a relatively large man who knows very few people are going to want to rape me, and don't have nearly the time or money to go train at a range.

Other people are not the same as me, other people can be raped, do have things and people to protect, other people don't want to leave their life up to chance and how hard they can swing a machete, other people know its fucking flipping retarded to try to poke an attacker in the guts with a shitty pocket knife especially when he can have all manners of weapons and backup and only survive relatively unscathed because your attacker and his posse were wimps, plenty of people live in areas where seconds count and the cops are minutes or longer away, some people don't have the physical build to defend themselves even with a knife,

People DO have need to protect themselves, not only in just America but everywhere. Just in America (out of other 1st world nations) people have the choice to defend themselves with a firearm. Though apparently in South Africa they have the choice of using a flamethrower to defend themselves. Which is..........interesting.

[LaCroix]

Most of Europe is applying the same ruling. A gun for home defence or target shooting can be obtained easily, but a carry permit needs a very good reason (taxi driver, jeweller, etc. Someone who is at a high rissk of armed robbery. Or security jobs.) Even a woman citing fears to be mugged/raped on the streets would not be eligible, unless she were to work, eg. late in a bar and would need to travel home at ungodly hours. A carry permit for "just in case" is not possible.

[amigocabal]

Yeah, it is highly likely that the supreme court will strike down this ruling.

Additionally, I am watching this thread. The mass shooting thread and this one shade into similar territory, and I dont want to see two threads repeating the same arguments at the same time with the same people. I will split and merge if I need to, but would rather not. Please dont make me. Keep The Discussion Novel.

Thanks and Best Wishes

~AD.

Given the history of discrertionary permitting, I can see a short opinion reversing the judgment solely on equal protection grounds.