The ruling upholds a California law that imposes strict rules on individuals who wish to exercise concealed carry.
Advertisement
That ruling, which never took effect, would have bolstered the ranks of concealed weapon carriers in most Bay Area counties, where sheriffs have always been hesitant to issue permits for people to carry guns in public unless they can show that their lives are in danger.
“Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining its constitutionality”, Callahan wrote.
The San Diego sheriff says the 2,463 applicants applying under the looser restrictions won’t be given a permit unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Thursday. The others do not require permit applicants to cite a “good cause”. “It makes sense”, said Prieto, who petitioned for last year’s rehearing in the appellate case. It may not have an immediate impact on OR, where such licensing laws are less stringent, but gun control has been a high-profile issue and some say the ruling could fuel Democrats’ reform efforts next year. Plaintiffs challenged guidelines in San Diego and Yolo counties that did not consider general self-defense to be enough to obtain a license. “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment – whatever the scope of that protection may be – simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public”, Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.
While disappointed by the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Thursday, the gun owners in the case plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The applicants were trained in gun use and had clear backgrounds but were unable to provide a convincing reason to carry a concealed weapon in public.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution affords Americans no guaranteed right to carry concealed weapons.
The decision on Thursday is actually a reversal of a previous Ninth Circuit ruling that permitted many counties to relax their concealed-carry policies.
The National Rifler Association said that the court was “out of touch”, according to The Associated Press.
Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue, however, didn’t expect the high court to consider the case while it remains down one member.
Gun permit applicants in California must submit a specific reason to be granted authorization to carry a concealed weapon. Other counties, including Los Angeles, have similar restrictions.
Advertisement
“This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection”, NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox said. Rhode Island, he said, has two complicated laws pertaining to concealed weapon permits.
