The Thursday ruling by the 9th Circuit did not address a California law that bans open-carry, the newspaper notes. Even if the justices did take the case, it’s hard to see how they could justify reversing Thursday’s ruling: The majority’s 41-page decision lays out a compelling, comprehensive analysis that that even fervid defenders of the right to bear arms should have trouble dismissing.
Advertisement
In federal district court, the trial judge applied “intermediate scrutiny” to the challenged laws, deciding that the right to bear arms must yield to the common good – the “government[‘s] important interest in reducing… the risks to other members of the public”.
A little over two years ago, we wrote about a surprisingly rational decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a.k.a. the “Ninth Circus” – so named for its consistently asinine decisions, especially those dealing with the U.S. Constitution and its interpretation.
Still undecided in California, which has some of the strictest firearms laws in the country, is whether individuals have a right to open-carry guns for personal protection, the Los Angeles Times (sub. req.) reports.
The California law that was up for debate only allows people with certain circumstances, like victims of violent crimes, to carry concealed guns in public.
“Just because a federal court says that you do not have a constitutional right doesn’t mean that the state that you live in can not grant you that right through legislation”, Hagel said. “And if so, what kind of licensing can states use to permit people to carry concealed weapons?”
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.
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, has called for “comprehensive gun safety reform”, while her Republican rival Donald Trump has been endorsed by the NRA. In praising the decision, though, he accidentally undercuts the entire recent legal movement in favor of gay marriage.
As a general, practical rule, it may not matter much how the Supreme Court finally rules on this question: Most states enacted permissive concealed-carry laws on their own and would keep them regardless. Easy. The judges ignored the text of the Second Amendment, relying exclusively upon a single dictum in Heller, and a misuse of the dictum at that.
Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will have to decide who’s right.
One of those is California’s policy on carrying concealed guns in public.
“Those of us that want to carry concealed, we’re the good guys”. Had the Ninth Circuit submitted to the Second Amendment text, it could not have concluded, as it did, that laws governing concealed firearms are per se outside the protective shield of the Second Amendment.
Advertisement
In 2012, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in IL.
