Also in CA9 news, the panel of judges that will hear Peruta en banc was just released:
THOMAS (Clinton)
PREGERSON (Carter)
SILVERMAN (Clinton)
GRABER (Clinton)
McKEOWN (Clinton)
W. FLETCHER (Clinton)
PAEZ (Clinton)
CALLAHAN (G.W. Bush)
BEA (G.W. Bush)
N.R. SMITH (G.W. Bush)
OWENS (Obama)
California requires "good cause" to get a CHL. Peruta is the case where a 3-judge panel previously ruled that self-defense must be accepted as good cause. With this en banc panel, the ruling is guaranteed to be overturned.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Is requiring a permit to carry constitutional?”
- Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:53 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: Is requiring a permit to carry constitutional?
- Replies: 28
- Views: 14630
- Mon Jun 08, 2015 12:15 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: Is requiring a permit to carry constitutional?
- Replies: 28
- Views: 14630
Is requiring a permit to carry constitutional?
The OCT crowd contend that carry permits are unconstitutional. Of course, whether something is unconstitutional is determined by the U.S. Supreme Court and not Chipotle AR-15 ninjas.
San Francisco has an ordinance which requires guns in the home to be locked up when not on your person (i.e. it's illegal to have the gun unlocked in your nightstand when you're sleeping). A 79 year old black woman, represented by the NRA, sued the city and lost (Jackson vs. San Francisco). Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal (with Thomas and Scalia dissenting from the rejection - see page 11). A similar ordinance (requiring trigger lock) was struck down in Heller vs D.C. As the dissent makes clear, the Supreme Court is refusing to reaffirm their prior decision in Heller.
The 5 justices who gave us Heller are still on the court. They just refused to reaffirm Heller. To think that this same court would strike down carry permits as unconstitutional is beyond delusion.
With this rejection, the 9th Circuit (as well as other anti-gun circuits) will be emboldened to uphold every gun control law.
San Francisco has an ordinance which requires guns in the home to be locked up when not on your person (i.e. it's illegal to have the gun unlocked in your nightstand when you're sleeping). A 79 year old black woman, represented by the NRA, sued the city and lost (Jackson vs. San Francisco). Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal (with Thomas and Scalia dissenting from the rejection - see page 11). A similar ordinance (requiring trigger lock) was struck down in Heller vs D.C. As the dissent makes clear, the Supreme Court is refusing to reaffirm their prior decision in Heller.
The 5 justices who gave us Heller are still on the court. They just refused to reaffirm Heller. To think that this same court would strike down carry permits as unconstitutional is beyond delusion.
With this rejection, the 9th Circuit (as well as other anti-gun circuits) will be emboldened to uphold every gun control law.