Brady Center Statement on Ninth Circuit Decision on CA Gun Law

Jonathan Lowy (courtesy bradycampaign.org)

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released the following statement after the 9th Circuit Court struck down “good cause” provisions of California’s concealed carry laws.

Washington, DC—Today in a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled San Diego County violates the Second Amendment in Peruta v. County of San Diego. The following is a statement from Jonathan Lowy, Director, Legal Action Project, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence: “Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so. The parents of Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin, whose children were killed by licensed concealed-carry holders, could educate the Court about the real dangers posed by this legal error. We are hopeful that this mistake will be corrected by the entire Court.”

comments

  1. avatar ST says:

    Perhaps the Brady Campaign should rename itself to the “Criminal Defense Campaign of America-Ensuring thugs like Treyvon Martin get more rights then their victims.”

  2. avatar Hobbez says:

    Really? They are trying to use Trayvon Martin as an example AGAINST concealed carry? That’s just desperate…

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      There are many in the press who refuse to acknowledge that Zimmerman was found to have acted in lawful self-defense, arguing that the determination by a unanimous jury was simply wrong. They contend that he was not justified in using lethal force against a “nonlethal” threat. Umhmmm. Yeah right.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        The “press” thrive on controversy. That’s one way they get eyeballs and that’s how they sell advertising which is what their real business is.

        Fox, MSNBC, and all the rest of them are not in the news business, they’re in the advertising sales business.

    2. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

      + 100. Citing Trayvon Martin? Really?

    3. avatar Jack says:

      He cites Trayvon Martin because doing so will touch a nerve with the people who are most likely to buy his propaganda.

      1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

        Oddly enlighten the Martin case is really a good argument for legal open carry in FL. I am almost certain Martin would be alive today if Zimmerman had been open carrying.

        1. avatar Erik says:

          Or vice versa if Trayvon Martin had been open carrying.

        2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          Sorry, this touches one of my nerves…

          It is the Zimmerman case that was tried in court. The People versus George Zimmerman. GZ was the one on trial, not Martin.

          It is a small thing, I know. But it is an important thing to keep the facts straight and not let the media get any spin on the case, or at least to try and unspin what is already out there.

    4. avatar Mike says:

      What they’re doing is tying Trayvon Martin’s death (a thug who picked on the wrong person) to the Jordan Davis death (looks like the shooter over reacted to the “danger” he was in). So from here out they will be forever linked to plant further in the mind of the low info crowd that Zimmerman WAS wrong (like the other guy probably was) but just.got away with it

      1. avatar Dale says:

        Bing bing bing…..we have a winner

      2. avatar Mina says:

        The left is not about being right or correct, they are only about winning “the audience” to their side.

        They have no compulsion about lying, fabricating or linking facts that have no relation to each other in order to do so. In their minds, the ends justifies the means because they have a an unearned sense of superior moral authority (i.e. they are doing this for our collective good, they have good intentions, etc)

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          They are deathly afraid of an armed populace, because they know that if their subjects are allowed to bear arms, they will die.

          And, from a metaphysics POV, it’s ultimately all about life and death, after all. Life is chaotic; stasis is death.

  3. avatar jwm says:

    Or, brady bunch, how about the court confirming that shall not be infringed means just that? What will you do next, move to England?

    1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      We should all be so lucky. Others dismayed with the way things are here have promised to leave before………………….yet they stayed.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And when they did a “touch and go” in the Mother Country, had a chat with the po-po and were “cautioned” while they were there. I believe we have an extradition treaty in place, no?

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Beat me to it, buddy.

      “Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision…”

      This person has obviously NEVER bothered to read the Second Amendment.

      “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Sounds like precedent to me.

  4. avatar Jan Pierce says:

    Yeah. Really?

  5. avatar Gordon Wagner says:

    >concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places

    What? TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. When does the court get around to addressing magazine capacity limitations? I find NOTHING about that in the Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar DrVino says:

      LANGUAGE
      It’s about manipulating the language….
      …to manipulate the people.

      1. avatar Mina says:

        … to manipulate the feelings of the people …

        (since feelings is what most people work from; not logic or reason)

  6. avatar Jeff says:

    So the principal from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off went to work for the Brady Center? I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

    1. avatar BTinAfghan says:

      Isn’t he in jail. I know they like to rehibilitate felons, but they might want to shy away from this one.

      1. avatar Jeff says:

        whoa that’s crazy, I had no idea. watching Bueller will never be the same.

        1. avatar Gene says:

          Look up _why_ he is in jail.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          For taking pictures. No mention of anyone harmed, just that he was breaking the rules of the King’s Church.

        3. avatar Unarmed and Unnamed says:

          Yikes! I don’t think he’ll be acting in any more principal roles. Get off the school bus, Ed.

  7. avatar don says:

    Small detail but Dunn wasn’t carrying concealed when he shot Davis. It was unloaded in his glove box.

  8. avatar Daniel says:

    Neither history or precedent? Really? Did they not read the freaking opinion and the historical analysis behind it? What a bunch of idiots.

    1. avatar Werewolf1021 says:

      The Bradys have never been known for their mental prowess.

      This statement is them throwing a temper tantrum like a petulant child.

      1. avatar Run4 says:

        Confusing an emotional response for stupidity is dangerous – emotional responses are polarising, yes, but are a fantastic way to manipulate people. And the language he’s using, specifically the part where he’s implying the courts gave people a blank cheque to carry a weapon for no reason and with no qualification or training is almost without doubt an attempt to make the decision unpalatable to the fence-sitters in the gun debate. As hollow and baseless as the statement is to anyone pro-gun, there are PLENTY of people who won’t see through it.

  9. avatar Paul53, aka Ima Yeti says:

    Banging my head on the wall. These people make statements about The Constitution and only prove their ignorance. The authors of The Constitution were so afraid of tyranny that they added the first ten amendments, what we now call The Bill of Rights. Taken collectively, they state the government has no power. The PEOPLE POSSESS ALL POWER! We just let the government use it at our convenience. There are ample writings by The Constitutions’ authors making this clear.

    1. avatar DrVino says:

      They are not proving anything about themselves. They are counting on the ignorance and naiveté of the general population in order to exploit it.

      1. avatar Paul53, aka Ima Yeti says:

        Worst thing is WE elect them. By association, whatever they do is our fault!

    2. avatar disthunder says:

      You’re taking it the wrong way. It’s like the President in the rose garden throwing a hissy fit on national TV- this is what they do when they are losing. All they have is misdirection and emotion tugging- what I read that as is “whimper whimper trayvon whimper whimper scary guns whimper whimper Reagan whimper boo boo hoo hoo.”
      Their tears taste like candy, even if they are crocodile ones.

  10. avatar Ontos says:

    Wait just a minute… The Brady Campaign doesn’t like guns?

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Marsha, Marsha, Marsha….

  11. avatar Dave357 says:

    Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so.

    Reading this proclamation, you’d think that there were no “shall issue” States, and surely that they were not the overwhelming majority. It’s actually CA that’s aberrant at this point.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      The precedent is state supreme court cases upholding bans on the concealed carrying of handguns, cases that go back to the mid-1800s. The same cases that were cited in Heller and McDonald.

      1. avatar Kelly in GA says:

        I actually sent RF an email about that very subject this morning before I even saw this article. Seems fitting.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        That is true … and what Mr. Lowy failed to mention is that all of those cases upheld prohibitions of concealed carry ONLY when unrestricted open carry was legal.

      3. avatar David Carson says:

        The concealed carry cases referenced in Heller held that concealed carry could be restricted because loaded open carry was legal and favorably viewed by society while concealed carry was viewed as proof of nefarious intent

  12. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    More agitprop from the Brady’s.
    Trying to cherry pick a single incident to prove a point makes no sense. It is simply their echo chamber.
    While I am scepticle of the 9th circuit, I tend to feel, like Illinois, the ruling will stand.
    This was not a unanimous ruling but it didn’t need to be. I found the ruling to be well thought out, yes even the discent.
    Bottom line is, when you charge undue fees, or make approval purely arbitrary, it is infringement.

  13. avatar michael nieto says:

    I love the smell of desperation in the morning, smells like victory.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      But this little piggy went whaa whaa whaa whaa whaa all the way home.

      I will enjoy the “this little piggy” game with children so much more from this point forward because I will think of Mr. Lowy’s statement every time I play the game.

  14. avatar Shawn Bugbee says:

    I would point out that California can allow one method of carry or the other. If California wants to scrap concealed carry it can do so, but must allow open carry. Alternatively it can ban open carry, but must allow concealed carru, with self – defense being sufficient cause for issuing the permit.

    The spokesman is patently wrong, the ruling did not dictate that everyone must be allowed to carry concealed, rather that California must allow one or the other without such restrictions that would equal a ban on both.

    1. avatar Layne says:

      I’d like to see CA pass open carry on the erroneous belief that no one would actually do that, and then see the reaction when they find that millions do.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Exactly correct, but with one critical caveat. Open carry is usually unlicensed–and is circumscribed by the Gun Free Safe Schools Act, and its 1000 foot preclusion of firearms. It is literally impossible to transport a firearm through any major city in California–and probably most of the small ones as well–without running afoul of this prohibition (and its attendant felony charge). Concealed license holders in California, by statute, are exempt from the GFSSA. Thus, realistically speaking, the ONLY way to carry a firearm for self defense in any incorporated area in California is with a CCW.

      1. avatar Dave357 says:

        How much is this federal and how much California law? I recall seeing a story of someone open carrying while picking up his kid from school in Michigan, and I thought one could pick up a child from school in Arizona, provided the gun is unloaded and out of sight. I never chased either of these down for details though.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          It’s federal law. But the law has a provision to allow states to write their own amendments to it. CA choses to keep the thousand foot felony rule, cause CA and guns. At least that’s my understanding of the basics of the law.

          If you’re 1 of the lucky few to have a ccw then CA allows you to carry damn near anywhere, even schools. If the court decision stands and we see shall issue I’m going to bet that we’ll have to have more lawsuits to overturn the sudden spate of restrictions on where a ccw permit is allowed.

        2. avatar SAS 2008 says:

          The exception in Arizona is provided in ARS 13-3102 Subsection H Paragraph 1.

          H. Subsection A, paragraph 12 of this section shall not apply to the possession of a:

          1. Firearm that is not loaded and that is carried within a means of transportation under the control of an adult provided that if the adult leaves the means of transportation the firearm shall not be visible from the outside of the means of transportation and the means of transportation shall be locked.

  15. avatar Mark N. says:

    You have to read the Peruta decision to understand its perspective. It is TRUE, as even Heller recognized, that many courts have upheld laws banning the concealed carriage of handguns. The dissent in Peruta made exactly this argument–technically, the only issue was whether San Diego’s policy for issuing concealed weapons permits and requiring “good cause” was constitutional, and focusing on this very narrow question, concluded that it was. There is amply authority for this proposition. But what the dissent failed to consider is that in each case where concealed carry was banned, open carry was preserved. This fact is nowhere mentioned in the dissent or by the Brady Bunch.

    What the majority, in an excellently written decision by Justice O’Scanlain (a second amendment rights supporter), argued was that that the law could not be considered in isolation; what also needed to be considered was whether California allowed an alternative to concealed carry, and thus protected the right accorded by the Second Amendment. Interestingly enough, at the time of the trial court decision, it was still lawful to openly carry unloaded firearms, but in the years while this case was pending on appeal, California passed laws banning open carry of both unloaded handguns and long guns in urban areas. Therefore, as the law now stands, the only way for an average citizen to lawfully carry a firearm for the core interest guaranteed by the second amendment of self-defense is by obtaining a CCW–and San Diego simply will not issue a CCW if the good cause is no more that self-defense. Thus, the combined effect of the California statutes, at least in San Diego County (some counties, like Sacramento and most rural counties, issue for self-defense), was a total ban on carriage of firearms, an impermissible elimination of the exercise of the 2A right. Los Angeles and San Francisco, which also ban CCWs for average citizens, run afoul of the same holding.

    There is no doubt that this opinion will be further appealed. Like all urban county sheriffs and big city police chiefs, he is absolutely convinced that “more guns=more crime” and that there is an important public interest in keeping guns off the street–that only Adam Winkler supports this view is of no moment. The Sheriff will probably first a request an en banc hearing, and if that is unsuccessful, then a petition for review to SCOTUS. If the decision survives the en banc review, then Supreme Court review is entirely LIKELY; the majority opinion EXPLICITLY stated that it was creating a split of authority (9th and 7th on one side, holding that there cannot be a complete ban on all forms of carry, versus 2,3, and 4 all upholding the “may issue” systems in effect in NY, NJ, and Maryland–and ignoring that this creates a virtual ban), exactly the type of controversy that merits Supreme Court review.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Alameda county sherifs office says on their website that a ccw permit is a privilige and not a right protected by 2a. Self defense is not a good enough reason for the privilege.

      I live in Alameda county.

      1. avatar Bob S says:

        Santa Clara County’s website doesn’t offer any information about carry licenses. There’s no need, because Sheriff Laurie Smith issues those licenses only to her major campaign donors, and she probably has a deputy help fill out the form.

        Yeah, that one’s in court too.

      2. avatar Cubby123 says:

        Alameda county Sherrifs is dead wrong and needs to get their liberal butts sued as well.The Right to Keep and Bear Arms – Shall Not Be Infringed!Hopefull this latest ruling will start putting ALL these unconstitutional counties that have prejudicial ideas about who can and who can’t in the toilet.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      The 19th century cases allowing a ban on concealed carry were all based the assumption that “to bear arms” meant to carry arms openly and the cultural assumption that no honest man has need to conceal his weapon. I am fully on board with that concept.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        That concept is no longer culturally acceptable in the urbane urban areas of this state. In fact, the Peruta majority makes note of this change in style–while concealed carry was once anathema, evil incarnate, it is now the preferred method because it doesn’t scare the sheep. And I’m on board with that. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the Gun Free Safe Schools Act essentially eliminates the possibility of open carry in urban areas. (Which was probably an intended result.)

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Yeah, nice philosophy, but unfortunately for the grabbers (or, fortunately for the Good Guys), that’s not what the Constitution says.

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    Translation: “If this ruling stands, we’ll all have to go to work and do something productive for a living.”

    1. avatar Werewolf1021 says:

      I’m honestly surprised that the Bradys are still around. Mayors Demand Illegal Action with Moms seem to get all the limelight.

      Guess the Joyce Foundation is still acting as sugar daddy.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Historically, Josh Sugarmann and the VPC were the Joyce Foundation’s main beneficiary. Without Joyce money, Sugarmann would be telemarketing reverse mortgages or something.

  17. “Neither history or precedent supports this”, either he didn’t read it or is in a deep, deep state of denial.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Likely both.

    2. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Reminds me of something… oh yeah, now I remember…

      “War is Peace
      Freedom is Slavery
      Ignorance is Strength.”

      Orwell, 1984

  18. avatar Ardent says:

    While absurd, considering the source of this statement it is in no way surprising. Such things have to be understood in the context of it’s intended audience, the badly misinformed and those who have a pathological abhorrence of firearms. So viewed the statement actually makes sense, even if it is (and it is completely) factually incorrect.

    Just more grist for the mill and gnashing of teeth from an increasingly marginalized anti rights group.

  19. avatar Aaron says:

    if all you’ve got to offer for an anti-gun argument is the Trayvon Martin case, you got nuthin

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      See, here’s the thing about that, though: they’ve never had anything.

      Literally. Not ever.

      They don’t have anything now, they’ve never had anything anywhere in the past, and they never will have anything at any time in the future.

      Literally the only reason why those arguments are even still being passed around is that these purposefully stupid rubes have billions upon billions of dollars behind them, and that automatically makes them think that they’re somehow important and that their words carry weight.

      That’s it.

  20. avatar Tom W. says:

    Wow! The farthest progressive Ninth Circus must have had a good day, tomorrow they will probably rule illegals can have all the benefits of an American citizen,…..oh wait,… Nevermind. As for the Brady Bunch? Cue the toddler having a tantrum image..I’ll take sour grapes for $500 Alex….

  21. avatar B says:

    Their tears are so yummy, they taste like freedom!

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      youtu.be/owzhYNcd4OM

  22. avatar Bob Canning says:

    Trayvon got what he deserved, he tried to beat someone to death who was older and not in similar shape, therefore “disparity of force” is the point where a gun can be used against an unarmed, yet more lethal person as defense.
    Paranoia and hostility are long term effects of his little cocktail he was known to drink. Soda, skittles and cough syrup make “lean” or “sizzurp”, a commonly known ghetto drink. A drink that Trayvon bragged about consuming on his facebook page, He consumed a lot of this based on autopsy result showing liver damage in a 17 YEAR OLD. Also he bragged about punching a bus driver for no reason, the kid was a thug, all thugs meet the same fate, eventually. Not quite exactly the cute, little candy eating and soda drinking innocent he was portrayed to be in the media, huh?
    Councillor, please tell me how long it took the PD to arrest Mr. Zimmerman after he was CLEARED of wrongdoing by detectives of the same department? (7 weeks, yes?), Also, please inform me of the reason that the Chief of this Department RESIGNED? (He refused to be racially BULLIED by E.Holder into arresting a CLEARED individual).
    The Brady Center would do better to observe the government FACTS regarding carry conceal and the DETRIMENTAL effect it has on violent crime, more guns means LESS crime…that, Sir, IS a fact that is irrefutable. Please get with logic and facts instead of emotional tirades that a second grader could refute. If Jim Brady was carrying a concealed firearm and was trained per the NRA standard Basic Pistol Course, that day, he might not be in the situation he’s in now. How ya like themmm apples?

  23. avatar JoshuaS says:

    Thankfully the “whole court” will not hear this. That isn’t how it works, Mr. Ignoramus.

    Likely would be that if en banc is granted, than judge Kozinski would preside, and 10 others would be drawn by lot, making eleven (there are 29 active judgships on the court, and 43 judges if we count senior status ones)

    Kozinski would go for us. So we would need 5 (out of ten) judges drawn by lot to be favorable. The odds are more in favor of a liberal majority, but not overwhelmingly so. This procedure is why the 9th Circuit is so frequently at conflict with itself.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      For there to be an en banc review, it has to be requested by a party. I’m not positive that’s going to happen, and I don’t think it can or will be done by the panel sua sponte.

      Even when requested, en banc review isn’t often granted. IIRC the last time the Ninth granted e.b.r. was in another 2A case, Nordyke v. King. And it was granted twice!

      1. avatar JoshuaS says:

        Gore already said he was requesting en banc

        There were 15 en banc cases granted last year. Many take a year or more before a decision is reached.

        That is still rare compared to the number of requests, but not as rare as I would like

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Do you have a link for the Gore statement? I haven’t seen it. The last I heard, Gore was still reading the opinion. Or someone was reading it to him. I forget which.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Two factors favor a grant of en banc review: (1) the importance of the issue, and (2) the existence of a split of authority among the circuits as a result of this decision. One factor weighs against it: the excellently researched and written majority opinion and the weakness of the dissent (a dissent that for all intents and purposes tries to avoid the central issue of the scope of the Second Amendment outside the home).

  24. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    And where did he get his “law degree” again??

  25. avatar Rick says:

    ”Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns publish statements in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so.

    When you start applying that thinking to the other enumerated rights, it’s a little different now isn’t it?

  26. avatar Rich Grise says:

    “The parents of the two thugs, Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin, whose children were killed by licensed concealed-carry holders during the commission of a crime,…”

    There. Fixed that for youthem.

  27. avatar cubby123 says:

    Pound sound Brady.Martin was a thug and you can’t step on RIGHTS even though you THINK you can.There are Ten To One cases of guns used for good over evil but you just ignor Real Facts.
    .

  28. avatar Puyallup Devil_Doc says:

    Wait, wait, wait.. Isn’t this “the law of the land”? Like, you know.. Obamacare?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      If you like your guns, you can keep your guns.

  29. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Tell that to the attorneys wife whos husband was recently killed bradys, he had no good cause to have a gun & so he didn’t. I guess there are no criminals preying on good people in bradyland, its just illusory reality. I am glad to see tm mentioned by them though, apparently they have milked the little lost children for all they are worth. Bessy the cow is glad too, we don’t have to keep running over her in the middle of farmer alf alfas field after being dragged off the paved road.

  30. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

    Apparently self-defense is “no good cause” to carry a firearm.

    Despite the fact that police are not personal bodyguards, they cannot instantly transport themselves to your location, they have no legal obligation to protect you, and they cannot be successfully sued if they fail to protect you.

    But sure, self-defense is “no good cause” to carry. Right. Sure.

  31. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    Let’s see:

    Anecdotal statement without any supporting evidence – Check
    Strawman misrepresenting the actual court findings – Check
    Appeal to emotion due to lack of a compelling argument – Check

    Have I missed anything else from the Brady Bunch?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Yes, you forgot one thing:

      Smells like a recently fertilized field? Check.

      1. avatar Daily Beatings says:

        That’s an insult since a fertilized field does serve a useful purpose.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          It’s the circle of life, dude:
          youtu.be/80IacxzmJAg

      2. avatar Daily Beatings says:

        His statement is equivalent to a foot stomping child, it’s unprofessional and pathetic. If this is all they can muster after a stinging defeat it shows that our side is winning.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “Have I missed anything else from the Brady Bunch?”

      Stands in direct violation to the Constitution of the United States – check

  32. avatar NJDevil says:

    It doesn’t matter how many people were shot or killed by REAL criminals, including the shooting of James Brady, we have to worry about law-abiding citizens and their rights!

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      “Well obviously allowing law-abiding citizens to carry in Washington D.C. (circa 1981) caused Hinckley to carry out his assassination attempt. That is why D.C. rightfully banned concealed carry after that…” ~ Brady Campaign revisionist history.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “… we have to worry about law-abiding citizens and their rights!”

      Not exactly. Each person has to take care of her (or his) OWN rights.

      As a metaphysicist and crazy person, I’ve had a Profound Revelation – it’s the female who has the authority to determine who gets manifested. It only makes sense – she’s the owner of the factory. The entire male-dominated establishment would rather kill everyone in the universe than let go of its illusory authority.

      All of manifestation has been trying to figure out where the boundary is, and the truth has been revealed – it’s the skin.

      Speaking of authority: http://rich_grise.tripod.com/LibertarianValentine.html

      The fact that rules are unnatural is shown by the other fact that they have to be enforced. I read an article recently that really drives home how fundamental Free Will and the Right to Self-Defense are:
      http://open.salon.com/blog/mlstein/2011/04/06/are_brains_necessary

  33. avatar pcman312 says:

    “right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so”

    Translation: Guilty until proven innocent. So much for the rule of law they purport to care so much about.

  34. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    It’s tough being a post constitutionalist and have judges still rule in favor of the constitution.

  35. avatar JC says:

    Well, when you can’t present a factual case against Carry, all you can do is play the “Trayvon” card. This is why they’re no longer the darlings of the Gun Control movement.

    This is why we need to drive the Gun Control philosophy to political extinction. This case is an important step, but it doesn’t absolve any of us from the duty to continue to push locally and nationally for improvements in gun rights legislation.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      This is why we continue to drive the Gun Control philosophy to political extinction.

      FIFY.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      improvements inConstitutional nullification of gun rights legislation.”

      FIFY.

  36. Re the first sentence in their statement

    English…you are doing it wrong.

  37. So what they’re saying is that the exceptions to the rule i.e. Trayvon Martin carry greater weight in making such decisions than say the statistics that show that shall issue states or constitutional carry states that have a 10% lower homicide rate compared to states or jurisdictions with no issue or may issue.

    Señor Lowy then believes that history or precedent should be the deciding factor anyway. I think the Constitution should set precedent.

    Furthermore he goes on to place his own judgment on the decision by calling it “aberrant”, “split” (2-1 is not really split), and “dangerous” and then believes law enforcement, not the Constitution, should have the final word on concealed carry.

    Finally, to go in for the kill, he uses the propagandic technique of appealing to emotion by mentioning Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, who’s deaths, last I checked, were exceptions to the rule and the not the norm when CCW holders use their firearms.

    Again he tries to place judgment as a way to convince the audience by stating the word “error” and the phrase “this mistake” and “corrected.”

    He attempts to create a supposition that concealed carry is wrong but a court of appeals composed of three judges have decided otherwise.

  38. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Any day you make the Brady people upset is a good day in my book….

    Way to go, California, I didn’t think y’all had it in yah!

  39. avatar dwb says:

    mmm, guns bad mkay? Send us money our soikesman needs a new suit. How will they raise money if SCT upholds the CA9 opinion?

  40. avatar SilentSecessionist says:

    waving it is one thing, but at this point, they’re just WEARING the bloody shirt.

    What a bunch of…. just….creeps :/

  41. avatar Toasty says:

    Implying they, or any anti’s for that matter, have ANY credibility on the issue.

    First it wasn’t an individual right at all

    Then it wasn’t a right that could be applied to the states

    Now it’s apparently the weakest right of the entire bill of rights where judges are supposed to grant the legislatures absolute deference on the issue.

    I cannot see wait to see what the new “COMMON SENSE/OBVIOUS/CLEARY STATED IN THE SCOTUS RULING” standard will be…

  42. avatar Bill Zeller says:

    During an Illinois Concealed Carry License class I was instructing in western suburb of Chicago, an attendee actually challenged me fairly vociferously on my description of the Zimmerman case, insisting that he’d drawn his gun and was searching around for Martin, shooting him to death when he came across the “youth”.
    This, from an CCL applicant!
    Truly, the Zimmerman case was an enormous success for the Hyde Parkers in their crusade against civilian gun ownership.

  43. avatar BlueBronco says:

    The Brady Bunch was spouting this same “streets will be like Dodge City” mantra in 1987 when Florida went “shall issue.” It never panned out. There have been several million licenses issued since 1987 and only 128 times as a license holder used a gun to commit a crime. That is straight out of official Florida statistics.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell (KS), for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.”
      http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west

  44. avatar William Burke says:

    “…children…”

    They they go again. Is there a cutoff age for their definition, I wonder? 24? 25?

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      The cut-off age is whatever is politically expedient for them to use. The higher the number, the more “children” they can claim in their deliberately fabricated statistics.

      Last I checked, their cut-off was 24.

      Don’t be surprised if they go up to 40 one of these days.

  45. avatar Parnell says:

    “Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so. ” Where sir in the Second Amendment are law enforcement, qualifications dangerous right mentioned? I believe it reads “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email