(courtesy latimes.com)

“Under California law, counties have the option of restricting permits to carry concealed weapons in public to those applicants who establish a ‘good cause’ for doing so,” the LA Times editorial board opines. “Or they did until earlier this year, when a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weakened the law. Now, the same panel has ruled that the state of California has no standing to appeal the initial decision, a questionable call in a case that deserves deeper scrutiny.” In other words, the Times reckons the state should decide whether or not a California resident has “good cause” to vote. I mean, publish a newspaper. I mean worship at their choice of church. Wait. What was it again? Oh right. Exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Because guns. Or, as they put it . . .

In the original case, the panel said San Diego’s permit regulations conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision, in which the court for the first time held that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to gun ownership in the home (a decision this page criticized).

Not to coin a phrase, but you’re sh*tting me. The LA Times doesn’t think that the Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to keep a firearm in their own home? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not surprised. But I am amazed that they have the unmitigated chutzpah to throw that one out there. They’re basically admitting – in public – that they don’t think Americans have any gun rights – except those conferred and approved by the state. At all. Ever.

Notably, that decision did not explicitly extend recognition of that right outside the home, as the 9th Circuit did. So there are legitimate grounds for appealing the panel’s interpretation of — in reality, broadening of — the rights recognized by the Heller case.

Can these guys read? Here’s a couple of excerpts from the aforementioned Heller decision:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” . . .

Putting all these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation . . .

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That seems pretty clear to me. But then I’m not a statist trying to deny Americans their gun rights, to the point where I’m recommending that the California AG force the 9th Circuit Court to kick her in the proverbial teeth. Again. Still.

At last report, [California Attorney General Kamala] Harris was contemplating an appeal of the ruling on her [lack of] standing in the [Peruta] case, and we encourage her to do so. To people outside the courts, this might seem like a fight over minutiae, but the stakes are high. This challenge to a sane gun law should not be left twisting in the legal wind.

Sane? These writers have about as firm a grasp on sanity as they do of Constitutional law. Which is to say none.

Recommended For You

31 Responses to LA Times to CA AG: Fight Concealed Carry. Again. Still.

    • They’re almost as bad as the Star Ledger editorial board over at NJ.com.

      What’s ironic is that if go to NJ.com on any given day, there are usually multiple leading stories involving criminals committing violent crime. There are pretty much no instances involving law-abiding citizens committing gun crime. And yet that commie editorial board has no problem calling for more and stricter gun control laws every now and then, while proclaiming what a paradise on earth New Jersey is.

  1. Perhaps the sheriff should decide if the voters are literate as well?
    It only makes sense to ensure the voters really understand the issues before them.

  2. Not only will CA drag its feet to recognize CCW, but the state is opening new DMVs to specifically give licenses to illegals. And we don’t have voter ID. Plus there’s that whole Democrat super-majority thing that threatens all rights.

    So the cycle of liberal progressive statism is self-sustaining, and that mentality is clearly intolerant of the 2nd Amendment. The LA Times agrees.

  3. It is entertaining, the way statists kick and scream like a two-year-old throwing a tantrum whenever our courts spank them for violating the law.

    Enjoy it. This is part of what winning looks like.

  4. How did people ever manage to live out their lives 150+ years ago without Big Government and the self-appointed elite to care for them?

    Neither do the good people of California need their local Sheriff to “care for them” today when it comes to issuing concealed carry licenses.

    Heck, the very fact that government dictates that we acquire concealed carry licenses to possess an object made of plastic and steel is patently offensive, never mind the fact that many jurisdictions want us to provide a “good cause” for wanting to possess such objects.

  5. ‘good cause’

    There is no good cause to proggies for self defense, they want you to be a victim as it supports the agenda.

  6. Strange.

    When there is some kind of ruling in favor of Leftist causes (i.e. Gay marriage) some how the gays get to go to the coutrhouse THAT EVENING and get married by clerks who somehow get paid overtime to make it happen before any other court puts a injunction in place. But when a ruling goes in favor the conservative viewpoint somehow the gears of government go into a state of ultra-slow grind. Funny how that is.

  7. Here’s the fun part. They can appeal to the SCotUS. I actually hope they do. They are not going to get a stay in the ruling pending appeal, but when they lose, every state with a “may issue” CCW system is going to get reamed.

    • Actually, no. The effect of the denial of the motion to intervene on the basis that the AG lacks standing means that she has no right to petition for review before the Supreme court either. To put it simply, only parties have rights of appeal, and the AG is not a party. Sheriff Gore has said he will not be appealing. Therefore there is no one who can take this case to the Supremes.

      • Her appeal to SCOTUS would not be on the underlying merits of the case but whether or not she has a right to seek to either intervene as a party in interest or substitute for a party in interest

        • Agreed, however the probability of the Supremes granting review of a denial of an intervention motion approaches zero. Which leaves us Richards v. Prieto as the only possible avenue of further judicial review, either en banc or by cert. (or both). As an aside, Sheriff Prieto’s petition for rehearing en banc is still pending six months later. The panel will not grant the application, it will be up to one of the justices to request it, and for a majority of the entire bench to approve it.

        • Nope. The Court recognized that she had her chance to file and turned it down, the time limit expired, and later she came back. No “Participation Award” for her on this one.

        • Here is a short explanation of the Prieto case, and 9th Circuit decision, reversing and remanding, in favor of the gun owner, with a link to more info at SAF, which funded that case, with CGF.

          As Mark N notes, Sheriff Prieto has vowed to take this to SCOTUS, and unlike AG Harris, his request for en banc appeal of the 3 judge panel decision, WAS filed timely.

          IANAL, so I have no idea when to expect the 9th DC answer to his appeal, other than it can take a lot longer than an outside observer might expect.

          I doubt before Wednesday; the end of the seven day timeframe from time of the Peruta announcement, to when the stay on mandate is lifted.

          http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/05/case-challenging-californias-yolo-county

      • I have to agree with Dirk here.
        The 9th circuit court of appeals did two things.
        1. San Diego got the smack down and the Sheriff will not appeal. This ends his standing in the case.
        2. Harris and a few others wanted to jump on board but were smacked down again. This clears the way for the ruling to stand as is.
        3. Harris could appeal to SCOTUS. Now she can’t appeal on the case itself, only if she has standing. This would be a bad idea. If she were to gain standing, then one of two things would happen. It would force the 9th circuit to hear the case, or she would jump to SCOTUS to hear it.

        After being smacked by SCOTUS to hear a case, do you think the judges in the 9th circuit are going to be friendly at all? No… So that is a dead end. If SCOTUS were to hear the case, the stakes are so high she would be told not to do so. Reason lies that if she loses, which she probably would, all states would get smacked down on may issue. This would be bad for anyone involved in civilian disarmament. You thought the mid term elections were bad. This would pretty much kill any hope of local jurisdictions at having any chance of stopping CCW.

        Lastly we heard from Brandon Combs at CalGuns. He stated that we expect more laws from the legislature to hamper CCW in CA. Well there is that, but passing a new law that goes against the ruling would be stupid. Not unheard of, but even Brown knows that if it is in direct violation to the ruling he would be pragmatic about it.
        So lastly since we don’t have state preemption, state preemption would be needed to enforce new laws. So let’s say they pass state preemption then try and pass some new law putting p more hurdles. This is a double edged sword. If they lose on the part of the new hurdles they are only left with state preemption which is something we would like anyways. It would remove all the power from local jurisdictions to infringe at will.
        There is that old saying, feed them the rope and let them do the rest to themselves.
        Harris also lost the 10 day wait which is now 180 days away from being implemented. I suspect an appeal with a stay, but that is moving in our direction. Now if we can get a ruling in our favor on the Pena case we will have achieved a trifecta.

    • There isn’t one, as you so correctly notices. To reach that conclusion, one would have to argue, as she did , that despite the fact that police chiefs and sheriffs exercise discretion in their issuance decisions, she as the chief law enforcement official I the state has the right to protect the exercise of her discretion. The logical flaw is that if she can control their exercise of discretion, then they don’t really have the discretion granted to them by the Penal Code.

  8. “Neither do the good people of California need their local Sheriff to “care for them” today when it comes to issuing concealed carry licenses.”

    But what will happen to the bad people of California when the good people can stand up to them and *gasp* present an armed response to threats or violence?

    Heavens! A bad guy might get shot! We can’t have that… Oh, wait.

    • Good point. If the manuree REALLY hits the circular airfoil, then I expect manyy prepared POTG will carry concealed, despite license status, and most street LEOs will have their hands full, for weeks, as in the @1992 LA Riots (Rodney King).

      In the meantime, remember that California has 57 counties, and each is unique, politically. Up north, getting a CCW has not been a big deal, in Kern or Fresno. At this thread on Calguns.net, you’ll read posters info about others, including press quoote. Orange County started issuing right after the original decision, and has issued 1500. LA is reportedly on hold. Riverside is aggresively antagonistic to CCW, and up in Bay Area, Marin County Sheriff side in amicus with Brady.

      CGF has been woorking on the individual counties for years, standardizing the application, tallying numbers, and of course suing when the case is right. I read in The Rise Of.The AntiMedia, that this is wh

    • Good point. If the manuree REALLY hits the circular airfoil, then I expect manyy prepared POTG will carry concealed, despite license status, and most street LEOs will have their hands full, for weeks, as in the @1992 LA Riots (Rodney King).

      In the meantime, remember that California has 57 counties, and each is unique, politically. Up north, getting a CCW has not been a big deal, in Kern or Fresno. At this thread on Calguns.net, you’ll read posters info about others, including press quotes.

      http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1004889&page=2

      Orange County started issuing right after the original decision, and has issued 1500. LA is reportedly on hold. Riverside is aggresively antagonistic to CCW, and up in Bay Area, Marin County Sheriff side in amicus with Brady.

      CGF has been woorking on the individual counties for years, standardizing the application, tallying numbers, and of course suing when the case is right. I read in The Rise Of.The AntiMedia, that this is what early CCW activists had to do in MI, go county by county.

      So that is what we shall do. I think the cultural sea change underway, and the reality on the ground has not been appreciated by Dems in Sacramento, for three reasons:
      1. They are not that smart (Exhibit One: Leland Yee)
      2. They are living in ignorance (Ghost Gun DeLeon)
      3. They have been in power so long they stopped listening to voters.

      When reality hits, change it comes hard, and fast. We aren’t there yet, but we have had enough close calls, that sensible people are considering gun ownership, and CCW comes after that, when the need is obvious.

      Keep Calm and Carry On, and don’t interrupt your foe when they are committinng a big blunder.

  9. The LA Times still believes that the Second is a collective right, and therefore subject to state control, so at least in that respect it is consistent. But its theory was rejected in Heller not simply by a majority, but by the entire court. Although disagreeing as the application of the opening clause, all nine justices agreed that the Second protects an individual right.

    • Thank you, that is an important distinction, and reassuring given we may see a new Judge or two appointed, and a 2A case taken up, in next two years. And I have the feeling that NRA, Chuck Michel, and Alan Gura would be happy to argue the Peruta case at SCOTUS.

Leave a Reply

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