In another victory for Golden State gun rights, a Ninth Circuit panel has issued one more pro-gun rights decision – this time a 3-0 smackdown – in favor of reduced restrictions on concealed carry permits. Building on the Ninth’s earlier Peruta ruling, Calguns, the Second Amendment Foundation and pro-gun rights attorney extraordinaire, Alan Gura, have succeeded in lowering the barriers to obtaining concealed carry permits, this time in Yolo County. Press release after the jump . . .
BELLEVUE, WA, and ROSEVILLE, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto, challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto.
“Today’s ruling reinforces the Second Amendment’s application to state and local governments, and will help clear the way for more California citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California officials have been put on notice that they can no longer treat the Second Amendment as a heavily-regulated government privilege.”
The case was originally filed in 2009 as Sykes v. McGinness, and challenged not only Yolo County’s policies, but Sacramento County’s then-restrictive practices as well. SAF, Calguns and two private citizens, Adam Richards and Brett Stewart, continued pursuing the case against Yolo County after Sacramento County agreed to relax its policy. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Alan Gura and Don Kilmer.
“We are confident that the win today will stand the test of time,” said Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman.
The Richards case was argued at the same time, and to the same panel, that earlier decided Peruta v. County of San Diego, a similar case challenging overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but apparently, the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed.
“The Ninth Circuit’s decision moves our Carry License Compliance Initiative forward,” explained CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs. “We’re already preparing the next phase of litigation to ensure that all law-abiding Californians can exercise their right to bear arms.”
Gottlieb noted that the battle over right-to-carry laws is far from over, but today’s Ninth Circuit decision reaffirms that court’s earlier ruling in the Peruta case and “moves the ball another step forward.”
“We will pursue Second Amendment affirmation wherever and whenever such cases are possible as SAF fights to win back gun rights one lawsuit at a time,” Gottlieb stated.
California carry license applicants can download state-standard application forms, legal information, and report unconstitutional policies or process issues at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/carry.
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.
NO state is a lost cause….
^^^ this ^^*
What are sane online speech laws?
Laws that:
• Every digital communications device (DCD) needs to be licensed; Online speech must be done under your real/legal name; owners of DCD’s must carry insurance;
• Require DCD’s to have smart filters that only allow online speech if the fingerprint matches the owner’s fingerprint;
• Enact parallel charges for parents, relatives and adults, as accomplices, for speech by children who gain access to their DCD;
• Prevent suspected felons and people accused of a crime from legally purchasing DCD’s;
• Prevent criminals, the mentally ill and all prohibited purchasers from legally purchasing DCD’s at retailers or over the internet;
• Prohibit people from using DCD in restaurants, bars, schools, sporting arenas, workplace parking lots, airports, churches, national parks, onboard Amtrak trains—to name a few.
These sensible restrictions to online speech will prevent cyber bullying, online hate speech, liable, distracted driving, to name a few. These restrictions will save hundreds of thousands of lives annually; if it will save just one child’s life then it’s worth shredding free speech online. Next time a child commits suicide due to cyber bullying we will charge the offenders (and their parents) with involuntary manslaughter. Give up your constitutionally protect rights, it’s for the children.
Please note: if this feel good law fail to save a child we fully plan to expand it from just online speech to all speech, just a little FYI.
Only one question to ask, now that I think about it: “How will more laws stop murder when murder is already a crime that can carry the maximum sentence a jury can hand down?”
Is that…Chuck Norris or maybe his cousin?
Comparing liability insurance for guns to auto insurance is a poor comparison.
Requiring insurance for carrying a gun can more accurately be compared to requiring someone who is is towing or hauling a vehicle that is fueled up & operable to have liability insurance to drive it just in case they decide to unload it and start driving it.
Requiring insurance to own a gun is comparable to requiring insurance just to store a vehicle in your garage.
Dammit my old mayor is on that list. Dammi dammit dammit Deke. Nobody likes him. Dammit.
The use of faster burning powder is something that hints at the advantage of shooting a heavy for caliber bullet, 147 in the 9mm. The heavier, inherently slower, bullet will allow for more powder burn while the bullet is still in the barrel compared to a higher velocity light bullet that may still have burning powder in the cartridge after the bullets left the barrel. This apparently allows the bigger slower bullet to perform more within the parameters of its design window compared to a light fast bullet when fired from a short barrel.
This certainly isn’t my original thinking, it came from a comment by a Winchester engineer that I’m sure a number of you saw on the net a few years ago
Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to teach the girl how to shoot effectively if necessary? Or raise her with enough wisdom to distinguish a decent guy from a rapist?
How is it possible that anyone wouldn’t demand that these types of teachers be fired? Even the most die-hard anti-gunner should be appalled at this incredible overreaction. When did this start becoming acceptable behavior? I remember when I was in kindergarten, I made a 2D gun out of construction paper. It didn’t look much like one, but I was proudly showing it off and telling people, “I made a gun!” And nobody thought anything of it. This was in California, and I’m only 18, so it wasn’t that long ago. I imagine that if that exact same thing happened now, the poor 5 year old would be hog-tied by a goddamn SWAT team…..
This is what happens when you give a liberal woman an insane amount of power.
I guess what really upset the fools is that his 2 fingers were representing a high cap magazine.
“Facebook will allow users to report posts that may facilitate or promote potentially illegal gun activity.”
Well that tells me what their strategy is going to be. Simply spam Facebook with reporting every gun community page ou there.
Has this been posted to MDAs Facebook page yet?
““level 2 look alike firearm.”
I really thought that was a satiric exaggeration until I saw it was in the letter.
No words.
Lesson learned – instruct your school age boys that it is only appropriate to carry your Level II firearm concealed.
The problem, kid, is that you need to use the OTHER finger.
For all the trouble this man had to go thru, he should get at least 75% off when he gets a new gun.
Now lets sue for reciprocity or non resident permits. My first amendment still applies in California being a Texas resident. However no second?
good luck canada your going to need it…
I LOVE these feel good stories! Kudos!
His punishment shouldn’t be a suspension, it should be to clean those walls behind him. Ga-ross!
Those straws are being woven into a fine fabric of anti-2A fail.
Guess you can fix stupid….
I stand with you Gun owners of Connecticut
In the words of Churchill Never Surrender!
Two to the chest………..oops………..missed the one to the head! That’s okay, he probably ran to fast. She took her training seriously!
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, but my eyes just ain’t seeing it. Must every Walther gun look like it is cobbled together with NO thought of aesthetics. I will never own any Walther, because they ALL look ugly to me.
Even some rumblings – however vague – in Massachusetts:
http://www.wbur.org/2014/03/04/mass-gun-permit-rules-vary
The whole thing is getting curiouser and curiouser. One can only hope there isn’t a big letdown in store.
If S&W chooses not to sell firearms in CA, I would urge them to discontinue selling firearms to law enforcement agencies in CA. as well… Furthermore i would also encourage Glock and Beretta to do the same…..
I’ve never bought anything from CTD, because they are anything but cheaper.
whichever has the flashlight on it. duh!