Previous Post
Next Post

Press release from the Texas State Rifle Association [via]:

AUSTIN, Texas  – Governor Greg Abbott today led a coalition of nine Governors in filing an Amici Curae – or friend of the court brief – to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Edward Peruta; Michelle Laxson; James Dodd; Leslie Buncher, Dr.; Mark Cleary; California Rifle And Pistol Association v. the County of San Diego.

At stake is whether Californians, and citizens of other states traveling in California, can exercise their 2nd Amendment right to carry a concealed handgun.

“The question presented is whether the State of California can single out one group of disfavored citizens-namely, gun owners-and impose unique burdens on their fundamental rights,” reads the brief.

“If this were a case about speech, the right to counsel, or any of the myriad rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, every federal court in this country would reject California’s arguments out of hand.

“Indeed, no other group of private citizens has to prove-to the satisfaction of a government official vested with unreviewable and boundless discretion-that they really need to exercise their fundamental constitutional freedoms.”

Governor Abbott previously took action on this lawsuit in April 2015, when he filed an Amicus Brief making a parallel argument. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later held there is no Constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun and citizens must show “good cause” before they can obtain such a license.

Following the ruling, the case was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Joining Governor Abbott in objecting to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling are the Governors of Arkansas, Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina and South Dakota.

The brief concludes by pointing out that the Constitution exists to protect citizen’s rights from a government that would seek to take them away.

“It might be true that statewide elected officials in California have strong political incentives to infringe ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.’ U.S. Const. amend. II. But the Constitution never was intended to disappear where policymakers in Sacramento find it inconvenient, nor was it intended to protect only those rights that enjoy popular support or universal acceptance.”

To read the full brief, click here.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • Never going to happen, lobbiests like Cargill aren’t going to give up the revenue that comes from charging $60/head for sold out LTC classes 6 days a week.

      • Then how is it that renewal classes were dropped? Now all you have to do is affirm online that you’re familiar with the latest laws, pay your renewal fee, and you’re done. No sitting in class anymore. How about that?

        • “Pay your renewal fee.”

          There’s your answer right there. Yes, no more class to renew but the State still gets their cut. They don’t care if the gun range loses money. As long as they get their revenue and you keep voting them in because they are “pro 2A”.

        • The amount of money from those fees is peanuts. That isn’t why some don’t want to support Con carry, it’s the losing of control. They want the power and making a state con carry takes the power away from whoever issues the license.

        • Further, after holding a license for over 10 years and going to 2 completely useless 10-hour renewal classes for $100+ each, I did not even know dropping the class (including rerecording fingerprints, which I had never figured out, and filling out all forms over every time, etc) was a proposal, much less that it was gone, until my 3rd renewal came around! No fuss, no muss, just gone. Fill out form online and your renewal is in the return mail. Similar to licensed OC, unlicensed car carry, campus carry, and on and on. I expect to wake up one day with constitutional carry on the Guv’s desk. And he will sign it!

      • I wish I could say you’re wrong but unfortunately not. I just hope we can keep plugging away until RINO’s like our Lt. Governor finally listen.

      • So a successful businessman who owns and runs a VERY successful business which sells services and “products” to hundreds/thousands of Texan gun owners is now the enemy?

  1. Glad I live in Texas
    Have to show cause in California!
    OK, here’s my “cause”
    To not be prey, to defend against rape, great bodily harm, and loss of life!

    • Colorado has a line on the CHP application asking “Why do you want this?”
      “Because I want to” is an acceptable response.

  2. “The brief concludes by pointing out that the Constitution exists to protect citizen’s rights from a government that would seek to take them away.”

    That can be a fun way to mess with a Progressive’s head.

    Run down a list of the Bill of Rights, skipping the 2nd for the time being. Ask them what that right was designed to protect, the individual citizen, or the Government. And why was that important?

    Then ask them how in the hell could a right deemed to be so important as to be number Two on a top Ten list of rights that it doesn’t apply like all the others?

    (Caution – That approach has annoyed some Progressives to the point of cranial detonation…)

    • The typical natural response by a SJW/Progressive to this is usually cranial-rectal immersion.
      On an even more acute level than normal (for them).

    • Add to that the fact that in the entire text of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the remaining Amendments to the Constitution, there is only ONE place where the words – SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED appear.

      It’s there for a reason.

      • There is also a reason why RKBA is not part of the 1st Amendment. Because the prohibition is not the same.

    • Note to Progressives and Liberals: The Constitution of the United States of America, in its body, lists what the federal government can do and should do, and often how to go about doing it. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to that Constitution, list specifically those things the federal government IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

  3. The same argument can be made about states that require a permit to carry, and should be. States that do this are no different than what Cali is doing. I wish to excercise a right protected by the 2nd in Florida but first must ask permission, take a class, pay a tax, and I’m granted the privilege to excercise what I already have the right to do. Apply that to any other rights and see how far you get with it.
    I refuse to do any of the above and do what I as a free man have always had the right to do. Just like I do for all the other rights mentioned in this brief.

    • One step at a time. I’m all for constitutional carry. The bigger threat is may issue states. Also, states that say “well, we know assault rifles are the least used class in crimes and we know that the previous nationwide ban had no impact on crime and we know they’re not anymore lethal than any other semi auto rifle…. but they just look so scary, so we think people won’t balk as much when our gun restrictions start there.”

    • Low information voters have been, for decades, pumped full of ridiculous expectations of disaster if any tiny part of liberal dogma is denied. We have to demonstrate that there will be no “blood in the streets” or whatever, so those voters can understand they’ve been lied to, and then the death grip of fanatical fear mongering nutbars will start to give way to some little bit of sense.

  4. Thanks to the governors in other states that are fighting for us here in California. Born and raised here, but will not be retiring in CA. Between the taxes, ILLEGALS and Libos, it has become a sh_thole.

    Hopefully with our new administration in Washington, and a majority of conservative judges on the SCOTUS, things will change for all of us soon…

  5. Texas has a ways to go: high carry permit fees limit who gets to defend themselves from violent crime in that state. Lead by example: pass Constitutional Carry in Texas.. the GOP has the votes, just get off the proverbial backside and go to work!

  6. I wonder if for the hell of it, just to put the issue directly head to head with the rest of the bill of rights, Texas proposed, didn’t even have to pass, a law stating that citizens of other states, looking at you CA, when traveling through Texas, must obtain a permit to post on the internet or use the phone from Texas. Yes I know this is a very run on sentence but I am on the train and have no time to edit.

  7. What if Texas, or some other state, proposed a law to require out of state residents, specifically CA let’s say, to first apply for a Texas issued ID card to post on the internet or use email if they happen to be traveling through. How would that play out in the courts if challenged and in defense Texas cited non-reciprocity of gun permits?

    • Im curious where you read how they must be carried? If it isn’t prohibited it is legal!

Comments are closed.