“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.