Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At least in some CA counties. But that practice may be changing over the objections of the idiots in San Diego. Oh, by the way, this is another very good reason to never register a gun;
---------------------------------
Last week, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel struck down San Diego County’s approach to issuing concealed-carry gun permits, in a case that has statewide and even national implications. Critics of the decision, such as San Diego Police Chief Bill Lansdowne and gun-control activists, argued that allowing more people to carry guns outside their homes increases dangers to the public.
There’s much data disputing that notion, but the case isn’t about the merits or demerits of public gun ownership. The court’s decision focuses on the meaning of this right.
California law allows cities and counties to set their own standards for issuing a permit to carry a concealed weapon. In San Diego County, that power rests with the sheriff. Some counties are permissive, allowing individuals who have no criminal record and meet a few standards to have a permit. But in San Diego County and many urban counties, a person must first prove “good cause,” such as facing a direct threat.
The situation in those latter counties is the opposite of a right. It’s a privilege. In some counties, friends or campaign donors of sheriffs have been able to obtain permits, while average citizens cannot get them. After being denied a permit and exhausting his appeals through the sheriff’s department, Edward Peruta and four others filed suit.
The 9th Circuit judges – relying on two fairly recent and prominent gun-rights rulings in the U.S. Supreme Court (Heller and McDonald) – found that, “The Second Amendment secures the right not only to ‘keep’ arms but also to ‘bear’ them … The court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: ‘At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’”
Though the Richards and Peruta cases were heard by the same three judge Ninth Circuit panel on the same day, the Court has only released its opinion on the Peruta matter so far. We look forward to the Court’s Richards decision and continuing our efforts to ensure that all law-abiding Californians have an accessible way to fully exercise their right to bear arms for self-defense.
But in San Diego County and many urban counties, a person must first prove “good cause,” such as facing a direct threat.
This has always been one of the more humorous parts of the gun law.
A guy sticks a gun in your chest and demands your wallet.
Your only legal way to defend yourself, is to say to the criminal, "Excuse me, sir, while I go to the Sheriff's office and tell him that NOW I'm under a direct threat, so he finally has the "good cause" he requires to issue me a concealed-carry permit for my pistol. After he issues it, you must then let me go to my house and get the pistol, which I was required to leave there until I got this new permit. I will then load it and come back here, where we can continue where we left off. OK?"
That, in the view of the law enforcement folks around here, constituted "following the 2nd amendment".
When Minnesota first passed its concealed carry law it was worded that you had to show cause as to why it was needed and then the sheriff took his time slowly going thru the requests.
That got challenged in court and the law soon got changed.
You no longer have to prove the need .
You apply and the sheriff must approve unless there is a good reason not to.
Also, there is a narrow time window for the sheriff to find reason to object. If the sheriff does not find a reason in that narrow time window, you will be granted a concealed carry permit.
I am glad it got changed !
No reason one has to prove need to exercise a constitutional right.
I never heard a person having to prove need in order to exercise the right of freedom of speech !
That's called legislating from the bench. Judges are supposed to only interpret the constitution but over the decades they've done much more... making decisions based on political bias not to mention in the case of this old necroed post, inaccurate factual information... the idea that allowing law abiding citizens to carry guns will make things less safe, which is false.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
