"May Issue" case could be headed to Supreme Court

Peruta v California may be going to the Supreme Court over the violation of the 2A to bear arms outside the home. Peruta has argued that county sheriffs selectively grant the right to carry outside the home and the vast majority of the public is denied that right.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/1...lifornia-may-be-heading-to-supreme-court.html

 

That may not be good news.

Scalia made it fairly clear in his write-up of Heller that the States retain the right to regulate public carry, whether open or concealed, whether handgun or long gun.

 

You may be right, but either way the court goes, it won't affect my rights in Texas.

The Texas Constitution claims the power for the legislature to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. I'm just fortunate that they are comfortable with Texans concealed carrying. It has always been legal to carry a long gun in Texas, they only require a license for the carrying of a handgun.

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

 

Any concealed carry regulations may be overturned not based on a Second Amendment defense, but on a basis of "Fair Issue" and non discriminatory guidelines and to actually define "Need" as it relates to deficiencies in Law Enforcements abilities and obligations to protect the public trust since SCOTUS has ruled Law Enforcement has no obligation to protect individual citizens.

It has been established that hunting and target shooting are legitimate activities and in order to secure safety while traveling to and from legitimate shooting activities, one should be armed with a sidearm.
Also a 24/7 Range membership is legitimate reason to assume a person can at any time decide to visit said Range in order to practice shooting in preparation for competition or hunting.

**********************************************
page 3 of LA County concealed carry application...

3-
CCW License Subject to Restrictions
When a license is issued it will be subject to the following general restrictions.
While exercising the privilege granted under the terms of this license, licensees shall
not:
1. Consume any alcoholic beverage.
2. Represent to any person that they are peace officers, unless they are in fact
peace officers as defined by law.
3. Abuse this privilege by an unjustified display of a deadly weapon.
4. Violate any law of this State or Country.
5. Be under the influence of any medication or narcotic drug.
6. Impede law enforcement officers in the conduct or performance of their duty
or activities.
7. Refuse to display their permits or to surrender their concealable firearm to
any peace officer for inspection upon demand.
In addition, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department may place special limitations
further limiting the time, the place, and the circumstances under which the license is
valid. When each license is issued, general restrictions and any special limitations will
be noted on the reverse side of the card.
Remember, it is a Privilege, not a right to carry a concealed weapon.
Application for CCW License
Upon reviewing the attached policy and meeting all requirements, please complete the
Standard Application form in its Entirety. Send completed application to Sheriff’s
Headquarters, 211 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California 90012,
Attention: CCW Coordinator. A non-refundable fee of $10.00 Check or Money Order
(payable to Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department) must accompany
your application. Incomplete applications will not be processed.
Those who successfully pass the initial screening will be charged a required follow-
up processing fee.
Revised 3/2013

 

Most states that have run into this have had to allow carry but the state can specify open or concealed. There is no right to carry concealed. One recent state case was Wisconsin where the WI Supreme Court forced the state to allow carry after a resident was arrested for carrying on his own property.

 

if the Court sides with States Rights, they will rule that while California cannot implement rules that make Concealed Carry virtually impossible for the average citizen, they can implement rules that set some standard of neccessity.

in other words, they will likely say that the States have the right to require some sort of neccessity besides "me wants one" or "the world is a dangerous place".

especially because we are talking about carrying guns on public roads, on public sidewalks, in Walmart, in KFC, not simply on one's personal private property.

what sort of neccessity will the court say reasonable and what is not reasonable?

hopefully some sort of articulation of a special need that is not shared by the average person. Such as a restraining order, threats by someone, history of being robbed, etc.

i expect gun rights advocates and gun rights opponents will not be happy with the courts decision, if they do choose to take the case.

 

In NYC, concealed carry requires some sort of special need.

these needs include: being a VIP.

carrying largs sums of cash for work in public on a regular basis.

i believe this should be expanded to folks who can articulate other special security circumstances.

history of being attacked or robbed.

having a restraining order against someone.

being threatened in the past.

etc.

 

Equal protection.
If the state allows/disallows you something based on where you live, it doesn't provide it.

 

There is already a precedent for this. Banning people from packing heat in public is perfectly reasonable. Some people don't want their lives and rights to be endangered by gun violence. Gun owners are not the only people who have rights.

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;"
- the Supreme Court in Robertson v. Baldwin

 

that was before Heller.

SCOTUS may decide to adjust Robertson v Baldwin based on Heller.

or, they may not.

 

Robertson v. Baldwin
In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated in dicta that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment:

The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secon...ited_States_Constitution#Robertson_v._Baldwin

 

States do not have Rights, Rights pertain to
"The People" and in this case, it is not Law, it is administrative ordnances and regulations that govern issue of licenses to carry firearms and the manner in which they are carried or restricted.

It is all very accademic and reads more like "stereo instructions" rather than legitimate bonifide Law.

 

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons"

Oh yes it is, "The Right of "The People" to keep and bear Arms",
( whether concealed or openly)
shall NOT be infringed....... ( in any way. )

 

If there is true justice, the Supremes will strike that nonsense down and make the sheriffs who denied people licenses pay each person who had a clean record, 50,000 dollars US as a fine for a violation of 42 USC 1983

 

that sort of went down the toilet with McDonald V. Chicago

 

oh, but States actually do have rights.

and by "States", the Constitution means State Legislatures.

 

not neccessarily.

SCOTUS could decide that the right to keep and bear arms does not mean without regulations upon Concealed Carry that The States deem neccessary and fair to protect the public.

 

Then open carry should be allowed. Not allowing either violates the right to keep and bear arms.

 

what you fail to understand is that this is not a case of no one being able to carry concealed but rather an arbitrary "may issue" that is often arbitrary and capricious. That is what offends the concept of equal protection, and substantive due process as set fourth in the Post Civil war amendments.

 

Government - which is The State of New York, The City of New York, Towns, Counties, Municipalities, etc.... have Power and Authority to act and administrate, granted by Legislature, Government has no Rights as these pertain to
"The People"

 

so wtf have you guys been yelling about "States' Rights" for all these decades????????????????????????

 

There is no state that does not allow either open or concealed carry.

 

ehhh...

what YOU fail to understand is that the Supreme Court, including Mr. Gorsuch, may decide that The States have the authority to decide who can and can't possess a concealed weapon in public. And these regulations may include the ability to express a special security need that is not shared by the general public.

I may be wrong, but I may be right.

SCOTUS seems to think State Legislatures have a lot of discretion that the Feds dont

 

I have never in all my life, advocated that
State Goverment or any Government has Rights of any kind.
The only People advocating States Rights are seeking to water down or nullify Individual Rights or seek Collective Rights and a means to weaken the Right to keep and bear Arms.

 

If they're going to restrict concealed carry then they shouldn't ban open carry.