Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 13, 2014, 12:02:23 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/347138.php (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/347138.php)
Quote
San Diego County had a rule that, in addition to the acceptable limitations on concealed carry (good moral character (no prison, etc.), a training course, etc.) the Sheriff also required "good cause" to carry, something that indicates the person seeking to carry a gun is outside of the "mainstream" as far his personal level of danger and personal need for self-protection. A generalized claim of the need to protect oneself was not good enough, the Sheriff (and county) said; concealed carry was only permissible if someone could document a particularlized need for self-defense, such has having a restraining order against a threatening third party, or being in discussions with a DA about bringing charges against a potential threatening party, or the like.
Held: That requirement is impermissible. The right of self-defense is enshrined in the Constitution. Citizens of sound moral character applying for a carry license to not have to document or even claim some particularized, outside-the-"mainstream" need for personal self-protection. They have that right generally.
Post by: huntnphool on February 13, 2014, 12:24:29 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on February 13, 2014, 12:38:22 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 13, 2014, 12:45:11 PM
Still a breath of fresh air, Mr Phool. This is the most liberal circuit in the country. A welcome ray of light!Oh I agree!!! It just pisses me off that this is still in question when it's always been there in black and white.
Post by: elkboy on February 13, 2014, 12:49:53 PM
Post by: jackmaster on February 13, 2014, 12:54:33 PM
:yeah: could you even begin to imagine what this country would be like had it not been for the forsight from the men who wrote the constitution :dunno: it damn near make me want :puke: i also wish they would just leave well enough alone and take pride in it, that is something are goverment is seriously lacking :twocents:Still a breath of fresh air, Mr Phool. This is the most liberal circuit in the country. A welcome ray of light!Oh I agree!!! It just pisses me off that this is still in question when it's always been there in black and white.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 13, 2014, 04:24:29 PM
Post by: HighlandLofts on February 14, 2014, 11:25:47 AM
When will the Dems wake up and let us law abbiding citizens live a free life. This Ass of a Govenor is as bad as they get, He took it upon himself to stop the Death Penalty in OUR STATE! He thinks it's his State, Like Oboma said recently "I'm the President, I can do anything I want!" He also said "I have a Pen and a Phone" when it comes to doing Executive Actions"
Remember these actions when the ellections come around, I would NEVER vote for ANY DEMOCRAP, I don't care if their position was to clean up spit at a dive bar.
I'm happy for the citizens of California, They need more actions like this to bring back some of their freedoms under our Constitution.
Post by: Bean Counter on February 14, 2014, 12:54:30 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on February 14, 2014, 01:23:57 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 15, 2014, 09:33:51 AM
This decision is not just a California win. It applies to the entire nation.That's incorrect, this ruling only applies to the 9th circuit. Rulings out of the US Circuit Courts ONLY applies to the states in that circuit which in this case would be WA, OR, CA, ID, NV, AZ, AK, MT, & HI.
As an example a circuit court on the east coast could have a similar case and rule in the opposite matter and both decisions would be applicable to their circuit states.
In order for this to have a nationwide significance it must come down from the US Supreme Court. This decision definitely can impact other circuit courts but they are in no way required to go along with the 9th Circuit ruling.
Post by: Greenhorn on February 15, 2014, 10:25:41 AM
Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk