Bill Maher Made Adam Schiff and Don Lemon Look Like Morons Last Night
The Nine Lives of Kristi Noem...and She Used Them All Very Quickly
A Colorado Dem Just Got Busted for Peddling a Massive Campaign Lie
Report: Russia Is Helping Iran Target US Forces
It Must Be Nice Being Married to a Democrat
MS NOW Has Iranian Official Proving the White House Correct; CNN Panel Shouts...
China’s 90-Day Energy Trap
Iran Shows Why Louisiana’s Energy Industry Must Be Protected
Defense of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea Requires Air Superiority
John Cornyn Announces Support for Ending Silent Filibuster to Pass SAVE America Act
Anti-Communist Protests Erupt in Havana As Trump Eyes Shake-Up in Cuban Leadership
The Future of the Dean Dome: Tradition, Stewardship and Carolina Basketball's Next Chapter
Iranian Women’s Courage Must Not Be Forgotten on International Women’s Day, Part 1
One Historic Town Dismisses the Pledge of Allegiance
Pink Slips for DEI and ESG?
Tipsheet

Second Amendment Victory: Eased Concealed Carry Rules Upheld in California, Striking Down Requirements for "Need"

Second Amendment Victory: Eased Concealed Carry Rules Upheld in California, Striking Down Requirements for "Need"

Back in February, the infamously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's issuance of  concealed carry permits based on "need' as unconstitutional. A reminder of the ruling: 

Advertisement
The infamously liberal Federal Ninth Circuit Court of appeals has struck down a California law practically banning people from carry a gun in public for self defense in the Peruta v. San Diego case. The decision struck down requirements of "need" or "cause" to carry a handgun in public based on violent threats to a person as unconstitutional. In other words, the State cannot restrict an individual from carrying a firearm because a government official doesn't think they face enough threats to justify doing so and affirms carrying a gun in public for self defense is in fact a protected right under the Second Amendment. The ruling based much of its decision on the prior Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and makes clear that the right to "bear arms" is equal in definition to "carrying arms.

That ruling prompted California Attorney General Kamala Harris to issue an appeal. But according to a new ruling from the Court yesterday, that appeal is no longer valid, challenges to the original ruling can no longer be filed and the easing of restrictions on how concealed carry permits are issued in the state will stand, meaning bureaucrats will no longer decide who "needs" to carry a firearm. 

Relaxed rules for carrying concealed guns in public may not be challenged by California state officials or advocacy groups, a federal appeals panel decided Wednesday.

State law allows county law enforcement agencies to set rules that limit permits for concealed guns. The 9th Circuit panel that ruled Wednesday decided on the same split vote in February that San Diego County's policy requiring law-abiding gun owners to show a specific need for protection violated the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms.

Advertisement

George Mason University Law Professor Joyce Malcom in applauding the Court's decision. 

“Bravo for the ninth circuit. A right to bear arms is no right at all if you need to demonstrate a need to carry that firearm which satisfies the police. The Supreme Court's landmark decisions in 2008 and 2010 confirming the individual right to keep and carry arms is finally being acknowledged in California," Malcom said in a statement. 

Here's an outline of the case courtesy of NRA-ILA

Since the ban was struck down earlier this year, California residents have been applying for concealed carry permits in droves. 

This case is expected to be taken up by the Supreme Court.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement