Chris Cuomo Had a Former Leftist Call in to His Show. He Clearly...
This Town Filled Its Coffers With a Traffic Shakedown Scheme – Now They...
Planned Parenthood: Infants Not 'Conscious Beings' and Unlikely to Feel Pain
USAID You Want a Revolution?
Roy Cooper Dodges Tough Questions About His Deadly Soft-on-Crime Policies
Axios Is Back With Another Ridiculous Anti-Trump Headline
In Historic Deregulatory Move, Trump Officially Revokes Obama-Era Endangerment Finding
Colorado Democrats Want to Trample First, Second Amendments With Latest Bill
White House Religious Liberty Commission Member Removed After Hijacking Antisemitism Heari...
Federal Judge Blocks Pete Hegseth From Reducing Sen. Mark Kelly's Pay Over 'Seditious...
AG Pam Bondi Vows to Prosecute Threats Against Lawmakers, Even Across Party Lines
The SAVE Act Fights Ends When It Lands on Trump's Desk for Signature
Georgia Man Sentenced to Over 3 Years in Prison for TikTok Threats to...
Walz Administration Claims $217M in Fraud After Prosecutor Pointed to Billions
2 Pakistani Nationals Charged in $10M Medicare Fraud Scheme
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