Read a Venezuelan Guard's 'Chilling' Account About the Delta Force Raid That Nabbed...
Watch What Happens When This Leftist Protester Accosts a CNN Reporter in Minneapolis
Is This Why the Media Isn't Covering the Iran Protests?
Trump Is Minnesota's President, Too
Here's How Much Commie Mamdani's 'Affordable' Government Housing Will Cost You
Knoxville Orchestra Plays Sour Notes of Racial Preference over Talent
ICE Stories They Don’t Tell You
Kristi Noem Torches CNN’s Jake Tapper in Fiery Clash Over Minneapolis ICE Shooting
Miami Jury Convicts Two Executives in $34M Medicare Advantage Brace Fraud Scheme
Chinese National With Overstayed Visa Charged as Ringleader in Firearms Conspiracy
CNN Panel Sparks Firestorm After Abby Phillip Calls Somali Families 'Victims' of Minnesota...
Syrian Man Pleads Guilty to Stealing Nearly $191K in U.S. Social Security Benefits
Leftist Agitators Stalk and Threaten to Kill Journalist Covering Minneapolis Unrest
Minneapolis Radicals Begin Distributing Devices to Disable ICE Vehicles
Sons of Liberty, Sons of Legacy: Forming the Men Who Will Shape America’s...
Tipsheet

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 But according to a new ruling from the Court yesterday, that appeal is no longer valid, challenges to the original ruling can no longer be filed and the easing of restrictions on how concealed carry permits are issued in the state will stand,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