Kamala D. Harris as dumb as Obama, California can't challenge ruling on concealed guns, court says.
(too old to reply)
Ray Bolden
2021-10-23 03:29:19 UTC
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.

The decision was another victory for gun rights advocates, but
it was not likely to be the last word. The state has the right
to appeal Wednesday's order and legal analysts expect the state
to do so. There is another pending gun case involving the right
to carry concealed weapons in California and a ruling in that
case could resolve the debate.

In its 2-1 ruling Wednesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals denied an attempt by Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, a gun
control group and law enforcement associations to intervene in a
case that struck down San Diego County's policy of tightly
restricting the carrying of concealed guns. Gun owner Edward
Peruta was the lead challenger of the San Diego rules.

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.

Though the pro-gun ruling technically applied only to San Diego,
it is being cited as a precedent in other gun challenges and
some California counties have already chosen to follow it. San
Diego and Orange counties relaxed their rules after the ruling
and issued scores of permits to carry concealed guns in public.

Harris and the other groups decided to intervene after San Diego
County Sheriff William D. Gore refused to appeal the 9th
Circuit's decision.

Judges Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and Consuelo M. Callahan —
Republican appointees who are considered the most conservative
jurists in the 9th Circuit — said Harris and the others waited
too long to get involved. The majority also said that its
February ruling did not question the constitutionality of a
state law, only the way San Diego County chose to regulate guns
under California law.

Judge Sidney R.Thomas, a Clinton appointee, dissented. He said
the February decision affected the entire state, and California
had a right to defend its policies.

"That the opinion primarily addressed state regulation of
handguns could hardly be clearer," he wrote.

David Madden, a spokesman for the 9th Circuit, said California
has the right to ask an 11-judge panel to review Wednesday's

In that case, said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, an expert on
gun law, "There is a long way to go before this is settled."

UC Irvine Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said Wednesday's decision
would have little effect on whether a larger panel of the 9th
Circuit agrees to review the February ruling. If a majority of
judges believes the pro-gun ruling should be reconsidered by a
larger "en banc" panel, the judges will permit the state to
intervene, he said.

"I don't think this order changes anything," Chemerinsky said.

Harris refused Wednesday to say what she will do. Gun advocates
have only mildly opposed Harris' intervention. They believe the
Peruta case is the best vehicle to persuade the Supreme Court to
strike down restrictive open carry regulations throughout the
country, and an appeal would move the case closer to the Supreme

"The attorney general can now decide whether the Peruta case
ends here," said Chuck Michel, a lawyer who represented gun
owners in the case.

Even if Wednesday's ruling in the Peruta case were not appealed,
the 9th Circuit could take up the issue en banc in a similar
concealed weapons case out of Yolo County.

Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action for the Brady Campaign
to Prevent Gun Violence, said the court misinterpreted the law
when it denied California and others the right to challenge the
February ruling.

"We are now considering our options," said Lowry, whose group
also sought to intervene.


Twitter: @mauradolan



IPAFan4 Rank 24
Reposted for a third time thanks to the anti-gun troll
John2011's continued attempts at censorship:

Looks like the editors didn't like the pro-2nd Amendment tone of
the 61 comments originally posted in response to this article so
they decided to wipe the whole section clean and try again.
Sorry LA Times, your one-sided journalism and deceitful
censorship tactics aren't going to change the minds of those who
support the constitution.

1 month ago 3 Likes Like Reply Share
59oldman59 Rank 438
John2011 has so far had 7 of my posts deleted yesterday by the
Times, in another forum. It usually happens in the morning
through the afternoon. Disgraceful of the Times to stoop to the
requests of one malcontent Troll like this.

1 month ago (edited) 3 Likes Like Reply Share
California Right To Carry
California Right To Carry Rank 11849
Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.
Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution,
concealed carry can be prohibited.

"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed
by the Constitution of the United States, and which is
calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of
themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any
tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.""
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct.... » more

1 month ago 0 Likes Like Reply Share
ArmedAmerican Rank 3556
Here's the facts folks...IF the second amendment were only about
the government having arms and not citizens then Brady clowns
must explain why there was no immediate confiscation of private
gun owners guns right after the Second was written.
The fact that there wasn't....and 2 centuries of private gun
ownership conclusively destroys any and all arguments against
the 2nd being about the PEOPLE bearing arms privately....sorry
about your misunderstanding

1 month ago (edited) 3 Likes Like Reply Share
azlefty16242 Rank 219
Ah another benefit from the Prop 8 ruling, yes it set the stage
for determining who can be a party to a suit and when they can
join it

TelstarIV Rank 148
The right to bear arms is only guaranteed to a militia. This
eons old discussion is so stupid. There is no citizen right to
bear arms except to join a militia with federal or state

Everything else is trite stupidity.

1 month ago (edited) 0 Likes Like Reply Share
View 5 more replies
ArmedAmerican Rank 3556
The SCOTUS ie the professionals, say you're wrong. Secondly the
rest of the U.S.A. has been carrying for years son...are you CA
residents a special kind of stupid that we don't know about ? If
not then you're all just as capable of packing responsibly as
the rest of us

1 month ago (edited) 4 Likes Like Reply Share
ArmedAmerican Rank 3556
"The right to bear arms is only guaranteed to a militia"
Citizens ARE the militia, son....did you fail American History
or what?
CITIZENS were called upon and trained by the military ...the
Continental Army....citizens who brought THEIR OWN PRIVATE
weapons...and who then fought along side the Army and were used
by the Army for military and law enforcement purposes.

*IF* the SEcond were actually as you claim, son, then we should
firearms when the Second came into being...and yet we see
NOTHING of the sort.
What we DO see is two CENTURIES of private gun ownership that
wasnt questioned much until your sort came along.

Sorry but you lost this debate long before you were ever born.

« less
Just Wondering
2021-10-23 05:29:28 UTC
Post by Ray Bolden
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.
Another 7-year-old story falsely presented as current events.