In the “Magisterial Prerogative” post I talked about the enemy of the rule of law is an arbitrary fashion in law enforcement. No where is this more prevalent than in the issuing of concealed weapons carry permits. Each county has it’s own set of hoops applicants must jump through, some logical, but most designed solely to make the process so onerous as to discourage applying. Here in California that is about to change;
California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns.
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show “good cause” – and not merely the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.
State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection.
“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in the majority opinion.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned (code for “these clowns could not magistrate their way out of a cardboard box”) appeals court, like ever, I am surprised.
I think the fact that someone values his life (and that of his family) and wants to protect them, that is “good cause” enough as far as I’m concerned. I am equally troubled by the other hurdle of “good moral character”, what the hell does that even mean? It can’t have anything to do with a past criminal record, other laws address that, no it’s like what is “family values”? it is at it’s root arbitrary. If a guy has a suspended driver’s license, is unemployed, shacking up with the mother of his kids but not married, visits the nudie bar from time to time, likes to tie one on once and a while, does not recycle, lets the weeds in front of his house grow out of control, what is the criteria for this?
In the same ruling, the justices said restrictions on carrying concealed weapons were “presumptively lawful,” meaning that they would be upheld unless shown to be unreasonably burdensome.
Yes, and one of those that come immediately to mind is the requirement to take and pass a gun safety class, does anyone think this is “unreasonable burdensome”? In order to obtain a driver’s license one has to learn how to drive, seems reasonable, same with walking around with a loaded firearm. I have never taken a gun safety course, seemed rather silly for me, but I would hope that all classes involve a rudimentary understanding of the law as it applies to when/under what circumstances you are justified in using deadly force, and some examples of idiots that got this wrong and are now behind bars because of it.
I know the typical lefty argument is that we will not be safer if everyone walking around is packing, if that were true they might be right, but a large segment of society wants nothing to do with guns and would not get a permit or carry under any circumstances anyway. But for those that do, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so. If they abuse or misuse that right, it is on them to know what they are doing.