Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Interesting thoughts on Supremes | Main | VPC and a Joyce clone attacking Justice Alito »

Suit against Torrance CA over CCW refusal

Posted by David Hardy · 16 June 2008 02:29 PM

Pdf of the complaint here. Plaintiff is a city employee whose job requires carrying large sums of cash, and whose employing agency endorsed his application for a CCW permit. The Torrance chief of police turned it down, stating it was his policy not to issue permits, period. The suit also challenges city policies that, if it ever did issue permits, requires the applicant to have a million dollar insurance policy, and pass psychological testing.

· State legislation

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Jim | June 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply

Interesting complaint. I'm anxious to see the reply and the briefs.

RKM | June 16, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply

Here is the thread at Calguns.net.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=105421

Tarn Helm | June 16, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply

I hope the chief of Torrance PD is someday caught unarmed by bad guys.

Then he'll know how we feel--I hope he rots in Hell after they catch him.

The State Supreme Court of California is hostile to the Second Amendment of United States Constitution and has ruled in Kasler v. Lockyer (seventh line of page 6) that the Second Amendment of United States Constitution is not recognized by the California State Constitution:

"If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution's declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms. (See In re Ramirez (1924) 193 Cal.633, 651 ["The constitution of this state contains no provision on the subject."].) Moreover, "[i]t is long since settled in this state that regulation of firearms is a proper police function." (Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 866.) We reject any suggestion that the regulations at issue here impermissibly infringe upon the right to defend life or protect property guaranteed by the California Constitution."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s069522.pdf

wrangler5 | June 17, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply

Sounds like just another reasonable regulation, to me. (GAG! GAK!! BARF!!!)

Frank_EP | June 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply

This case is one of a larger group of related cases. None
directly mention the 2nd or the Lockyer issues.

NRA members in SoCal are invited to come to a meeting tonight,
Tuesday June 17, at Old World in Huntington Beach where this,
and other issues, will be discussed. 7PM. The attorney in this
case is the head of our local Members Council.

Mikemi | June 26, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply

Forty states have realized that the decent law abiding American CITIZEN is generally not a threat if he/she is allowed to be armed for self protection. Our elected REPRESENTATIVES are supposed to do just that, represent us. Of course we want them to use their good judgment and not come to us for every decision, however. When their personal feelings go against the collective will of the people then they have a duty to do our will or step down. We need to remember that when we vote.

Leave a comment