Peruta just went en banc

I have this comment regarding today's ruling from the Ninth Circuit:

San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore has had the authority to issue Concealed Carry Permits to any non prohibited individual in San Diego County since before my application in 2008.

What I find hard to understand is the fact that every individual in California who possesses a valid Concealed Carry Permit, particularly those in Orange County to the north, are permitted by law to carry a concealed firearm for self defense in San Diego County while law abiding residents of San Diego County are denied the equal right to do likewise.

Sheriff Gore by denying law abiding residents of San Diego the right to carry firearms demonstrates his absolute disrespect for rights of every citizen in San Diego county.

I believe that every law abiding resident of San Diego County should be able to exercise their Second Amendment Right to carry a firearm for self defense, and thank the NRA for their continued support in my case.

Regardless of what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decides in my case, the fact that Sheriff Gore has issued Concealed Carry Permits to those who are politically, socially or financially connected to San Diego politics is a matter of great concern that every resident of San Diego should be concerned with.

Ed Peruta
[email protected]

Wait, does this mean AG Harris will get her foot in the door after all?

Only a fool would have been surprised for anything else to happen. The two judge majority on the three judge Peruta/Richards/Baker panel wrote a decision which cried out to be vacated. The fact is that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and concealed carry is generally not a right. States do not get to choose between the fundamental right to Open Carry and concealed carry, the latter not being a right let alone a fundamental right.

"{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. 2783 (2008) at 2809

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 banned.

http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282.

"In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right...Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had 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. 2783 (2008) at 2809

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

We have the right to do anything we want unless it interferes with other people's rights. We especially have the right to handle the weapons of self-defense in whatever way we determine will best secure our safety, as long as that does not create excessive danger to others. Allowing concealed carry by those without prohibiting offenses is strongly proven to be no significant threat to others. Therefore we have a right to do it. For the same reasons, we also have the right to carry openly

Historically, quality statistics were not available to prove the safety of concealed carry. Furthermore, there were mistaken judgments made about the character of those who carried concealed. For these reasons the constitution may not have explicitly protected the right to concealed carry. But now we know better, so there is no longer any strict scrutiny or even intermediate scrutiny basis to infringe the right to bear arms in either manner. And a serious restriction on an important constitutional right like bearing arms, cannot be allowed on mere rational basis scrutiny.

The "long odds" on an en banc hearing are the
9th Circuit Appointments:
- 20 appointed by Democrat administrations
- 8 appointed by Republican administrations

Chief Judge Thomas was appointed by Bill Clinton and was the dissenting vote in Peruta.

Mot likely, if the court agreed with the decision they would not have voted for rehearing en banc. Looks like we'll lost this next round. I guess it was going to go to SCOTUS either way, we'll see if they take it.

..Is this the same " Jim D " who shilled for Jerry Brown in these very pages ? I think it is. Too late come to reason. The whole Dim party are anti gun rights. Even the cooks and the janitors. To pimp for a Democrat is to put tyrants in power.

Hi Dave D.! Where have you been? I've missed your lively debate on this and other topics.

I don't think you ever said why you thought Meg Whitman wasn't an anti-gun Statist, or why self-stated anti-gunner Neal Kashkari would have been more pro-gun than Jerry Brown?

...Glad to see Jimmy has no regrets.....or sense of responsibility.

Dave D., you haven't answered my questions. Since this is a single topic forum, let's limit your answers to Gun Rights. Why did you support Meg Whitman and Neel Kashkari when they do not support the 2nd Amendment? I think what I'd like to understand is how you think your position is any different from what you accuse me of when you're at least a willing to sell the 2nd Amendment right down the river?

...You sold California gun owners down the river by personally endorsing Moonbeam Brown for Governor. Right here. Your promises were worth nothing.

....You obfuscate and prevaricate to hide your responsibility. That seems to be your habit.

...There's your answer, Skippy.

You cannot justify your actions either, Dave D. You won't dare. I'm not the one "obfuscating and prevaricating". I call you out every time you come after me. I tell you exactly why I supported someone like Jerry Brown because he says, "You can't have the First without the Second" instead of someone who won't even meet with the NRA, or someone who tells gun owners, "I'm not your man."

Now it's your turn. Answer directly: "Why did you support Meg Whitman and Neel Kashkari when they do not support the 2nd Amendment?" Don't prevaricate by trashing the Democrats, don't obfuscate with ad hominem attacks.

Speak up, man. Tell us all how your world works when those you support don't believe in gun rights? Why is everything else more important to you than the 2nd Amendment?

...Aw Jimmy, you make it up as you go along. I never pimped anyone for Governor. Not here, not anywhere. But even a blind three legged dog knows Moony is a liar and a rogue. Not a very good one either, but he fooled you.
...Quit pretending you're pro gunrights ; your actions make lies of your words.

....Sod off, Swampy.