Thursday, February 13, 2014

Good news, everyone!

Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns


Go pour yourself a nice glass of hippie tears and sip it with relish.


og said...

Given enough time, Indiana residents might actually be able to go to Mordor cocked and locked, and EXIT THEIR CARS!!!! OH, the HUMANITY!

Matthew said...

I dream of a day I'm in Hawaii and have to ask myself what gun goes best with my board shorts...

Jennifer said...

Hmm. I've never really sipped relish. I've only ever used it as a condiment.
Do you recommend a particular vintage of hippie tears?

Tam said...

The fresher, the better. Take a jar and go get 'em right off the vine today. :)

Joseph said...

Ironically, the open carry ban helped this decision because: 'But it is unconstitutional to prohibit carrying in every mode: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”'

So is this is a win for open carriers?

Greg in Allston said...

I'd like to propose a toast to O'Scannlain and Callahan. Way to get your Irish on!! Well done gentlemen. Sláinte!

Kristophr said... worked their asses off to get to this point.

The Caltard legislature made this possible by forbidding open carry. If you cannot open carry, then you have granted citizens automatic CCW.

rickn8or said...

Yes, the Legislature's reaction to a judge's statment of "You don't need concealed carry; you can open carry" was to ban all carry.

You can no do that; the states can ban open carry or conclealed carry, but not both.

This was a 3-judge panel, it remanis to see if the California govt will seek an enbanc ruling on this or appeal.

But since there is a split between districts (2nd & 4th), plus the Wollard case in Maryland, we may finally get the Supreme Court to grasp the nettle and rule as to how you have to display a goood and substantial reason to exercise an enumerated right.

I too am hopeful I can stroll the streets of Oakland with my favorite heater before my grandson graduates from high school.

But yes, the taste of liberal tears is sweet. Somehow thought, I can't help but think that a ruling like this from the Ninth Circus is A Sign of the Pockyclips.

Beaumont said...

Actually, it's more fun to give the hippies a towel to cry into, then use the towel to wipe your....well, just pick the body part.

Eric said...

I siphon my hippie tears from Prius tanks.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...


James Sullivan said...

If I were to start a Vineyard, I would make a white wine called Hippy Tears. I could even make a red wine variant called Hairy Legs.

The labels would be a mural type rendering of Woodstock with Humvees splattering mud and grinding flowers into paste.

It would have a subtle, salty bouquet, with notes of granola and patchouli.

I would send Tam a case every year.

LMB said...

I hope like hell it's here to stay, but it's gonna be one helluva fight. But the upside is: More hippie tears!

mustanger said...

Y'all do realize, do you not, that a ruling by the Ninth Circuit court only applies within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction.

What I'd like to see... more states, including Georgia, adopting the Alaska model.

Matthew said...


One, if California goes shall-issue than a majority of the US population will be shall-issue, including 22 out of the 25 largest cities (just NYC, DC, and Boston). Two, Cali and Hawaii are the only "may issue in practice" states left outside of the few states on the East Coast, the concealed carry map just changed color in a major way. Three, this makes the existing Circuit split -huge- due to the populations involved, almost ensuring SCOTUS will take a carry case.

The "pro-carry" Circuits mirror Heller's logic, the "anti" twist themselves in knots to evade it, if the current Court grants cert with Madigan and Peruta to draw from "may-issue" could be dead nationwide.

Once people in "anti" states can carry in places like NYC the numbers of pro-gun voters invested in the issue will relegate strict gun control to the dung heap of American history.

Anonymous said...

We also remember that the 9th Circuit, aka the 9th Circus, is the most frequently overturned. At least it was when I was in the Fed. service.

Cybrludite said...

In due course, Mustanger, in due course. Rome was neither built nor fallen in a day.

NotClauswitz said...

We moved to a county in CA that is essentially shall-issue because-of a Sheriff (elected official) who is very much pro-carry. The appointment for processing my CCW paperwork with the Sheriff's Office is next Friday - there is still a mess of bureaucracy to attend-to.
I look forward to the day CA becomes a Constitutional Carry state like AZ, but the Stupidslature in Sacatomatos is a Supermajority by the One-Party Politburo, with little opposition and consumed by an overwhelming belief in their own infallibility as Gods Who Walk Amongst the Little People. This will need to be addressed...

mikee said...

Even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while. The 9th is the most overturned circuit, but not every decision they make is incorrect.

Congrats to the 9th on finding this acorn!

Tam said...

Pop quiz, hotshots: Who's the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit?

staghounds said...

Kozinski! I hope he assigns himself the full Court's opinion.

staghounds said...

This is the same 9th Cir. that fount the 2A is a collective right, so I wouldn't look to hopefully for the same result from the full panel.

Ed said...

The 9th Circuit Court needs to talk with the 3rd Circuit Court:

The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit said...

Come for the ruling. Stay for the judicial snark on the other circuits and the dissent. :D

Kristophr said...

Kozinski was on the short list for Bush the Younger's SCOTUS appointment.

But the religious right objected to a non-christian on the SCOTUS, so Bush ended up fumbling the appointment.

Oh well. Maybe next time.

Aesop said...

1) This wasn't a decision against CA laws; it was against San Diego County's (may issue=no issue in practice) policies.
2) Most if not all of the most populous counties are similar liberal-dominated Retardistans, with the exact same no issue in practice CCW policies. The inland counties, as noted by another poster, issue statewide CCWs to their residents with little muss or fuss.
3) The 2d, 3d, and 4th Circuits have all gone with no issue is fine, while as of now the 7th and 9th have sided with the reasoning in Heller and Macdonald.
The majority opinion in this case took pains to lambaste the knotheadedness of the anti-carry circuits' legal gymnastics, citing that the 2A is an individual right, and means outside the house, not only inside it.

Things are going to get interesting, provided SCOTUS takes this case before anyone there has a heart attack, and Roberts doesn't have another Obamacare brainfart.

But nota bene, as sweet as serving the other side crow marinated in hippie tears, is the fact that to date neither D.C. nor Chicago have seen fit to comply with their respective rulings to date, and come into compliance with the Constitution, AFAIK.

Tam said...


"1) This wasn't a decision against CA laws;"

Yes. Frickin' lawyers and their poorly phrased headlines that I copypasta'ed! ;)

Good discussion ongoing here.

(Chicago is now Shall Issue, BTW, and I've heard the number "thousands" used in reference to DC handgun permits, which are only for keeping and not bearing, of course.)

Geodkyt said...

Given that the only portion of teh California law that makes their concealed carry permit system "May Issue" is the ONE PART THE COURT UTTERLY REJECTED, I would say that it strikes down CA law pretty directly.

Admittedly, only one specific portion of the law (the requirement for an applicant to demonstrate "good cause") was shot down and one ancilary section likewise mooted (defining "good cause" as meaning something that distinguishses the applicant from other law abiding Californians).

Alternatively, this opinion could be viewed as taking the Cuccinelli (last VA AG, who issued an official AG opinion... in VA, the official AG opinions are given great deference by the Commonweath's courts in interpreting VA law) Approach. We had a similar sort of "good cause" (ours read that it was illegal to be armed in a church during services "without good and sufficient reason") that applied to whether churches were prohibited places for carry.

Cuccinelli said the “right of self-defense lies at the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.

Accordingly, “carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason under the statute.

That would only require the court to have struck the definition of "good cause" in the CA law and establish that practicing a core portion of an ennumerated right is, itself, "good cause".

Which is pretty much what they DID say in the opinion.