9th circuit rules "good cause" for handgun permits impermissibly burdens the 2nd amendment

[Hooligan 0]

I read this article today, which has a great summary: Ninth Circuit Peruta ruling reveals faults with other circuit opinions

 

It analyses yesterday's 9th Circuit CoA victory in Peruta v. San Diego, in which Judge O’Scannlain's ruling and majority opinion contradicted and flat-out shamed three previous CoA rulings (Drake in CoA 2, Wollard in CoA 3, & Kachalsky in CoA 4), and really thew down the gauntlet for the SCOTUS to take-up Drake v. Jerejian.

 

Good news methinks.

 

Thanks for that link.  Good read.

[Genewarper111 18]

Great news.

Gives some hope.

 

Now I feel stupid for buying P226 instead of P229 (same logic: who needs small gun in PRNJ?)

Time to start saving for P239 I guess.

I love my 239 for carry. I use a galco owb which just disappears at 4 o'clock

 

G

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

While I think this case is good for our cause, I do not see NJ changing in the near future. Like someone else said it is a NJ "guns are bad" mind set that needs to be changed. I know plenty of my friends are "pro-gun" and would apply, but there are thousands of soccer moms out there that are anti-gun. I also think it depends on what part of Jersey you are from. I grew up in farm country and guns were a staple. Others from the bigger cities have no clue.

 

What I liked about the decision was the CCW ban vs. Open carry ban; that CA cannot have both. It is one or the other. Here lies my problem with NJ even if the SC overturns our "justifiable need" clause, I believe that NJ will make it so expensive and full of red-tape to apply for CCW or Open Carry (doesn't matter to me) that people will not apply. The ilk like Sweeney, Greenwald, Weinstein, Lesniak, Cryan, et al. will not give up so easily. They will come up with expensive fees, licensing, and training requirements just to keep people from applying.

[MrSurfboard 1]

When you have NJ politicians floating such ridiculous ideas as 5 round limits, home inspections and complete ban on any and all assault weapons, I don't hold out much hope that even with a high court ruling, NJ will ever issue CCPs to the common folk.  

[JSF01 13]

While I think this case is good for our cause, I do not see NJ changing in the near future. Like someone else said it is a NJ "guns are bad" mind set that needs to be changed. I know plenty of my friends are "pro-gun" and would apply, but there are thousands of soccer moms out there that are anti-gun. I also think it depends on what part of Jersey you are from. I grew up in farm country and guns were a staple. Others from the bigger cities have no clue.

 

What I liked about the decision was the CCW ban vs. Open carry ban; that CA cannot have both. It is one or the other. Here lies my problem with NJ even if the SC overturns our "justifiable need" clause, I believe that NJ will make it so expensive and full of red-tape to apply for CCW or Open Carry (doesn't matter to me) that people will not apply. The ilk like Sweeney, Greenwald, Weinstein, Lesniak, Cryan, et al. will not give up so easily. They will come up with expensive fees, licensing, and training requirements just to keep people from applying.

 

Of course they will, but the ruling it's self still will due a lot of good. At the minimum it will help slightly change the way a lot of the lower courts and the liberals will have to treat the 2A, and pave the way for other 2A cases that will help restore our rights. After this drops we can hit the next thing. Next we take them to court over all the fees, as they are essentially a poll tax to exercise your rights. That in turn starts to put a hamper on those with a gun control agenda as they can't force firearm owners to pay for their gun control schemes, and force them to either abandon some ideas or take money from other programs.

 

Right now we need a ton more court cases on the 2A because the Antis have decided that Heller just means that a complete ban is off the table, but every thing up to that is legal.

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

JSF01 -

 

By the time this works through the court system and challenges, we will have a Democrat Governor, along with Dems controlling both houses. It will be all over for us come 2016 once a Dem Governor is in office. All of these anti-gun bills will be passed, regardless of any SC decision.

[Vlad G 345]

JSF01 -

 

By the time this works through the court system and challenges, we will have a Democrat Governor, along with Dems controlling both houses. It will be all over for us come 2016 once a Dem Governor is in office. All of these anti-gun bills will be passed, regardless of any SC decision.

 

We'll see. Lets face it, when Corzine was in office no one thought we would get someone as centrist as Christie.  The tide is slowly turning on guns too. There are a HELL of a lot more gun owners their then you think, the stats are based on someone calling you on the phone. I can tell you that range attendance is through the roof.  The last few years we've seen many new gun shops and ranges opening, 10 years ago they were closing like flies.

 

I think we are see thing the death throws of the anti-gun movement. It is a dying animal and quite dangerous, but nevertheless it is going away. Look at the age of the anti-gun politicians, Most of the younger ones don't care. Look at the national democrats basically pushing back on the idea.  Hell, when Daily Kos and Huffington Post are starting to say gun control is stupid, you start seeing the tide turn.

 

It isn't over, we have a lots of fights left, but the tide is turning. You guys need to stop letting the enemy bring you down on emotion base alone, and realize that is ALL the enemy has, emotion. Eventually you can beat down emotion with logic.

 

Keep your chin up.

[magnawing 5]

I think we all may be surprised how many people would exercise their right to carry if they are given the opportunity. I'm not talking about the ones who are openly pro 2A, I'm talking about the Moms who have to take a minivan full of kids into Irvington/Newark/TheBowelsOfHell for a soccer playoff, the senior citizens who have been repeatedly harassed on buses in those same locations, the young waitresses/bartenders who leave work late at night, the hairdresser who closes up and makes the bank drop(my wife). A lot of those people haven't been vocal about CCW because they don't know that it's even an option in free states. Given the knowledge and opportunity, I think a surprising number of those people would hop on the CCW express. And, once they've gotten a taste of freedom, the Anti politicians who would try to take it away don't stand a chance.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[n4p226r 105]

I think the critical number is not the 14% of gun owners, but the number of voters who support the Bill of Rights in its entirety. I don't know the number but I hope it is significant enough for legislators to stick his neck out.

If the number of gun owners is 14%, the number that cares and actually thinks about the bill of rights is even less

[diamondd817 827]

If the number of gun owners is 14%, the number that cares and actually thinks about the bill of rights is even less

I think the rule of thumb is 3%. So, if there are 1 million gun owners in NJ (I have never seen this confirmed anywhere)that means we have about 30,000 that gives a shit. And that's spread out across the state. Hardly enough people to make a difference at the poles, as we have seen this last election cycle.

[ryan_j 0]

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor will be on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio this weekend. www.guntalk.com

 

Also Scott Bach will be on Gun for Hire Radio this weekend to discuss the cases.

[ChrisJM981 924]

JSF01 -

 

By the time this works through the court system and challenges, we will have a Democrat Governor, along with Dems controlling both houses. It will be all over for us come 2016 once a Dem Governor is in office. All of these anti-gun bills will be passed, regardless of any SC decision.

Then we file more lawsuits. Once carrying outside the home is established as a right, you can then take the average number of shots fired in self defense shootouts in NJ. Well, police carry a lot more ammo, and they're the only ones having shootouts. Home invasions with multiple perpetrators require more ammunition. Honestly I think the next target should be the AWB. Laws only matter when good guys and gals follow them. Keep your head held high.

[ryan_j 0]

JSF01 -

 

By the time this works through the court system and challenges, we will have a Democrat Governor, along with Dems controlling both houses. It will be all over for us come 2016 once a Dem Governor is in office. All of these anti-gun bills will be passed, regardless of any SC decision.

 

 

Does it give you guys some sort of pleasure to wallow in defeat like this? It's pretty pathetic, IMO. How about taking this victory, marching FORWARD and not backing down?

 

When Illinois got a weaker decision than this (Moore in the 7th circuit) the whole system began to fall like dominoes. All of a sudden, people were being released from prison for simple possession and other simple gun charges. Yes, there IS light at the end of the tunnel. Don't invest in defeat otherwise it will be self fulfilling prophecy!

[ryan_j 0]

Then we file more lawsuits. Once carrying outside the home is established as a right, you can then take the average number of shots fired in self defense shootouts in NJ. Well, police carry a lot more ammo, and they're the only ones having shootouts. Home invasions with multiple perpetrators require more ammunition. Honestly I think the next target should be the AWB. Laws only matter when good guys and gals follow them. Keep your head held high.

 

AWB fight is coming, but it will be a few years. The opening shots were fired with the challenge to the SAFE act in NY and the new law in CT. We should look to challenge our laws here in NJ as well. I have no idea why we aren't. But I suspect once carry is hashed out, we can go full throttle, attacking the magazine limits, AWB and other stuff. WE WILL PREVAIL. Keep that attitude and anything is possible!

[NJPatriot 0]

Its important to foster the "gun is only another tool" and other positive views regarding guns to law-abiding NJ citizens.  I have been actively doing my part to explain this and turn it into positive pro gun numbers.  Since the Newtown tragedy, I have discussed with friends and family and now my wife and 2 daughters, one of my daughters boyfriends, and sister-in law have all applied for and  received FID Cards.  Two of the 5 have bought handguns and my daughters/boyfriend are a couple of years from 21yr requirement from purchasing. They are also actively talking to friends and other applicants are on the horizon. They tell me that there friends don't fear guns, but it is more the lack of exposure to guns and lack of positive media associated with gun ownership. The NRA, SAF, NJRPC, NJ2AS and others need to advance recruitment of young adults through sponsoring interest/information programs and not preach to the choir.  Again, I am just getting started but from 1 we went to 5 in my immediate circle.  If there are a million gun owners in NJ and all had the same results maybe all NJ adults would come to own a gun and view them positively.  Maybe not realistic numbers, but certainly trending in a way that the NJ Politian's would need to respect.  

[JSF01 13]

JSF01 -

 

By the time this works through the court system and challenges, we will have a Democrat Governor, along with Dems controlling both houses. It will be all over for us come 2016 once a Dem Governor is in office. All of these anti-gun bills will be passed, regardless of any SC decision.

 

Than we take them to court and those laws get struck down. Than in the following elections we use that to are advantage, "X blatantly disregards the constitution. They passed 46 illegal laws that they knew in advanced of even drafting the bills that they were unconstitutional based on the court rulings, because they believe they are above the law of the land, and can do what ever they want."

 

AWB fight is coming, but it will be a few years. The opening shots were fired with the challenge to the SAFE act in NY and the new law in CT. We should look to challenge our laws here in NJ as well. I have no idea why we aren't. But I suspect once carry is hashed out, we can go full throttle, attacking the magazine limits, AWB and other stuff. WE WILL PREVAIL. Keep that attitude and anything is possible!

 I expect that AWB's will be next since there is no such thing other than what ever a politician feels should be called an "assault weapon", and as we have all seen politicians have no problem continuously expanding that definition. That means that if the SC were to rule that AWB are okay, than politicians can just continuously keep adding to the roster until firearms are defacto banned. With fact that there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" there is no line in the sand when it comes to AWB where you can say this is and this isn't constitutional, so the whole thing must be thrown out, or allow the ban of all firearms. It should be a relatively easy win.

 

I wonder if I go to the NRA headquarters building they would listen to me on some advise I have for when the AWB makes it to the SC? There is an angle that can be added to the argument against AWB, that I have never seen really talked about, and since I think we would win that case by including this angle it will hopefully be included in the reasoning why the AWB is unconstitutional, which in turn would really open up things to court challenge and give them a much greater chance of a win.

 

Its important to foster the "gun is only another tool" and other positive views regarding guns to law-abiding NJ citizens.  I have been actively doing my part to explain this and turn it into positive pro gun numbers.  Since the Newtown tragedy, I have discussed with friends and family and now my wife and 2 daughters, one of my daughters boyfriends, and sister-in law have all applied for and  received FID Cards.  Two of the 5 have bought handguns and my daughters/boyfriend are a couple of years from 21yr requirement from purchasing. They are also actively talking to friends and other applicants are on the horizon. They tell me that there friends don't fear guns, but it is more the lack of exposure to guns and lack of positive media associated with gun ownership. The NRA, SAF, NJRPC, NJ2AS and others need to advance recruitment of young adults through sponsoring interest/information programs and not preach to the choir.  Again, I am just getting started but from 1 we went to 5 in my immediate circle.  If there are a million gun owners in NJ and all had the same results maybe all NJ adults would come to own a gun and view them positively.  Maybe not realistic numbers, but certainly trending in a way that the NJ Politian's would need to respect.  

 This 100%, We need to be introducing as many people that we can to shooting, and talking about shooting out in the open. I firmly believe the main reason the Anti's have been so successful was because they had shamed us gun owners into not talking about our hobby, and therefore most people were easily convinced that gun owners were just a tiny group of crazy nut bags, due to the apparent lack of interaction with actual gun owners. The more public we are about our hobby and the more people we introduce to shooting, the faster the myths about gun owners that the Antis have been spreading will die, and the faster we will regain our rights.

[jrfly3006 42]

Common theme..get more people shooting...more interested in self defense.. Have them get more people involved..let the demand cause new shops and ranges to open..get the snowball rolling..if everyone pays it forward to the next the tide will turn in public opinion

[springfieldxds 0]

What affect is this ruling going to have on Hawaii since the 9th circuit also covers them?

 

Also doesn't this throw out the whole good cause scheme in all of California not just San Diego?

[waizen 0]

I believe this affects San Diego only at this time, although I'm no lawyer. And, it's still subject to appeals. Hey, but a chink in the armor is a chink in the armor...we'll take it for now.

 

Hello everyone...first time posting here. In the spirit of transparency, let me offer that I don't currently live in New Jersey; I live up in Vermont where I enjoy the opposite firearm legislative environment than you all do. I grew up in New Jersey, having left in '98 and still think of it as my home state, hence me cruising this NJ based forum.

 

I'm very active in the shooting culture up here, including being a rifle marksmanship instructor for a large national organization. Let's just say I'm very pro-2nd Amendment. Heck...I'm very pro Constitution. I never had a political bone in my body until the whole hot and heavy gun control movement showed its ugly head last year. My state's politicians have since gotten a steady dose of (courteous) communication from me.

 

What I wanted to offer is that my environonment, although very open to gun ownership, is also existing amidst a very Liberal political climate. Most of the top-level politicians are from elsewhere (a blue elsewhere) and have been put in place by a very Liberal public. We're the home to Bernie Sanders, an unabashed Socialist running on an Independent ticket.

 

Yet, although we had been subject to many attempts at gun control bills, especially at the beginning of last year, all the bills introduced were, up to this point, shot down. Why? How the heck did that happen even within a deeply entrenched Liberal government?

 

I think the difference is that gun ownership is still very much part of the Vermont culture. It is a hunting-based culture from way back where most folks grew up with easy access to firearms. People are very comfortable with guns around. They respect these items...they just don't fear them. It's much like power tool ownership: respect without fear.

 

Any politician who tries to poke the dark side of the typical gun owner up here stands to get a backlash, and for the most part, have backed down up to now (we stay vigilant). However, there have been many attempts early last year, as I've mentioned, by politicians who thought the time had come...the window of opportunity had opened up...to push their anti-gun agenda. For the most part, up to now, they backed down and ran back under the couch with their tails between their legs.

 

I, as well as most of my friends up here, can't wait for the next election day. We now have a list of names of politicians who have revealed what they're about.

 

Okay, so what I'm trying to say, is that the main thing that has made the difference between up here and NJ is the public's inner perception of guns, in general. My trips back to visit my family in NJ reveals a general attitude to firearms that are very negative. For the most part, the folks down by you are afraid of those dumb, inanimate objects. Even my Conservative-leaning group of relatives fall short of loosening up the laws in that draconian state.

 

Heck, despite my (hopefully) rational explanations of guns not being the problem, rather that the decision/motivation of the people abusing them is, for whatever warped reason, blah-blah-blah, is completely lost on my friends and family down by you, as I suspect, the rest of the general population. Not everyone, obviously, as all of you prove, but the general population of a typical blue state like NJ.

 

Change in laws are great. I completely applaud what is happening. I wish nothing more than to have you all enjoy the freedom to carry that I do. At this point, my biggest problem with carry is choosing the most comfortable IWB holster/gun combination and the shortage of ammo. Aside from schools, federal buildings, post office buildings and a few other things, concealed carry is completely legal by anyone over 18...even by visitors to our state, with a clean record of course. I don't even have to think about whether I have a permit in my wallet when I leave the house; there isn't one. All my semi-auto rifles are non-neutered...free of any evil feature regulations. Suppressors are the only banned item and rumblings have begun to change even that. Loaded rifles in cars are a no-no but that is really a hunting regulation thing...not a gun control thing.

 

I also find it amusing that Texas keeps getting the reputation as the gun-toting state. Vermont is completely Constitutional carry. Even Bloomberg hasn't pointed at Vermont as any kind of anti-gun example. You know why? Because it works up here! Even with all the guns around...even without the draconian grapple-hold regulations that you face...this is still one of the top two safest states in the country. That little fact seems to conveniently escape the antis.

 

Bottom line: even with the little chink in the San Diego law thing, the biggest challenge in NJ is a public relations one; the public's general view to gun ownership. Change that and you'll stand a better chance at changing the political structure, which works in your favor. Of course, I never said it was easy, but that's the course to take.

 

I wish everyone the freedom you deserve. My selfish wish to this is that it eventually...very eventually...opens the way for some kind of reciprocal that allows me to carry down there (through another out of state permit, since Vermont doesn't do recipricals directly except with other Constitutional Carry states).

[ryan_j 0]

I believe this affects San Diego only at this time, although I'm no lawyer. And, it's still subject to appeals. Hey, but a chink in the armor is a chink in the armor...we'll take it for now.

 

 

First of all, welcome. 

Secondly, this doesn't just affect San Diego (San Diego County, to be more accurate). It affects pretty much the whole 9th circuit and beyond.

 

Thirdly, the ruling really didn't strike down "good cause" in California or its cousin "justifiable need' here in NJ. What it did say is that roadblocking or rationing all forms of public carry is unconstitutional, and that one way of public carry at the very least must be available. It's not just mere possession of a firearm in public either, but the specific possession of an operable firearm for use in the case of confrontation, as ruled in the Heller decision. 

 

In the specific case of San Diego, it ruled that "self defense" must be accepted as "good cause" for issuance of a carry permit since the only form of carry of an operable firearm in California is concealed carry. But that doesn't mean that California, Hawaii, or even the Mariana Islands have to start issuing concealed carry permits. They could allow loaded open carry and that would comply with the ruling. 

 

But as a practical matter, you can bet that if they just allow open carry and restrict concealed carry permits to comply with the ruling, open carry activists will be showing up everywhere. There will be open carry marches and events galore. Hell, if it spread to NJ I would gladly take part in an open carry march on the state capitol in Trenton, and I would open carry everywhere I go, even to the Wawa because I neeyed to. So it would be in their best interest to allow concealed carry if they want to keep the guns hidden, you know, "for the children." 

 

As for affecting outside of CA, it creates a split and further deepens the confusion in the lower courts, therefore the Supreme Court should absolutely step in to resolve this. And there's no better vehicle to do it than the Drake case, which is our right to carry case. 

 

As for appeals, the next step is an "en banc" appeal, which in the 9th circuit means an appeal before a larger panel of judges. After that it can go to the US Supreme Court. But as with Heller, it doesn't really have to be that case. 

[waizen 0]

Wow, thanks for the great response. Unless I understand this incorrectly, this all this sounds like better news than I thought. You sound like you know your stuff. In your opinion, what is your prediction as to the outcome?

[ryan_j 0]

Wow, thanks for the great response. Unless I understand this incorrectly, this all this sounds like better news than I thought. You sound like you know your stuff. In your opinion, what is your prediction as to the outcome?

 

MY prediction? First of all, it's about as worthless as it gets. What I wrote is what I've been told by attorneys and what I've gathered from people like Eugene Volokh.

 

But I really can't say. I would say it's almost a certainty that they'd appeal for a rehearing en banc. What happens after that though, is anyone's guess. My guess (and it's just a guess!) is that they'll reverse this decision but they will twist it into a knotted pretzel to get the desired outcome. 

[wooly bugger 1]

But I really can't say. I would say it's almost a certainty that they'd appeal for a rehearing en banc. What happens after that though, is anyone's guess. My guess (and it's just a guess!) is that they'll reverse this decision but they will twist it into a knotted pretzel to get the desired outcome.

Have we applied for an en banc hearing not the 3CA case?

I'm hoping that whatever ultimately happens with Peruta, by the time it happens, SCOTUS will have already considered it a sign of a split and taken it on.

[ryan_j 0]

Have we applied for an en banc hearing not the 3CA case?

I'm hoping that whatever ultimately happens with Peruta, by the time it happens, SCOTUS will have already considered it a sign of a split and taken it on.

Yes, we applied for a rehearing and it was denied. I believe the vote was 8-4 or something like that.

[ryan_j 0]

Have we applied for an en banc hearing not the 3CA case?

I'm hoping that whatever ultimately happens with Peruta, by the time it happens, SCOTUS will have already considered it a sign of a split and taken it on.

Yes, we applied for a rehearing and it was denied. I believe the vote was 8-4 or something like that.

[springfieldxds 0]

Theres a good chance en banc will be denied by the 9th circuit, remember en banc is rarely ever approved, less than 1% of cases are approved and even if it is approved, by the time they hear the case, scotus will decide to hear Drake or not, so at that point it'll still be considered a split

 

This is very important for us very, this creates the split we needed, without this split scotus would of most likely turn down Drake

[Vlad G 345]

This is very important for us very, this creates the split we needed, without this split scotus would of most likely turn down Drake

 

I'm not sure about that. Scotus has been shopping for a case, the ones they turned back were just not that great. Drake is a much better case.

[springfieldxds 0]

Just my personal opinion but from my research scotus usually only approves cases with a split ie abortions

[springfieldxds 0]

But whatever it may be this split only helps our case

[quikz 34]

Theres alot of hooplah from you NJ folks and thats understandable due to your State's brainwash excersize for all these generations, for lack of a better description.

 

However, I would not just look at this NJ 'tree' and look at the whole forest and its impact. While this eliminates those faulty Circuit court rulings it may only cause NJ to practice more shady court hustling by drafting laws regs that are a continuation of their "progressive matrix of collective public safety". Basically, NJ may craft laws and regs that continue their regime of ctrl and try their best to make it 'lawsuit proof'.