
Specifically, the
court said that San Diego’s restrictive concealed carry laws that
require citizens to prove a need to defend themselves are
unconstitutional.
The case of Edward Peruta, et al v.
County of San Diego, et al dealt with a concealed carry permitting
process that made it virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to get a
license. (California already has a total ban on open carry.)
The National Rifle Association (NRA) funded the plaintiffs’ legal battle. Paul Clement was the lead attorney in the case and argued it before the Ninth Circuit.
“One of reasons the NRA thought this was a good case to bring was precisely the combination of California state law banning open carry and San Diego policy on licensing for concealed carry made it quite definitive that an ordinary, lawful citizen with an interest in self defense couldn't carry no matter what,” Mr. Clement told me in an interview late Thursday.
“This decision is a very significant case because most of the courts of appeals have upheld the carry laws,” the former solicitor general during the Bush administration explained.
“Once the Supreme Court said in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, then you can no longer expect business as usual.”
This is the strongest, most throughly documented ruling at the federal appeals court level in opposition to the controversial laws on restricting carry in “may issue” states. The two majority judges said their view was “akin” to the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation in Moore v. Madigan, which overturned the ban on all carry rights in Illinois in Dec. 2012.
(Click link below to read more)
READ MORE Sphere: Related Content
No comments:
Post a Comment