What's 'good cause' to carry a concealed gun?

[SecularMotion]

In California, where gun-control laws are among the country's most restrictive, local concealed-carry ordinances have survived a major challenge in a case that could make its way to the Supreme Court, potentially becoming one of the first major gun cases heard by the high court since District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7 to 4 on Thursday that municipal authorities can oblige gun owners to obtain a permit in order to carry concealed weapons. In the majority opinion, Judge William Fletcher wrote that the Second Amendment "does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

The case saw gun owners in San Diego and Yolo counties, backed by the California National Rifle and Pistol Association, contesting denials of their applications for concealed-carry permits, which require the applicant to demonstrate "good cause" for their weapons, beyond general self-defense. The plaintiffs sought to have the requirement struck down as unconstitutional.

In a 2010 affidavit filed by the manager of the sheriff's licensing office in San Diego, the office said the application of the lead plaintiff had been denied because he had not provided documentation proving that he had "good cause," perhaps the most difficult of California's permit requirements. Applicants must also complete a training course and be "of good moral character."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2016/0610/What-s-good-cause-to-carry-a-concealed-gun

[GreydeeThos]

1. It is not necessary to present 'good cause' to exercise a right

[NutmegYankee]

2. I tend to concur with the court that carrying a concealed weapon isn't a right.

But the "good cause" ruling calls into question the equal protection and due process clauses since it allows easy discrimination.

[Major Nikon]

3. Tell that to women who want to get an abortion

[hack89]

9. Which is why all rights must be defended

Not just the ones you agree with.

[Major Nikon]

10. There is no right to carry a gun around everywhere

[hack89]

11. We are heading in that direction

It is a natural extension of Heller and the right of self defense.

It is kind of a moot issue anyway - shall issue concealed carry is the norm in all but a couple of states. Controllers lost that battle a long time ago.

[Major Nikon]

12. Probably not since the ammosexual hero, Scalia is gone

Except for the remote possibility that Trump gets elected, the days of 5-4 far right decisions are a thing of the past.

The worm has turned and the glory days of the ammosexual just ain't coming back.

[hack89]

23. Here is the problem with that "analysis"

the gun rights issue has been fought and won at the state level. The status quo locks in expanded gun rights across the country with shall issue concealed carry being the norm. The gun control movement peaked in 1994 and they will not get back to that point in a very long time if ever. That was the lesson from the 1994 AWB - put the laws in place at the state level so Congress can't implement sweeping gun control laws.

[Major Nikon]

26. So the gun control movement peaked and the pendulum swung the other way

...thanks to far right wing influence, but your "analysis" doesn't allow for the possibility of that going the other way.

Whether you like it or not, the far right movement has had it's day in this country and the inevitability is that a much bigger pendulum is going to start it's reversal sooner or later(probably sooner), and thanks to changing demographics will almost certainly never return.

[hack89]

33. All states including blue states expanded gun rights

Time will tell but there is absolutely no evidence that more gun control is a priority for the American public.

[Major Nikon]

37. "No evidence"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[hack89]

38. It goes up and it goes down. What is your point?

in the past four year alone there have been 10 point swings in both directions. In the past 10 years support appears to fluctuate around 50% in a fairly tight band.

Let me know when you get back to the level of support there was in 1994.

[Major Nikon]

41. So you went from "no evidence" to it "swings in both directions"

If you really are that bad at following a point, I'm done here. If you're not, I'm definitely done here.

[hack89]

42. A steady state for 10 years is not evidence of a sea change in support for gun control

you undercut your own argument. It is not complicated.

Gun control has been definitely done for a long time.

[aikoaiko]

58. The pendulum swinging will require Americans to prioritize gun control and they don't

Gun control is pretty far down the list in 2016.

[OldRedneck]

16. No, it is not "a natural extension" of Heller

Read my comment elsewhere in this thread.

Writing for the majority in Heller, Scalia stated that nothing in Heller shall preclude local authorities from implementing controls on the sale, possession, and use of firearms. Even though Heller established the individual right to "keep and bear arms," Heller also recognized that firearms need to be controlled and, thus, the decision established the right of local authorities to do exactly that.

[hack89]

22. Peruta will ultimately be decided by the SC within the context of self defense

but again - a moot point. Shall issue CCW is the norm in America. For most American's this current ruling is irrelevant.

[baldguy]

4. Concealed carry is not a right.

[hack89]

5. Self defense is

Open carry is an acceptable alternative I guess but concealed carry is less of a hassle for all concerned.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Not in the 2nd amendment. Nor anywhere else

in the constitution. There is no explicit right to self defense. The 2nd bases gun rights on collective security "security of a free State" not individual security, and your right is to
"bear arms" and that has always meant to openly carrying your guns.

[hack89]

35. Heller is predicated on the right to self defense

so yes, according to the SC you have a right to self defense. Peruta will be decided in that context.

[sarisataka]

44. Begs the question

Is there a right to self-defense?

[baldguy]

49. I have a right to take a shit - a biological imperative, you might say.

But I don't have the right to take a shit anytime, anywhere, or in any manner I choose.

[hack89]

51. Self defense was at the core of Heller

Peruta will extend that right. But it is a moot point anyway- shall issue concealed carry is the norm in all but a couple of states. This case is not really a game changer.

[roamer65]

53. Only one state views CC as a "right" that I know of.

Vermont. In Vermont, if you able to own it, you can CC it without a permit.

[former9thward]

59. That is the law of the state I live in.

Arizona.

[OldRedneck]

15. You need to read Scalia's opinion in Heller v. DC

In a landmark decision handed down in the case of Heller v. DC, the SCOTUS ruled that Second Amendment establishes an INDIVIDUAL right to own a weapon.

HOWEVER -- in spite of the fact that the NRA and every other "Second Amendment" organization celebrated, what none of them want you to know is this. In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia -- not exactly a "gun grabber" -- wrote that nothing in this decision shall prevent local authorities from establishing reasonable controls on the sale, ownership, or use of a firearm. Now, I know that's not Scalia's exact words but that's what he said.

So, yes, it is necessary to present "good cause" to exercise a right. And you do it all the time.

You have the right to own a dog. There is good cause for you not to mistreat the animal, otherwise, the dog will be taken from you and you could do jail time.

You have the right to drive a vehicle. But you must show good cause to do so in the form of passing a licensing exam.

You have the right to free speech. But you must show good cause by not engaging in libelous speech.

Thus endeth the lesson.

[Recursion]

18. I still think that Scalia's opinion in Heller was a gun control victory

He literally wrote out a liberal wishlist for gun control as things that were permissible, and said the only place the Constitution draws the line is a complete civilian ownership ban like DC had.

And, I mean, even on DU I think it's hard to find a lot of people who will go to bat for a literal 100% civilian gun ownership ban like DC had.

[aikoaiko]

57. Yes and no.

In Heller this sections seems to suggest a total ban on assault weapons or semi-autos might be constitutional.

In addition, at least six States and Puerto Rico impose
general bans on certain types of weapons, in particular
assault weapons or semiautomatic weapons. See [cases].
And at least 14 municipalities do the
same. See Municipal Codes]. These bans, too,
suggest that there may be no substitute to an outright
prohibition in cases where a governmental body has
deemed a particular type of weapon especially dangerous.

And in this section of Heller, Scalia closes the door on some specific regulations.

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; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

But it is this section that really opens the door for further expansions of 2nd Amendment protections.

JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications
of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for
not providing extensive historical justification for those
regulations of the right that we describe as permissible.
See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this
Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment,
one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,
any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145
(1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left
that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be
time enough to expound upon the historical justifications
for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those
exceptions come before us.

[Jerry442]

20. Quite right.

The First Amendment has no qualifying phrases (unlike 2A), yet no one suggests that anyone should have the right to, say, go to a busy playground and scream death threats.

[GulfCoast66]

34. I agree with your overall point

But your 'lessons' are very flawed.

You have no right to own a dog. Many apartment complexes ban them and your town or city would have every legal right to do so as well.

You have no right to drive. No state is forced to issue drivers licenses and there are many reasons the state can revoke a license even as simple as failure to pay for a new one when your current one expires

And I have every right to libel someone and the government will do absolutely nothing about it. Now, the citizen I libel may then sue me but the government will be neutral in the process.

[DrDan]

6. insecure, self-doubt, unstable, immature, volatile?

[Major Nikon]

21. You left out stupid, paranoid, and otherwise mentally ill

[former9thward]

60. I guess you like to project

[Major Nikon]

62. A clever repackaging of the worn out, I'm rubber, you're glue line!

Brilliant!

[whistler162]

24. So we can surmise you carry a gatling gun!

[DrDan]

36. not afraid to walk in public without a gun

[rock]

7. Suppose you want to practice balancing a pistol on top of your head

with the barrel pointing down, of course. Since this is a tricky stunt, you'd need lots of practice. You may want to progress through the more difficult variations of this stunt: 1) fully loaded gun; 2) then cocked; 3) exploding bullets. I'd recommend you practice it at every free moment. Of course this means carrying it with you. And of course, you'd like it concealed so as not to upset any fraidy cats in the area who may be wondering what you're doing with a gun.

[Amishman]

8. living in or regularly travelling to a high crime area

living in or regularly travelling to a high crime area would be a decent standard for me.

some others would be

frequently being responsible for significant amounts of cash or property (small business owners for example)
being able to provide proof of threats against you
being physically limited and otherwise unable to defend yourself at all

[7962]

13. Not good enough for many here nt

[Amishman]

47. and too loose for others here

and for a lot of CA counties as well

Once again on a gun related topic, the best answer is in the middle and the two extremes drown out any moderate voice

[7962]

48. good point

[hunter]

50. What a crock.

The thing that makes our high murder rate city suck is assholes carrying guns.

Every last one of them thinks they deserve to carry a fucking gun.

Gangsters, cops, doesn't matter, all gun humpers are assholes.

[JoePhilly]

14. Living in "west" during the 1800s.

[Major Nikon]

27. The John Wayne west of the 1800s

Not the real one.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Many towns had strict gun control.

Guns Cowboys and Saloons were a bad combination, so you parked your guns with the sheriff.

[Igel]

40. Strict controls

usually are "solution to a real problem."

Don't like the drug laws from the '80s? Fine. Why did they exist? Apart from a couple of quotes, there's a mass of news articles with advocates for all sorts of groups calling for them because of what even *they* called a "crack epidemic."

Don't like gun control today? Fine, but why are there calls for it? Because guns are a problem.


Strict laws and regulations tend to allow the presupposition of a serious problem being dealt with. So if those towns had strict controls on guns, it rather implies that they were a problem and residents thought, in the absence of the regulations, they would be a problem.

Rather than showing that the "wild west" was pure fiction, it sort of suggests that outside of the towns (and in the absence of the laws) it would have been a bit wild. Not as wild as fiction would suggest. But a problem. (As was lynching, or to use the "western" word, "neck tie parties.&quot

[Recursion]

17. Law enforcement generally considers being white and UMC reason enough

I'm on the "skeptical" side of most gun control questions, but I also think public carrying at least can legally be pretty strictly regulated and also in many cases probably should be. That said, once you leave things up to the discretion of law enforcement... well... they're not exactly always our friends.

As long as there's a legal way to get your firearm from your home to the shooting range, it shouldn't be a problem (they do make cases, after all). But simply allowing law enforcement to arbitrarily allow some people to carry and not others is troublesome. (e.g. Blackwater or whatever it calls itself now makes sure to curry enough favor to get all their operatives carry licenses in all 50 states.)

[Angel Martin]

19. In California "good cause" is

politician or celebrity
a friend of the county sheriff
big donor to the majority political party in that county
hires expensive lawyers to press their application

[leftyladyfrommo]

25. If you are female and going to Stanford.

They have a rape there every two weeks.

[Iggo]

29. Fear.

Fear of being without a gun.

Fear of people knowing you're carrying one.

[GulfCoast66]

31. I do not think concealed carry

Is a right. Even though I have a concealed carry license.

I got mine for 1 very specific situation.

-the wife and I often kayak fish in very remote areas out of cell phone coverage. After a couple of worrying incidents with Dicey people in these areas, I realized that I would be helpless to defend my wife or myself in a life or death situation. Unfortunately, wilderness areas tend to attract people looking for victims. I will be the first to say the chances are low, but things do happen in these isolated places and you are on your own. In many areas under state law I could have my firearm with me with no License. But in a WMA or other federal lands the only way you can legally even posses a firearm is with a valid concealed license.

I never carry other than then and my guns are kept locked in a safe. In a normal situation having a gun just increases the possibility of an accident.

[Hoyt]

32. The truth won't work -- need something to make me feel powerful; like george zimmerman I need a

gun to intimidate unarmed black kids; going to the store without a gun is frightening; like michael dunn, I don't like black kids playing music; my yahoo buddies expect me to carry a gun; I feel puny without a gun; the NRA wants me and millions more to carry a gun to Chuck E Cheese; and worse.

You'll never get a yahoo gun toter tell you the ugly truth about why they carry.

[Marengo]

55. Is that the case for all carriers?

[Hoyt]

56. Pretty much. There might be a few that have a legitimate need for a gun, but hey aren't gun fancier

gun accumulators, gun promoters/profiteers. Most carriers are just losers who rationalized their sick need for guns.

[Aristus]

39. Being a cowardly, dickless buffoon who is afraid of his own shadow, and needs to possess

the ability to commit mass-murder, and take it with him everywhere he goes.

Seems about right...

[sarisataka]

43. Per SOP,

Doesn't this belong in one of the gun groups?

Perhaps you are unaware-

Posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports are restricted in this forum

[linuxman]

45. Because if confronted with violence,

a person's ability to survive shouldn't hinge on their sprinting or karate proficiency.

[Brickbat]

52. Whatever it is, it's not for the county sheriff to decide.

[ileus]

54. Your life should always be reason enough for a CC permit.

What better reason than wanting to stay alive? It would seem to be the #1 priority for everyone IMHO.

[TeamPooka]

61. A Zombie apocalypse. nt

[B Calm]

63. With all the cops now days shooting citizens, I'm not sure if we shouldn't

all be armed.