# Federal judge rules against Calif. gun advocates



## Bob Hubbard (May 17, 2011)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/16/federal-judge-rules-calif-gun-advocates/



> A federal judge ruled Monday there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public  a decision that dealt a setback to gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits.



I would disagree. The USC doesn't distinguish between open and concealed carry. Just says "bear arms".



> U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England Jr. in Sacramento supported a policy by Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto that says applicants must have a reason, such as a safety threat, to legally carry a concealed weapon in his county northwest of Sacramento.



Not understanding the reasoning. I need to wait until I'm threatened? 



> England countered that California law currently lets gun owners carry an unloaded weapon so it can be quickly loaded and used in self-defense if needed.



Ok, how long to open purse, dig around, find bullets, find magazine, load magazine, load gun?  I wonder if the judge has ever tried to draw, load and fire a weapon.



> Meanwhile, the California state Assembly approved a bill Monday by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, which would ban openly carrying unloaded handguns in public.



So, only criminals and cops, and politicians armed body guards can have guns in California?



> "Obviously it doesn't do anyone any good to walk around with an unloaded gun, especially in public, because that's just an advertisement for a criminal to take it off your person," Gura said. "They're not going to have time to start loading their handgun. Criminal events usually play out more quickly than that."



What? You mean muggings aren't scheduled weeks in advance?  Yeah, I'm being sarcastic here.

Different case mentioned here:


> Prieto's seven-page policy limits permits to those who can demonstrate they have been victims of a violent crime, have had threats of violence, or business owners who carry large amounts of cash.
> 
> The Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation and three individuals sued in 2009, alleging Prieto's policy also violates First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection guarantees.
> 
> ...



"Prevents gun-related crime"???
Right. I'm sure many a mugger has paused and said "Wait a minute! I can't rob that man. I haven't got a permit for my gun."


I'm not a gun fan, but really....


----------



## OKenpo942 (May 17, 2011)

Yes, these are the brilliant individuals that are destroying this great country. What the heck happened to common sense? 

Next thing you know, we will need a permit to exercise our 1st amendment right. "Do you have a permit to speak your mind?... No?... Come with me." Absolutely ridiculous. Glad I got out of California when I did. What a joke it has become.

James


----------



## shesulsa (May 17, 2011)

I"m sure they just want the gun violence to stop ... but they're taking the guns from the wrong people.

What are they smo ... oh yeah, right!


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 17, 2011)

OKenpo942 said:


> Yes, these are the brilliant individuals that are destroying this great country. What the heck happened to common sense?
> 
> Next thing you know, we will need a permit to exercise our 1st amendment right. "Do you have a permit to speak your mind?... No?... Come with me." Absolutely ridiculous. Glad I got out of California when I did. What a joke it has become.
> 
> James


I sense most of these type of ruling come from the fact that there are armed gangs roaming the streets and shooting each other in California and attempts to disarm those guys encroaches on the rights of the average citizen.
Sean


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 28, 2013)

First: this is California, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals serves (OK, I'm being nice) them. They are traditionally known for their overly liberal decisions, and being willing to flout all other court decisions, including those of the USSC. 

Second: You might want to look at the USSC's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Or just look at my relpy to a thread started by Big Don in The Study on an interview of VP Biden.

If it is appealed to the USSC, the 9th Circuit's decision will be struck down unless there is some very strange circumstances. The problem is a lot of things from the 9th Circuit don't get appealed, or the USSC is to busy or disinterested in accepting the appeal.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 28, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm not a gun fan, but really....



My how a year and a half have changed you, Bob.
Or, maybe, you just realized it is just one more civil right?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Feb 28, 2013)

Big Don said:


> My how a year and a half have changed you, Bob.
> Or, maybe, you just realized it is just one more civil right?



I'm confused.  The OP here was in 2011.

I wrote this in 2008.

My current views are heavy pro-gun.

Not sure where I've changed?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 28, 2013)

I wondered... I've been reading your decidedly pro gun owner posts and just hadn't seen this.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 28, 2013)

All weapons (excluding the obvious like a penknife) can not be conceiled. Even Eskrima sticks are supposed to be put in the trunk.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------

