Posts Tagged ‘CCW’

In a closely watched case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant decision on March 21, in which it affirmed the ability of state law enforcement to limit the carrying of guns in public places. Reversing the decision of a federal district court in Maryland, the circuit court held that a requirement under Maryland law – that an individual demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” in order to qualify for a permit to carry a handgun in public – does not violate the Second Amendment.

Notably, the Fourth Circuit rebuked the district court for making a “trailblazing pronouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the home” and it advised courts that they should await direction from the U.S. Supreme Court before determining whether or to what extent the Second Amendment might protect the possession of firearms in public.

The decision confirms that reasonable restrictions on carrying of handguns in public are constitutional, even if they strictly limit the number of individuals who may carry a handgun. As the Fourth Circuit explained, “The State has clearly demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement advances the objectives of protecting public safety and preventing crime because it reduces the number of handguns carried in public. That is, limiting the public carry of handguns protects citizens and inhibits crime.”

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

(Update: The Ninth Circuit has posted audio of the arguments in Peruta v. County of San Diego, Richards v. Prieto, and Baker v. Kealoha.)

This Thursday, December 6th, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will consider an issue of critical importance to the safety of our communities: whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a concealed, loaded handgun in public places.

Three cases being heard on Thursday morning involve challenges to state laws in California and Hawaii that require an applicant for a concealed carry license to show a legitimate need to carry a weapon.

We’ve been supporting defense counsel with our Second Amendment expertise because we know how important these cases are. Favorable decisions here could reaffirm law enforcement’s ability to protect public safety by limiting the number of people carrying hidden, loaded handguns in California and Hawaii.

The three cases being heard by the Ninth Circuit are Peruta v. County of San Diego (challenging San Diego County’s application of the California law), Richards v. Prieto (challenging Yolo County’s application of the same law), and Baker v. Kealoha (challenging Hawaii’s law).

For more about these cases, read our amicus briefs in Peruta and Richards. If you live in the Bay Area, oral arguments are open to the public, and the Ninth Circuit courthouse is located at 95 7th Street in San Francisco. On Friday, audio and video of the arguments will be available on the Ninth Circuit’s web site.

These cases will undoubtedly have nationwide significance in this emerging area of Second Amendment jurisprudence. The Second Circuit recently upheld New York’s discretionary concealed carry law in a great decision, and similar cases are also pending in the Third and Fourth Circuits.

Brett A. Clark/The Daily Advance

Around the country, courts are confronting a critical question: whether the Second Amendment requires states to issue concealed handgun licenses to virtually anyone who wants one.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed that question, holding that New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants show “a special need for self-protection” does not violate the Second Amendment.  In Kachalsky v. Cacace, the court explained that the requirement of a showing of need is substantially related to the government’s important interests in preventing crime and guaranteeing public safety.  The court found that the requirement is consistent with gun regulation that has existed since the nation’s founding, noting, “[t]here is a longstanding tradition of states regulating firearm possession and use in public because of the dangers posed to public safety.”  New York has required a showing of need for carrying a concealed weapon for 100 years.

While many states issue a concealed handgun license to virtually anyone who applies, states like California and New York require an applicant to show a legitimate need to carry a gun in public, usually by presenting documentation of a real threat to the applicant’s safety.  Those requirements are now under attack in a number of Second Amendment lawsuits nationwide brought by individuals who have no legitimate need to carry guns in public places.

Thankfully, the courts are standing up for the safety of their citizens and protecting the laws that work to reduce the violence that plagues their communities. For more this trend, read our publication, The Second Amendment Battleground: Victories in the Courts and Why They Matter.

To find out more about this case, read the decision in Kachalsky v. Cacace.

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

Case Information: Birdt v. L.A. Sheriff’s Department, Civil No. 12-55115 [DC No. CV-08377-JAK] (9^th Cir. Filed November 5, 2012)

At Issue: Challenging California’s concealed carry “good cause” provision and the authority of law enforcement to issue concealed weapons permits. This lawsuit challenges the “good cause” provision contained in California’s concealed carry statute.  California law allows an applicant for a concealed carry permit to receive a permit only if he or she has demonstrated to local law enforcement good cause to carry a concealed firearm.  Plaintiff argues that the good cause provision violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Law Center’s Brief:  Our brief, filed in support of the Los Angeles Police Department and, more broadly, California’s discretionary concealed carry law, argues that California’s statutory provisions do not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Moreover, even if the permitting process implicates protected Second Amendment activity, it easily survives the appropriate level of review – intermediate scrutiny – due to the obvious and substantial public safety benefits from carefully limiting the concealed carry of loaded firearms in public.

Download a PDF of the Birdt_v_L.A._Sheriff’s_Dept_Amicus_Brief.

Photograph: Chris Ochsner/AP

Case Information:  Mehl v. Blanas, No. 08-15773 (9^th Cir. Filed Nov. 16, 2012)

At Issue:  Challenging California’s concealed carry “good cause” provision.  This lawsuit challenges the “good cause” provision of California’s concealed carry permitting statute.  California allows local law enforcement to issue concealed weapon licenses to individuals who can, among other requirements, demonstrate “good cause” for the issuance of the license.  Plaintiff argues that California’s good cause provision violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Law Center’s Brief:  Our brief, filed in support of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and the agency’s concealed-carry licensing scheme, argues that California’s concealed carry law – that gives discretion to local law enforcement to grant or deny a concealed weapon license – and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s application of that statute are legitimate exercises of the state’s police power aimed at the threat that loaded and hidden firearms pose to public safety.  Moreover, California’s law does not implicate, let alone substantially burden, the right protected by the Second Amendment, and is not subject to heightened scrutiny.  If heightened scrutiny is required, the brief argues, intermediate scrutiny should be applied, and the statute satisfies that standard.

Over the past four years, our nation’s courts have become a major battleground in the debate about gun violence in our communities. Right now, people who want to carry loaded firearms on public streets are forcing judges across the country to question the scope of the Second Amendment. But where should judges turn for guidance in evaluating these claims? The Supreme Court’s landmark Heller decision in 2008 effectively upended the legal understanding of the Second Amendment that had existed for almost eighty years. When it comes to gun litigation, courts are now having to evaluate how to keep our communities safe with little Second Amendment case law to guide them.

The Law Center is helping to fill that void through amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs in significant Second Amendment cases across the country. Because we are the only organization in the country that tracks Second Amendment litigation, national, state, and local firearms laws, and pending firearms legislation nationwide, we have unique expertise that can help courts understand the critical importance of smart laws to prevent gun violence. Through amicus briefs, we can present that expertise to courts shaping the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Amicus briefs enable us to get involved in precedent-setting cases that have nationwide significance, since numerous challenges to similar gun laws are currently pending before courts across the country. We recently filed an amicus brief in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Hightower v. Boston, in which we argued that a Massachusetts law requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon in public does not violate the Second Amendment. When the court issued its decision upholding the law on August 30th, it became the first federal appellate court in the nation to issue a decision on a Second Amendment challenge to a concealed carry law. Six other federal appellate courts are currently facing similar challenges.  READ MORE »

Pending Legislation Worries Restaurant, Bar Owners
Stephanie Carroll Carson, The Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, June 20, 2012

North Carolina is considering legislation that would allow persons with state concealed-carry permits to bring their handguns into restaurants and bars.  Business owners and the general public are concerned about the public safety implications of the proposed law.

Photo by Jonathan Gibby/Getty Images

On April 14, 2012, Arizona Governor Janice Brewer vetoed a bill, for the second year in a row, that would have weakened restrictions on carrying a loaded firearm in public buildings and on public property.  Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton vetoed a bill on March 5, 2012 that would have created reciprocity with concealed weapons permits from all other states and expanded current stand your ground provisions outside of the home. In South Dakota on March 19, 2012, South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill that would have allowed the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit.

Want to see more success stories? You can find them here.

WHAT HAPPENED?
Under Texas law, an individual must be 21-years-old in order to obtain a permit to legally carry a concealed handgun outside of the home.  Several individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 who wanted to carry concealed weapons in Texas filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the age restriction violated the Second Amendment in Jennings v. McCraw.

HOW SAFETY WINS
A judge in Texas upheld the challenged law.  He found that the Second Amendment is limited to allowing an individual to keep a firearm at home for the purpose of self-defense, and therefore, that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry a firearm outside of the home, regardless of one’s age.  Thus, the judge did not need to consider the appropriateness of the age restriction.  The ruling is particularly significant for its strong, definitive language finding that the Second Amendment does not extend outside of the home.

Sweeping legislation introduced in West Virginia this year would have allowed concealed carry without a permit almost everywhere in the state. The measure would have also made it a felony for a local government or university official to regulate firearms and would have provided prison time for those found to violate the restriction. In addition, a public agency or official found to have maintained a list of gun owners’ names could have be fined up to five million dollars.  The bill died when legislators failed to act on it prior to the adjournment of the session on March 12^th.