Brady Center: Fed Court Must Uphold Calif. Gun Law
WASHINGTON --- The Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed an amicus brief today in federal court in California in defense of San Diego County’s concealed handgun permitting process in Peruta v. County of San Diego.
The California Pistol & Rifle Association and five individuals sued San Diego County and its sheriff, claiming a constitutional right to carry loaded guns in public places, and challenging California’s "may issue" permitting process, under which law enforcement officers determine who has “good cause” to receive a permit allowing them to carry a concealed handgun in public places.
The Brady Center argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago held only that there is a Second Amendment right to possess guns in the home for self-defense, and do not require San Diego County to change its permitting process.
“The people of California have made the reasonable decision to keep people from legally carrying loaded guns in their streets, parks, and businesses, unless law enforcement determines someone has good cause to be armed,” said Brady Center President Paul Helmke. “The Constitution does not require people to be subjected to the grave risks of more loaded guns as they go about their daily lives. The Second Amendment should not be rewritten as a mandate for the gun lobby’s ‘any gun, anywhere, for anybody’ agenda.”
The brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, in support of San Diego County’s motion for summary judgment. The law firm of Hogan Lovells provided pro bono assistance.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
It is not the people of California that have made the unreasonable decision to infringe on the people's rights.
It is public servants that is handing out "permits" to it's own union members, and wealthy applicants only, for "legally" carrying loaded guns in their streets, parks, and businesses.
All applications for permission to exercise a United States constitutional right must be granted at no cost, unless law enforcement determines it has good cause not to.
The Constitution does not require people to be subjected to the grave risks of more free, Brady Center protected armed criminals as they go about their daily lives.
The Second Amendment should not be rewritten as a mandate for Paul Helmke's anti-rights lobby’s ‘no gun, nowhere, for nobody except criminals’ agenda.”
TRUE FACT: The state with the most gun control has a murder rate four times higher thant the state with the least.
The best service the Brady Campaign provides us is the Brady Scorecard. It tells us that California has the most gun control laws (over 20 state laws) and that Utah has the least gun restrictions. The FBI released the annual crime report on 9-13-2010 which reveals that California has 5.3 murders for each 100K of population while Utah has 1.3.
The states with the lowest murder rates have all adopted a policy of "shall issue" concealed carry with the exception of Vermont which has no law against concealed carry, therefore they don't issue permits. Vermont, by the way, has the second lowest murder rate in the nation.
The Brady Campaign has a "common sense" problem with the concept of More Guns, Less Crime. They also have a problem with their own facts as provided by their Scorecard. And I am...... E. Zach Lee-Wright
E Zach Lee-Wright
That the Brady people care so little about the Constitution.
Now that the Supreme Court has explained that "TO KEEP" means people have a right to own guns , the Supreme Court is going to have to explain to the fools that "TO BEAR" means people have a right to carry them but what can you expect the ones that are against guns are the same ones that worship a man who went Oxford and need the word "IS" explained to him
Caveat lector: Let the Reader Beware.
"The Brady Center argues that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago held only that there is a Second Amendment right to possess guns in the home for self-defense, and do not require San Diego County to change its permitting process."
Wrong. "[T]he Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." (McDonald v. City of Chicago, slip opinion at 33) So it is true, the Second Amendment indeed protects the right to keep and bear arms at home, but it also does so in other places. Otherwise the Court wouldn't have put "most notably", because if it were the only place it applied then another adverb would have been used. For instance, 'The Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes: ONLY for self-defense within the home.' However, this is not what the opinion states, and attempts by the Brady Campaign to intimate so is an attempt to beguile readers.
Second, the Heller decision spends its time talking about self-defense in the home because that was the issue at hand. However, it only notes that this a "core lawful purpose" (District of Columbia v. Heller, slip opinion at 58) of the right. In order for it to be the "core", there have to be OTHER USES of the amendment that surround the core. Otherwise the court would have said that the Second Amendment's "sole lawful purpose" was self-defense in the home. Again,
Finally, what the people of California thought was a reasonable decision in the past is no longer relevant. The entire point of a judicial department is to periodically revisit issues whose premises have changed. In this case the premise of "we can regulate firearms however we like" is no longer true in California post-McDonald. The Constitution in fact REQUIRES the courts to review legislation when people bring them up for dispute. That it may have a result opposite of one group's desired goal is a non-factor.
In Heller, the court notes that firearms laws are "presumptively lawful" (footnote 26) but the Brady Campaign seems to believe that this means that firearm laws cannot ever be challenged. The Court's language meant only that the Heller decision was not overturning any other laws except D.C.'s. That's it. It did not restrict challenges of other firearms laws in other courts in light of Heller, and now McDonald.
That's the thing with SCOTUS opinions: Every word is deliberate and purposeful. They, of all people, know the power of a misplaced word and choose every one with wisdom and careful consideration.
Good comment, PB.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
The Supreme Court ruled having the means to defend one's self is a fundamental right. That right is violated if a citizen is not allowed the means to defend themselves outside the home.
The Brady communists continue to argue that all gun owners are inherently violent people who would just as soon shoot someone as look at them. If that were true, how come any of the Brady communists are still alive? Wouldn't the millions of mad, blood crazed gun owners simply plug them anytime one showed a sillouette at any open door or window?
The mere fact no Brady communist has ever been targeted for execution by gun owners is a testament to the exemplary character of gun owners as a universal whole.
Anti abortionists murder and bomb.
Environmentalists murder and bomb.
Animal rights activists murder and bomb.
Religionists murder and bomb.
Anti war activists murder and bomb.
Yet gun owners are some of the most tolerant and civilized people on the face of the earth. The Brady communists, in love with the anecdotal, can't point to a single incident in over 200 years where a gun owner has resorted to violence in defense of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
In fact, the ONLY example of a Brady communist ever being shot is when one of their own had the misfortune to be loafing in one of their gun free zones when a bad guy showed up.
While the list of causes known for using violence can be expanded to include other groups, the point the list makes is strong and valid.
It is ironic that gun owners, as a group, are not prone to use violence as a vehicle to move their message, but the opposition tries to paint them as "gun nuts" regularly. The term is designed to conjure images of violence, as is the context of the accusations.
Very good points, Don.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
When a citizen needs government permission to practice the right. Mandating such redefines the right to 'privilege' status.
How would the average lefty feel if the 5th amendment right to not incriminate oneself was only valid if the police department approved it?
Think about it.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.