AdvocacyFeaturedGun RightsInfo WarNewsOpinionPoliticsSecond Amendment

2A Advocates File Open-Carry Restriction Suit In California

Gun-rights advo­cates filed a sweep­ing new legal chal­lenge Wednes­day to California’s open-car­ry restric­tions — argu­ing a recent court deci­sion effec­tive­ly denies res­i­dents “their fun­da­men­tal rights to bear arms” and con­tra­dicts a land­mark Supreme Court rul­ing on the Sec­ond Amend­ment.

Plain­tiffs say the case, Flana­gan v. Har­ris, is a “direct response” to a recent rul­ing by the Ninth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals that pre­served a Cal­i­for­nia coun­ty sheriff’s restric­tive poli­cies on car­ry­ing a con­cealed weapon.

Con­sid­er­ing the state’s addi­tion­al restric­tions on car­ry­ing a gun open­ly in pub­lic, plain­tiffs argued in their new law­suit that they have been “com­plete­ly barred from exer­cis­ing their right to bear arms—in any man­ner.”

The suit con­tends, “the Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms can­not be com­plete­ly fore­closed.”

The plain­tiffs include gun own­er and res­i­dent Michelle Flana­gan as well as the Cal­i­for­nia Rifle & Pis­tol Asso­ci­a­tion.

In the ear­li­er case chal­leng­ing local con­cealed-car­ry restric­tions, a three-judge pan­el of the Ninth Cir­cuit — based in San Fran­cis­co and the largest of all fed­er­al appeals courts – ini­tial­ly agreed with the plain­tiffs, say­ing in 2014 that the poli­cies were uncon­sti­tu­tion­al.

How­ev­er, the pan­el then asked the case be re-heard by an 11-judge bench, which essen­tial­ly found that deny­ing a con­cealed-car­ry license does not vio­late Sec­ond Amend­ment rights because there is no con­sti­tu­tion­al right to car­ry a con­cealed weapon.

Lawyers in the new case argue the plain­tiffs in the orig­i­nal case nev­er made the con­cealed-car­ry claim, and the court’s deci­sion shows a “con­strained view of the right to bear arms.”

More broad­ly, they say the new case seeks to affirm what the Supreme Court instruct­ed in the land­mark gun-rights case Dis­trict of Colum­bia v. Heller  — that the Sec­ond Amend­ment guar­an­tees the indi­vid­ual right of a respon­si­ble, law-abid­ing cit­i­zens to keep and bear arms.

The suit names Cal­i­for­nia Attor­ney Gen­er­al Kamala Har­ris and Los Ange­les Sher­iff James McDon­nell as defen­dants.

The Attor­ney General’s Office on Wednes­day referred ques­tions about the case to Har­ris’ state­ment after the Ninth Circuit’s full bench rul­ing in ear­ly June.

The dev­as­tat­ing impact gun vio­lence has on our com­mu­ni­ties under­scores the need for com­mon sense gun safe­ty laws,” the attor­ney gen­er­al said regard­ing that deci­sion. “The court’s deci­sion is a vic­to­ry for pub­lic safe­ty and sen­si­ble gun safe­ty laws. The rul­ing ensures that local law enforce­ment lead­ers have the tools they need to pro­tect pub­lic safe­ty by deter­min­ing who can car­ry loaded, con­cealed weapons in our com­mu­ni­ties.”

Is This The New FBI Model Glock 17M? Seems So.
Previous post

New Glock 17M For The Man? FBI's New Gun

Blacklist TiN Threaded Barrel Glock 19
Next post

New #Blacklist Barrel Came In Today

ER1C ☠

ER1C ☠

Dedicated Second Amendment Advocate, At-Home Gunsmith, Designer, Blogger, Video Guy, Author, Business Owner & ReloadOne Member.

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.