search
top

Setback for Concealed Carry in California

The judge in this case rules that the right to carry a weapon concealed is limited. The court here essentially argues that California allows unloaded open carry, with loaded open carry being permitted if there’s an immediate danger, and that this satisfies the constitutional requirement.  I think the courts reasoning here is flawed, but the argument seems to be that since it was the concealed carry statute that was challenged, rather than the open carry statute, that the concealed carry statute could be held to pass constitutional muster. The court at least seems to acknowledge that a total prohibition on guns outside the home could be problematic, but this is far from the ruling we want. The opinion is here if you want to read it.

5 Responses to “Setback for Concealed Carry in California”

  1. aubrey says:

    I’m actually not totally opposed to this IF (big if) open carry is not made de facto illegal with police harrasment.

  2. Anon R. D. says:

    But need loaded open carry.

  3. Hank Archer says:

    I wonder what would have happened it the Democrats had been able to get their open carry ban through the legislature last fall.

  4. BC says:

    The crux of the opinion seems to be, “Well, you can lawfully carry an unloaded gun around with you, and you can lawfully load it if you’re confronted with some immediate threat, so what’s the problem, gun nuts?”

  5. BC says:

    In other words it’s a variation on Breyer’s “as long as you can somehow, some way, kinda sorta maybe do something like what you really want, then there’s been no infringement on your right to arms” BS.

top