Right-to-carry reform inched forward in California today as oral arguments were heard for Richards v. Prieto. Arguing for the plaintiffs, Alan Gura challenged the constitutionality of the state’s arbitrarily applied discretionary licensing system (and specifically how such discretion is exercised in Yolo County). With very narrow exceptions, the only legal way to carry a functional firearm for self-defense or other lawful purposes in California is to have a concealed-handgun license issued by the county sheriff or local police chief. As Gura argued, for these licenses to comply with the Second Amendment right to bear arms, they must be provided to all applicants not prohibited from owning firearms and cannot be denied for arbitrary reasons.
Regardless of how the judge eventually rules, appeals are expected.
Regardless of how the judge eventually rules, appeals are expected.
Let's get the budget nailed down before we start doing anything else.... priorities folks!
ReplyDeleteIndeed! California has so many fiscal problems to solve, but the Legislature still finds the time for new gun-control measures. When such legislation makes it past the Governor’s desk, state law sinks deeper into unconstitutionality that will require costly but untenable legal defense. See the recent injunction against AB 962 (De León) for an example.
ReplyDeleteFederal civil-rights litigation may not deter such legislative shenanigans, and in this case, the laws in question are already decades old. However, the authorities could simply do the right thing and exercise their discretion in a constitutional manner—an appeal I have personally made by the way. Instead, they choose to fight in court … at the taxpayer’s expense.