National Flanagan v. Becerra: Defending California’s Lifesaving Public-Carry Regulations

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by DuneHopper, Nov 30, 2018.

  1. DuneHopper

    (2- " Q " -+1)
    Civility is a two way street. Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Case Information: Flanagan v. Becerra, No. 18-55717 (9th Cir. amicus brief filed Nov. 27, 2018).

    At Issue: In 2016, an 11-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit appeals court ruled in Peruta v. County of San Diego that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry concealed guns in public, since historical evidence shows that governments have long exercised broad authority to regulate or prohibit concealed-carry. Following this decision, which the US Supreme Court declined to review, the National Rifle Association and individual plaintiffs filed a new challenge to the laws restricting California residents from carrying visible, loaded firearms in public. In Flanagan v. Becerra, the NRA now argues that if California allows local law enforcement to restrict concealed-carry, it must allow unrestricted “open-carry” of guns, even in populated areas. The district court rejected this dangerous position and upheld California’s open-carry regulations, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

    Giffords Law Center’s Brief: Our brief in Flanagan argues that California’s public-carry laws are constitutional under the applicable standard of review because substantial evidence shows that the state’s laws reasonably further critical public safety goals. Social science evidence and empirical studies confirm that lax public-carry laws increase the risk of gun violence. In addition, without reasonable open-carry restrictions like California’s, even well-intentioned gun carriers can throw the public and law enforcement officers into a state of potentially deadly confusion.

    Read the full text here.
  2. Taco_lean

    SW WA
    Well-Known Member 2018 Volunteer

    Likes Received:
    Damn these scum suckers to the deepest pits of hell. I can't stand reading the slimy garbage they spew!
  3. AMT

    Vancouver, WA.
    Gold Supporter Gold Supporter

    Likes Received:
    You know, I just got to thinking something..... Instead of the NRA and countless other "outside" entities dumping millions of dollars into legal battles in Kommiefornia, why not just completely back away, saving your money/time/effort and let the whole F'ing state implode on itself?

    Put that money into newspaper and TV ads to inform the people's of CA what is happening to them?

    When the "subjects of CA" see that their rights are being taken away and no one fighting on their behalf, maybe, JUST MAYBE they will open their eyes and start to fight for themselves. Maybe even start voting differently too? Maybe get rid of the infestation of vermin that are turning CA into a pre-draconian state!

    Why? Just WHY? is this being allowed and no one can see past their noses to see the long term effects the courts are doing to them and their state.

    I shake my head....:oops:
    Sandaholic and Taco_lean like this.
  4. BSG 75

    BSG 75
    Platinum Supporter Platinum Supporter

    Likes Received:
    A majority of California residents support more gun control and are happy with what is happening there. In a state that already has some of the strictest gun control a majority want more more more.

    Prop. 63 which added even more gun control in a state with strict gun control passed in 2016 with 63% of the vote.

    Keep in mind that more and more Californians with that pro-gun control mindset are moving to Oregon and Washington every year. Notice how many vehicles have California license plates the next time you drive around.
    Zathras, AMT and Taco_lean like this.
  5. User 1234

    User 1234
    Pierce County
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Likes Received:
    Because the 9th Circuit’s rulings affect other states also.
    Slobray and Zathras like this.

Share This Page