What does the 9th circuit strike down?
Here's a teaser: it involves public carry of firearms.
Over the fold.
Some background: California has what is known as "may issue" concealed carry. You can fit all the criteria but your CPL application acceptance isn't guaranteed.
You need a reason to obtain a carry permit in certain parts of Cali and "self defense" just isn't good enough all by itself. "Good cause" is what's needed...except it's not. Well, not anymore.
We are called upon to decide whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.Interesting....what next?
To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the homeSo open or concealed carry are both fine. So outlaw one but leave the other? That's not quite what I was expecting. Fun times.
We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. . . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”I think you need to repeal the amendment through normal processes...
And the winning quote from this whole document:
The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summaryI wish California luck in passing their shall issue concealed (or open) carry law to comply with this ruling and start allowing "self defense" as a reason to carry a firearm in public.
judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s “good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.