Are California’s concealed carry requirements too strict?

June 16, 2015

handgunA federal appeals court in San Francisco is hearing arguments Tuesday on whether California’s restrictions on concealed carry permits can stand the test of the Second Amendment. [Wall Street Journal]

In California, applicants who wish to carry concealed handguns in public must show they have good cause before receiving permits. California is one of several states that grant local authorities the power to use broad discretion when denying concealed carry permits.

Plaintiffs sued San Diego and Yolo counties, as well s their sheriffs, in 2010 and 2011 respectively over concealed carry permit requirements. In both counties, the sheriffs said concern for one’s personal safety is not alone justification for receiving a concealed-carry permit

The plaintiffs in each case argued that the “good cause” requirement places too large of a burden on one’s right to self defense.

Trial courts sided with the counties in both cases, but a three-judge federal appeals panel reversed the rulings. Early this year, the court voted to consolidate the cases and have an 11-judge panel hear them.

Tuesday’s hearing will take place before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Eight of the 11 judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents.

Alan Gura, an attorney representing the Yolo County plaintiffs says the case is about the Second Amendment.

“The Second Amendment confers a fundamental right,” Gura said. “We don’t live in a country where the police decide whether we have a good enough reason to exercise that right.”

Adam Skaggs, senior counsel with Everytown for Gun Safety, which filed a court brief in support of California’s law, said the state’s concealed carry requirements allow local officials to confront gun violence.

“These are local officials on the front lines of efforts to confront gun violence who know best how to keep communities safe,” Skaggs said. “The decision California has made to vest discretion and authority with these officials in light of that makes a lot of sense.”


Maybe if California had stop and frisk, conceal and carry wouldn’t be so necessary…


This isn’t just about the “concealed carry” part of the law. The law also covers concealed weapons. It’s too broad and vague.The way the law reads if you have a firearm in your vehicle and that firearm is not locked away you can be arrested for a concealed weapon.

If you are backpacking or doing anything in the backcountry or wilderness and your firearm isn’t basically on your hip you can be charged with a concealed weapon violation. Let’s say you are going camping in an area where there are bears, so you want to take a gun with you for protection. You put it in a pocket on your backpack that you can easily get to. You can be charged with a concealed weapons violation.

This is just like the “open carry” laws, but that’s another story/lawsuit that is being appealed.

You have city, county, state and federal law enforcement and half of them don’t even know how to interpret either of the laws. Unfortunately I can speak from experience on this.

Let the thumbs down begin.


The Second Amendment is not absolute. Contained within are proviso’s for ‘the militia’, back in the day when Americans had a sense of responsibility and civil community.

These Rootin’ Tootin’ John Wayne pretenders are only out for themselves. And BTW, John Wayne was an ACTOR …not a real cowboy anyway.

Now, I’m all for ‘right to own’ …but the right to concealed carry in public is a special privilege that only the most trusted and qualified should be permitted.

Kevin Rice

Relying on FICTIONAL characters (i.e., Yosemite Sam and John Wayne) to make a point is quite the fallacy.

“the Legislature [has] the right to enact laws in regard to the manner in which arms shall be

borne,” but noting that a statute that destroys the right altogether under the “pretence of regulating” the manner of carry “would be clearly unconstitutional”); Bliss, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) at 91 (holding that a ban on concealed carry, which “restrain[ed] the full and complete exercise of [the] right,” was unconstitutional and void). As Judge Hardiman aptly summarized “courts have long h[eld] that although a State may prohibit the open or concealed carry of firearms, it may not ban both because a complete prohibition on public carry violates the Second Amendment and analogous state constitutional provisions.” Drake, 724 F.3d at 449 (Hardiman, J., dissenting). —Peruta v. Co. of San Diego, at p. 54.


John Wayne was a fictional character ?

How about the Alzheimer’s affected Charlton Heston ? Was HE a figment ?

You degenerates can’t even keep your own idealized heroes straight !

Kevin Rice

John Wayne is personified by Hollywood movies. Yes, fiction.


Simply put, you’re wrong. Your “Rootin’ Tootin’ John Wayne pretenders” comment also projects a especially fetid brand of prejudice and ignorance.

But it’s your “…but the right to concealed carry in public is a special privilege that only the most trusted and qualified should be permitted…” that made me shake my head and actually laugh out loud.

Just who are these “most trusted and qualified?” Law enforcement? Just who determines who they are? Government? People like you? See the problem?

In the end the Second Amendment will prevail: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If you expect anything different, I recommend you begin working on a constitutional amendment.


I will LOL in schadenfreude with the statistically likely possibility that your own gun(s) will be the cause of your unlamented demise.

Kevin Rice

Nice to know you’re concerned about everyone you hate. As if. Left wingers are soooo transparently disingenuous. True liberals are open minded to alternate beliefs. Hm.


The 2nd Amendment does NOT limit firearms to militia (which is the general public in those days anyway BTW), that clause underscores and enhances the point that general right to keep and bear is so important, it was written in second and not fifth or later amendments.

The intent of the framers is clear (the right to keep and bear) , we just have to watch out for the MOST REVERSED CIRCUIT (9th) and their rights-stripping shenanigans.



It’s not the case just because you say it’s the case.

“..the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Doesn’t say shit about what slowerfaster wants to happen.

Kevin Rice

The uncomfortable truth.


I think there’s a big difference between the right to carry an unconcealed weapon in public and the right to carry a concealed one.

Now let’s see what the courts think.


The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given inalienable right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the constitution.

The right is the same no matter how it’s exercised.


“God given” ?

Where in the Bible or any other religious texts does it say ANYTHING about guns ?

I think we know who you’re ‘god’ is.


You’re not actually that dim, are you? Do you honestly believe you can sell such claptrap here?

The right and the means to defend oneself are basic natural rights that stem from the God-given right to life.

Think about that a bit before making another silly comment on the subject.


I’m not trying to ‘sell’ anything …but I do know for a fact that my God is Life, while your god is a killer.


Wrong again.

My God is God.

That’s obviously a foreign concept to you.


SamLouis says: My God is God. That’s obviously a foreign concept to you.”

Your god is a concept, one of many that has passed before in the history of the world. All of them are foreign concepts (except perhaps the Native American and Mormon pantheons).

This too shall pass.

Our freedom to defend our homes is the result of the hard work and blood of our forefathers fighting the kings men.

The red, white and blue is the work of people, our people.

We earned that right, we get the credit, not some upstart.

If you go to the hospital do you claim it’s gods will if you live and not the work of someone who went to school for 10 years?


kettle … His ‘god’ is no god at all.

His ‘god’ is himself. Can’t back anything up and just quotes himself in libertarian self-justification.

A true sociopath.

We may all rejoice that eventually, many of these ‘supermen’ finally admit their mediocrities and do themselves in.


Gun-toting wimps. anyone who needs a gun strapped to themselves to feel secure is exactly what is wrong with our Country. People in third world countries like Afganistan or Somalia carry firearms. Is that how we want to appear?


Gun-toting wimps. anyone who needs a gun strapped to themselves to feel secure is exactly what is wrong with our Country


So every thug and criminal out there?

And what do you propose to do about these criminals? Reason with them? Ask them pretty please? You going to be the tough guy who attacks a thug pointing a gun at you?


What’s the source of your pathology? A little inferiority complex perhaps?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with law-abiding citizens wishing to carry concealed firearms for their protection and that of friends and loved ones. Like it or not the God-given right to protect ourselves in guaranteed in part by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

I really don’t care how I “appear” to people like you. I just don’t want you to be able to control my freedom. Thankfully many unconstitutional laws are slowly being dismantled — just as this one will, sooner or later.


There is no “God-given” anything, god has no ups account and can’t send a package, does not own a printing press and has never voted.

Do you really think Jesus would want more guns laying about? You must be thinking of Texas.

“I really don’t care how I “appear” to people like you” Then why are you posting insulting comments? A little inferiority complex perhaps?


Says you. Forgive me if I don’t give your personal opinion any credence.

Did you really think you could sneak your “Texas” and “guns laying about” comment in without invoking a laugh from me? Is that the best you can do?

What’s “insulting” to you is factual to most others.


Good cause is “evaluated on an individual basis” and may arise in “situations related to personal protection as well as those related to individual businesses or occupations.”


And last time I looked that requirement wasn’t in the constitution. So why should California get to increase the burden? It’s not just regulating, it’s actually increasing the burden of the right to bear arms. And not only is it increasing the burden it gives the local Sheriff the power to act as judge and jury on the issue.

The other extreme is “the right to bear arms” means locked up at home in a gun safe with the bullets separate from the gun–which basically does nobody any good.

Mitch C

I am sure that “good cause” does not apply to those seeking a carry permit because they are law abiding and will follow all the rules. What the idiots who make it difficult on law-abiding citizens don’t realize is that they never interface with those who have illegal firearms and won’t bother to apply for a permit on a bet.

Ted Slanders

Gang Biker: “Your car broke down on this out of the way road, eh?”

Young girl: “Yes, I can’t get it to start.”

Gang Biker: “Too bad, no need to start it now because of what I’m going to do to you!”

Young girl: “But, but, please don’t, I have a family that needs me, I don’t need to be raped!”

Gang Biker: “You should have thought of that before your car broke down!”

Young girl: “Can you give me a moment to call the Sheriff?”


When seconds count, law enforcement is only minutes away.

Kevin Rice

“Good cause” generally means “A set of circumstances that distinguish a person from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” Good cause is “evaluated on an individual basis” and may arise in “situations related to personal protection as well as those related to individual businesses or occupations.” But—important here—concern for “one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.”

The 9th District opined last April, “Thus, the question is not whether the California scheme […] allows some people to bear arms outside the home in some places at some times; instead, the question is whether it allows the typical responsible, law abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The answer to the latter question is a resounding “no.”