Concealed carry handbag (courtesy athenasarmory.com)

The case challenging California’s “sensitive places” law that bans carry in nearly every public place in the state continues to move forward, with appellants filing response briefs with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the lawsuit Carralero v. Bonta, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on Feb. 16 announced that it had filed a response brief with the circuit court. FPC secured a preliminary injunction in this case at the district court last year, and it remains in effect while California appeals.

“In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects a ‘general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense,’” the brief states. “Frustrated with that ruling, California enacted Senate Bill 2 in open retaliation. SB2 unconstitutionally limits where law-abiding, licensed Californians may keep and bear arms. Its laundry list of so-called ‘sensitive’ locations includes all manner of ordinary venues that Californians frequent. As a result, licensed individuals cannot exercise their constitutional right to bear arms during most daily activities—going to work, hiking in a park, taking public transportation, running errands, eating at a restaurant, entering a hospital, attending sporting events, and more.”

FPC further argues in the brief that the law doesn’t come close to meeting the second requirement of the new Bruen standard, which stipulates that the government must prove “historical precedent” for any law infringing on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“Though the State has marshalled a small army of historians, their evidence often supports Plaintiff’s arguments,” the brief states. “California fails to show that any of its proffered analogues are sufficiently widespread within the relevant time period—the Founding era—or relevantly similar in ‘how’ and ‘why’ they burden the right to self-defense. Indeed, most of the challenged locations existed in some form at the Founding, and Plaintiffs are not aware of any tradition of carry bans there—nor, importantly, has California offered any such tradition.”

For those reasons, Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s vice president and general counsel, and counsel for FPC, said the circuit court should make the same ruling that the district court made earlier.

“The district court has already found that California’s law preventing even licensed Californians from carrying firearms outside the home in much of the state is likely unconstitutional—the Ninth Circuit should do the same,” Wisniewski said in an FPC news item. “California passed this law in an attempt to undermine the rights of peaceable Californians in the face of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen. The Court should not entertain the state’s temper-tantrum and should instead vindicate the rights of Californians while this case proceeds.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

33 COMMENTS

  1. Time will soon tell if the 9th Circus will uphold the clear letter of the law or give a giant middle finger to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. If I were a betting man/woman, I would bet my money on the 9th Circuit (probably En Banc) giving a giant middle finger to the Supremes and upholding all of California’s “sensitive places” ban.

    • I won’t take that bet. Good brief though. The AG’s brief is a masterpiece of obfuscation and in some cases outright lies. I think that is known as “desperation.”
      I have a vague recollection that the panel that upheld the injunction on a motion for a stay is the same panel that will hear the interlocutory appeal on the merits, which if true is a good sign. Since the case is still proceeding in the trial court, I would not be surprised if the Ninth did not take the case en banc at this stage, since the issue on appeal is whether the trial court “abused its discretion” in issuing a temporary injunction, and not a full appeal on the constitutionality of the law.

      • Only being a random, non-lawyer observing the actions of the 9th Circuit regarding 2A, I can find no instance of the 9th Circuit ruling in favor of gun control. Thus, I would not spend money or brain cells trying to concoct some instance where the 9th Circuit would ever rule in favor of any 2A rights for the public.

      • Mark N.,

        Give the 9th Circus time–they will uphold California’s 2nd Amendment infringements. And why shouldn’t they? The worst that can happen is the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case (anything but guaranteed) and overrules them which is par for the course.

        In the meantime the 9th Circus can tout to their political friends how they were able to delay restoration of the 2nd Amendment for several years and drain substantial amounts of cash from 2nd Amendment supporters’ lawsuit war chests.

        The very sad reality is that judges will continue to flout the law until they have to pay a significant personal pain penalty for their actions. In other words this is our new reality for the next 1,000 years.

  2. Looks like that wimmen is packin an awesome classic metal smitty! Got mine when slik willy was causin commotion.

        • You may be right, I couldn’t quite tell with her finger there. With no step, that means it’s not a third generation, third-generation includes a thicker frame where the slide stop pin is, the hole started cracking so they beefed it up.That one also has a black bobbed hammer as opposed to the 6906 stainless hammer.
          Early 6906 have a rounded trigger guard, later they introduced a fingerhold.

        • Perhaps you missed the first line in my earlier comment:

          “You may be right, I couldn’t quite tell… “

          “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned”

          Buddha

    • Oh yay we will get another federal bailout to keep things running…… again. Better hope Trump wins with enough legislative margin to let NY take it’s budgetary natural course or the boycott at most will just mean more federal taxes will cover domestic spending for lib programs over here ……. again.

  4. The state of california is just like the state of Alabama in the 1950s. Both states ignored supreme court decisions regarding civil rights cases.

    The drug leg @liz@ tion crowd made it legal to steal in California. Because their goal was to allow the government to enable drug use. By letting drug users know that they could steal, the private property of the working class.
    In order to pay for their drug habit.

    This was always the ultimate goal of the Libertarians, the Liberals and the Left. All who have never believed in the concept of private property rights.

    And in their mind, stealing is a nonviolent crime. Which makes it a very low priority for the police department. And it is a crime that is not worth spending anytime in jail.
    The soft bigotry of low expectations fits them perfectly.

    Stealing is ok in CA video 1 min long
    https://youtube.com/shorts/eUOe1F3-kZA?si=KYhntgR9te7Yujgt

      • fyi
        From 2014

        “The initiative changes the possession of most drugs, including cocaine and heroin, from a felony offense to a misdemeanor.”

        “Certain property offenses such as shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing a bad check will all be considered misdemeanor offenses, as long as these crimes involve $950 or less.”

        “LAO also estimates the initiative could result in the release of “several thousand inmates” from state prisons, which could temporarily reduce the state prison population “for a few years.” 

        https://reason.com/2014/11/05/california-voters-make-possession-of-mos/

        What does raising what a misdemeanor is up to $950, have to do with making pot legal???

        • You need to remember, in California when they say ‘Voters Make’ this possible, its the majority of those voters are a collective combination of drug users and criminals and black democrats and liberals and marxist-socialists being driven by marxist-socialists.

    • i assume you also support alcohol prohibition? it sure why you believe such bans are more effective than gun bans but ok you do you

  6. It is long past time to be relying on court rulings, including Supreme Court rulings. Affirming the Rights of law abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms. With the full understanding of the tyranny of Liberal/Progressive Democrat politicians. To ignore with those rulings and continue to delay, deny and remove those Rights. So enumerated within the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution.

  7. Yup, 3913. That was my work gun the last 15 years of my law enforcement career. Still qualify with it for LEOSA.

  8. We love the FPC, CRPA, and the RKBA Foundation. These groups fight for all law abiding Californian’s Constitutional Right to carry. The Governor and Left does not want us to sheepdogs.

  10. This article would attract more readers if the lady in the photo was carrying her hat in a bra holster rather than her purse.

Comments are closed.