# California's refusal to allow carry of firearms: Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278 "2014-02-13T20:25:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/41 "2014-02-14T14:30:08Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Good for the 9th Circuit. The dissent simply defies logic. Consistent with Heller and McDonald, bearing arms is an individual right. How can one possibly have a right to bear arms if he may not do so either open or concealed? Well, Heller and McDonald\* are stupid. But it’s pretty hard to see how the 9th could have ruled otherwise given that they are binding. \*I don’t disagree with the holdings, just Scalia’s pages of gibberish about prefatory clauses, which defy logic. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/42 "2014-02-14T16:54:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … in the great scheme of things it boils down to the principle that the greater public interest should prevail over absolutist interpretations of Constitutional rights. That’s an interesting take on constitutional jurisprudence. What other constitutional rights should be overlooked in the name of a greater public interest, and who gets to decide that? _The public really thinks you’re guilty, so you don’t get a lawyer. The public really wants to know what you have to say, now you have to incriminate yourself. The public wants to find out what’s in your house, warrants are an anachronism._ > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > So federal courts and the NRA agree that it is a constitutional right to carry firearms in the public, but not into a federal court or NRA meeting? Isn’t that a tad hypocritical? Can you identify why you believe that to be hypocritical? Heller recognized the existence of certain sensitive places which seems appropriate. What those places are will be litigated I’m sure. An NRA convention is a private exercise - outside the scope of public carry or carry in quasi public locations. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > On a more serious note, as long as we let the insane and criminals have guns, we are going to have these kinds of numbers. That and not treating the insane. This ruling doesn’t affect the prohibition of insane or felons from carrying or possessing. Those groups of people are already prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms of any kind. * * * I know San Diego has said it will petition for en banc, and there is no reason for them to not do so. They’ve lost already, if they get denied en banc there is no difference in outcome. This case was appealed to the 9th circuit in late 2010. Justice moves very slow. My concern is if it goes en banc, gets a bad panel, and it gets reversed. Then it would have to go to SCOTUS which if the current makeup doesn’t change, would likely uphold this decision since it was crafted in the same format and using the same rational as Heller. That would probably take 2 years or so, depending on timing. I’m reading the opinion for the 2nd time now just to absorb some of the details - there is a large amount of it that is favorable to gun rights advocates. I especially appreciate how they directly criticize the other circuits who decided similar cases of “may issue” in Woolard and Kachalsky differently. Illinois gets shall issue before CA, who would have thought? CA has a lot of catching up to do and this is the start. By the way, this same 3 judge panel also heard the case of [Richards vs. Prieto](http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto) which is a near identical case in Yolo County (northern CA near Sacramento). It would be shocking if that decision is decided differently. I expect that to come out shortly since arguments for that case were heard on the same day. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/43 "2014-02-14T17:23:38Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > The difference of cars and guns is, neither the U.S. Constitution nor the constitutions of every state innumerate the right to own/drive a car. Which has more to do with the times that such documents were drafted than anything else. Nowadays, the vast majority of us are screwed without a car, but aren’t in any way limited by not bothering to own a gun. > [@](#): > > 35k+ killed in auto wrecks every year is also a miniscule number but it’s over 3 times more than those killed with firearms. Yet nobody on the left is screaming and yelling about it. We’ve been yelling about it since _Unsafe At Any Speed_, if not earlier. You apparently haven’t been listening. Mandatory seat belts, shoulder harnesses, air bags, required age-appropriate car seats/booster seats for kids, crash standards for cars, all this stuff we take for granted now…you don’t think this has all come about due to Adam Smith’s invisible hand, do you? You can thank liberals for all of the above. Oh, and for pretty much every expansion of mass transit during my lifetime, which is of course a few orders of magnitude safer per passenger mile. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/44 "2014-02-14T17:23:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > An NRA convention is a private exercise - outside the scope of public carry or carry in quasi public locations. Sure, but considering the NRA-ILA is promoting “carry wherever the fuck you like” legislation, it _is_ extremely hypocritical if they don’t allow carrying at their convention. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/45 "2014-02-14T17:38:38Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure, but considering the NRA-ILA is promoting “carry wherever the fuck you like” legislation, it _is_ extremely hypocritical if they don’t allow carrying at their convention. Not unless they want to deny others the right to restrict carry at similar private functions. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/46 "2014-02-14T17:40:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure, but considering the NRA-ILA is promoting “carry wherever the fuck you like” legislation Please provide a cite to NRA pushing for legislation to force private enterprises to allow people to carry on their property. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/47 "2014-02-14T17:40:53Z")
IIRC, one of their initiatives is a model bill that prohibits storeowners from barring carrying by patrons. That might be an ALEC thing though. ETA: I think it’s a variant of [this one](http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/feb/23/deal-seen-on-guns-in-parking-lots-bill/). ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/48 "2014-02-14T17:41:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure, but considering the NRA-ILA is promoting “carry wherever the fuck you like” legislation, it _is_ extremely hypocritical if they don’t allow carrying at their convention. Not necessarily. I’ve never been to an NRA convention, but I assume that there are guns on display and people showing guns to one another. In such an instance, you don’t want some idiot pulling his carry piece to show someone else and accidentally discharging it. Gun shows have the same policy for the same reason. It’s not hypocrisy in my opinion because the same safety concerns don’t apply in your car or in TGI Friday’s. At non gun related public events, people are not going to be unholstering their guns except in a life threatening situation. The last thing the NRA needs is someone getting accidentally shot at a convention. That would be a PR disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/49 "2014-02-14T17:42:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure, but considering the NRA-ILA is promoting “carry wherever the fuck you like” legislation, it _is_ extremely hypocritical if they don’t allow carrying at their convention. I’ve never been a member of the NRA (too moderate - though I may join after this win) so I looked into this a little more just now since it had never been something I was interested in. It appears that it is not the NRA prohibiting carry at their conventions, it’s more the venue that the conventions are being held at. The 2011 convention in Pittsburgh allowed carry. The 2012 convention in St. Louis did not. This was due to the city of St. Louis prohibiting the carrying of firearms at the America’s Center Convention Complex, where the convention was held. The same is true for the 2013 convention, where State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the Charlotte Convention Center and the Time Warner Cable Arena, where the NRA’s annual meeting was held. The NRA can be criticized for choosing the venue, but it’s not their practice to prohibit carry. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/50 "2014-02-14T17:44:17Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The NRA can be criticized for choosing the venue, but it’s not their practice to prohibit carry. Fair enough. I withdraw my observation. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/51 "2014-02-14T17:54:06Z")
Another note that I found reading, the 2008 convention in Louisville allowed carry. The 2009 convention in Phoenix allowed carry. In 2010, the NRA responded to criticism of the prohibition of carry at their events, and their choosing of venues: > [@](#): > > Thank you for contacting us. > > The Charlotte Convention Center does not allow the carrying of firearms, both open and concealed. > > The large size of our event and the fact that many of the largest convention centers are in some of the most restrictive cities leaves us with relatively few convention centers large enough to accommodate the Annual Meetings. In an effort to provide all NRA members a better opportunity to attend the Annual Meetings, it is important that we move the event around the country as much as possible. While we will not consider bringing the Annual Meetings to a city with gun laws we feel are restrictive, we must however deal with convention centers that have restrictions simply because there are so few convention centers that both allow conceal carry and are large enough to host all of the events that comprise the Annual Meetings. > > Thank you for your support! > > Best Regards, > > Ken > NRA Member Communications Essentially - there’s not that many places that will work for the convention and allow carry. The goal of moving the convention around to accommodate the wide spread membership means they go places sometimes that don’t allow it. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/52 "2014-02-14T18:28:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That’s an interesting take on constitutional jurisprudence. What other constitutional rights should be overlooked in the name of a greater public interest, and who gets to decide that? > > _The public really thinks you’re guilty, so you don’t get a lawyer. > The public really wants to know what you have to say, now you have to incriminate yourself. > The public wants to find out what’s in your house, warrants are an anachronism._ > Can you identify why you believe that to be hypocritical? Heller recognized the existence of certain sensitive places which seems appropriate. What those places are will be litigated I’m sure. An NRA convention is a private exercise - outside the scope of public carry or carry in quasi public locations. > > This ruling doesn’t affect the prohibition of insane or felons from carrying or possessing. Those groups of people are already prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms of any kind. > > * * * > > I know San Diego has said it will petition for en banc, and there is no reason for them to not do so. They’ve lost already, if they get denied en banc there is no difference in outcome. This case was appealed to the 9th circuit in late 2010. Justice moves very slow. > > My concern is if it goes en banc, gets a bad panel, and it gets reversed. Then it would have to go to SCOTUS which if the current makeup doesn’t change, would likely uphold this decision since it was crafted in the same format and using the same rational as Heller. That would probably take 2 years or so, depending on timing. > > I’m reading the opinion for the 2nd time now just to absorb some of the details - there is a large amount of it that is favorable to gun rights advocates. I especially appreciate how they directly criticize the other circuits who decided similar cases of “may issue” in Woolard and Kachalsky differently. Illinois gets shall issue before CA, who would have thought? CA has a lot of catching up to do and this is the start. > > By the way, this same 3 judge panel also heard the case of [Richards vs. Prieto](http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto) which is a near identical case in Yolo County (northern CA near Sacramento). It would be shocking if that decision is decided differently. I expect that to come out shortly since arguments for that case were heard on the same day. San Diego just got a new Republican mayor - does he have the power to decide to drop the case now that they lost? - does he WANT to? He is currently the highest ranking Republican in the State of California. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/53 "2014-02-14T18:33:23Z")
The initiating or appealing party may generally drop its action at any time. However, San Diego’s ordinances may not entrust such decisions to the mayor. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/54 "2014-02-14T18:33:29Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > San Diego just got a new Republican mayor > > - does he have the power to decide to drop the case now that they lost? > - does he WANT to? He is currently the highest ranking Republican in the State of California. It’s not the City of San Diego being sued - the mayor is not a party to the lawsuit. Being sued are the Sheriff (Gore) and the County of San Diego. Discretionary issue in CA is determined at the County level, so the new mayor of San Diego does not have the ability to officially influence the case. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/55 "2014-02-14T19:00:59Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Always know when I’m winning an argument with a lib when they resort to name calling. Pointing out that 1/300th of 1% is not a large number is pure mathematics and fact, neither of which the left cares for. > > The difference of cars and guns is, neither the U.S. Constitution nor the constitutions of every state innumerate the right to own/drive a car. > 35k+ killed in auto wrecks every year is also a miniscule number but it’s over 3 times more than those killed with firearms. Yet nobody on the left is screaming and yelling about it. When one subtracts suicides (what greater control over ones own life than the decision to end it?) lawful self defense, and scumbags in the inner cities blowing each other away (WGAF?) overall meaningful "gun crimes"in America is quite low for a country with a zillion guns. You are far more apt to get struck by lightning or win a substantial amount in a lottery than be a victim of a mass shooting. > > We don’t “let” criminals and the insane to have guns. But we do allow them to be free which makes it impossible to control their behavior. If criminals were hammered with the punishment they deserve (example: armed robbery carries a penalty of 40 years. Offenders rarely get more than 3 years) and institutionalized and medicated the truly insane (yes, against their will) 2 significant problems in America would be greatly diminished. > That’s easily identified as a cultural problem and not a gun problem. I didn’t insult you, I insulted your argument that the amount was miniscule in view of the statistics. It was, in my view, an amazingly stupid and loathsome statement. Easily the weakest argument I have ever seen on SDMB. Perhaps anywhere. 11k plus deaths a year isn’t miniscule. Each of those people won’t do anything ever again, and each of their families will never have them to enjoy again. It is greater every year that all the US war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over a period of decades, it is greater than the US WWII dead. We spend hundreds of billions every year to prevent another WWII. And I’m not for rounding up all the weapons. The only people I don’t want having them are the criminals and the insane, and I do want to take away the weapons of the criminals and insane and take active steps to do so before they commit murders. That requires identifying them and conducting searches. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/56 "2014-02-14T19:04:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > It’s not the City of San Diego being sued - the mayor is not a party to the lawsuit. Being sued are the Sheriff (Gore) and the County of San Diego. Discretionary issue in CA is determined at the County level, so the new mayor of San Diego does not have the ability to officially influence the case. I just caught that and was coming back in to admit my mistake - thanks for getting there first. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/57 "2014-02-14T19:11:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > You have a constitutional right to stand up and speak against the mayor’s policies–but not in my living room, you don’t. That’s not remotely hypocritical. This time I actually see where we disagree on hypocritical. I cannot enter the courthouse, a public place to exercise constitutional rights of redress, petition and speech, etc. with a weapon. Yet they say that it is a constitutional right to carry in a public place. The courthouse is the ultimate public place, particularly in open court. (Keep that in mind you daring do romantics on this, Valentine’s Day, what a place to get caught gettin it on!) That seems to me to be pretty hypocritical of the judges to say you can carry it in public, but can’t sit in the gallery with Ol Betsey by your side. As for the NRA convention, it is a private affair. You obey the rules of the host. But it strikes me as odd and hypocritical and cowardly to have the general position that carrying around guns for protection is the best protection, except it isn’t allowed in a room full of gun owning conventioneers. If I go to a model train convention, I damn well expect to bring in my Z gauge stuff, and maybe even demonstrate it live. Now it is inappropriate to demonstrate a gun other than at a range, but when I go to a gun show, I can damn well see the guns and maybe buy one (I don’t recall if I can bring one in). It just strikes me as really weird and hypocritical that the NRA doesn’t have all its members packing. I go to Comic-Con, I dress up weird and maybe bring some paraphernalia. Why, oh why, does the NRA prohibit open or concealed carry at their events? (Assuming they do, which I’ve been told.) I go to an auto show, I expect to see autos. I got to a Democratic Party convention, I expect to see Democrats, hear them, vote on things and change a $20 bill. The reason the NRA doesn’t allow guns at their conventions is because they are afraid someone will misuse one. Isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/58 "2014-02-14T19:15:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Another note that I found reading, the 2008 convention in Louisville allowed carry. The 2009 convention in Phoenix allowed carry. > > In 2010, the NRA responded to criticism of the prohibition of carry at their events, and their choosing of venues: > > Essentially - there’s not that many places that will work for the convention and allow carry. The goal of moving the convention around to accommodate the wide spread membership means they go places sometimes that don’t allow it. I was at the conventions in Phoenix and Louisville and carried openly at both. Nobody batted an eye. Your post is correct about why there was a prohibition on carry at some of the conventions and it has nothing to do with the NRA itself. But the left will continue to tell this lie until it becomes a truth. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/59 "2014-02-14T19:26:08Z")
Settle down, junior. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/60 "2014-02-14T19:35:41Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The reason the NRA doesn’t allow guns at their conventions is because they are afraid someone will misuse one. Isn’t it? You need to go back a few posts and reread them. Almost every NRA convention I’ve been to has allowed firearms be carried. When it’s held in a place where the venue or local law doesn’t allow it it is not a policy of the NRA. The NRA conventions are huge. In order to hold them all over the country they sometimes need to rent venues that either don’t allow weapons or can’t due to local laws. It’s a tough choice to make but it’s nice that the NRA scatters their conventions around the country rather than just one place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=4)