The Supreme Court made a major ruling in a Second Amendment case today.
The high court struck down New York’s draconian concealed carry restrictions which forced residents to prove that they needed to carry a firearm on their body in a concealed fashion.
What it means is that the court has ruled citizens have the right to carry firearms concealed outside of their homes.
This will have major implications in blue states that restrict concealed carry like here in California.
Here in Sacramento, the local sheriff is the one who approves concealed carry permits. And we just lost a Republican sheriff to a Democrat.
My good friend, a former combat Marine who is now a firearms instructor and friend of the outgoing sheriff told me that the new one will not be friendly to those who want the permits.
The ruling by SCOTUS today may change that, though.
Our local public news station (KQED) reported on the ruling and the possible consequences for Democrat-run California.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued one of its most significant gun law rulings in more than a decade, tossing out New York state’s tight restrictions on who can carry a concealed gun in public.
Gun rights activists are celebrating the 6-3 decision, while advocates for stricter gun laws decry it. Both agree that California’s similar law may be challenged next.
The ruling likely marks the most dramatic expansion of gun rights in the United States since 2008, when the Supreme Court clarified for the first time that the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear” firearms applies to individual citizens, not just state militia members. But that ruling only affirmed the right for “self-defense within the home,” leaving states with wide discretion over whether and how to restrict guns elsewhere.
Thursday’s ruling brings that constitutional right outside the home.
Most states either issue concealed carry licenses upon request or do not require licenses at all. But in eight states, applicants are required to show a compelling need before being granted permission to tote around a concealed firearm. Until Thursday’s ruling, New York was one of those states. California is another.
While I’ve covered my share of riots and looting during the period of social unrest brought on by BLM and Antifa the last few years, it’s on the streets of Sacramento and other major cities in California where I’ve felt the most unsafe.
The Second Amendment is 100% about the citizenry’s right to defend themselves from tyranny, but having a firearm also serves as a deterrent to criminals in our everyday lives.
I can handle filming riots and looting, but someone coming up on you from behind in broad daylight with a knife? Yeah, you need protection.
In Sacramento, I’ve been chased by a homeless guy with a knife, threatened by unsavory characters who didn’t like me filming during the pandemic lockdowns, and almost knocked off my bike by an insane man who was attacking people on a bike path.
I just got chased by a guy with a knife in an alley in downtown Sacramento. I was coming back from a mountain bike ride. Police said he has a history of drug use & threatening people & even police with knives. He’s getting a 5150 hold. An officer picks up the knife in this video. pic.twitter.com/fLvrjB9e3P
— Jeff Rainforth 🏄♂️🎸🇺🇸 (@Bring_Back_Phil) June 28, 2021
There was a gang-related mass shooting a few blocks from where I live in downtown Sacramento only two months ago. Six people were killed and 12 others shot. That’s reason enough for law-abiding citizens to be able to carry concealed.
In San Francisco, while I was applying for my passport to go to Hong Kong and film the protests in 2019, I had to run into a busy street to get away from a crazed man attacking people with a scythe-like saw.
It’s insane in some places here. Being able to carry a concealed firearm would surely put a lot of people’s minds at ease.
The report by KQED continued:
How easily a Californian is able to obtain a concealed weapon permit depends on where they live. That’s because in California these licenses are issued by local law enforcement — either city police chiefs or county sheriffs. And while state law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause,” local law enforcement officials have wide latitude to define what that means.
In counties with Republican sheriffs — Sacramento and Tehama, for example — permits are issued to all qualified applicants so long as they pay the necessary fees, take a firearms safety class as required by state law and don’t have a criminal record.
San Francisco sits on the opposite end of the spectrum. According to county sheriff guidelines, an applicant living in the city must “supply convincing evidence” that they are at “significant risk of danger” that local law enforcement “cannot adequately address” and “cannot reasonably be avoided by alternative measures.”
The court’s ruling doesn’t immediately invalidate restrictive concealed carry policies like those in San Francisco. But it does make legal challenges against California’s entire discretionary system much more likely to succeed. In 2017, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to California’s concealed carry law.
Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association (the state’s National Rifle Association chapter), said he plans to file a supplemental brief in an existing challenge against Los Angeles County’s concealed carry licensing system.
Jack Posobiec, who I worked with when Steve Bannon sent me to film the Portland riots perhaps said it best about the high court’s latest action.
“If you are celebrating today’s massive 2nd Amendment victory at the Supreme Court there are 4 little words you need to say: THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP.”
If you are celebrating today's massive 2nd Amendment victory at the Supreme Court there are 4 little words you need to say:
THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 23, 2022
Hopefully the latest ruling by SCOTUS is repeated in every blue state. There is a judicial precedent now.