Four Second Amendment advocacy groups: California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), Second Amendment Law Center (SALC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Minnesota Gun Owners Federation (MGOC). submitted a brief to Second Amendment advocacy groups on Tuesday. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Gary Matthews' claim against Los Angeles.
Matthews' “Crime”
Matthews, a Tennessee resident who had a concealed carry permit from his home state, was ticketed by Los Angeles police for a traffic violation while traveling in Los Angeles in 2019. While issuing the ticket, the officer found a handgun in the passenger side door. He pocketed the gun and arrested him for violating the city's law prohibiting out-of-state travelers from possessing firearms. It didn't matter that Matthews had a concealed carry permit from Tennessee. It also didn't matter that Matthews was part of the group of Americans least likely to commit crimes. California does not recognize out-of-state CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) licenses.
The significance of this case is that if Matthews had tried to apply for a CCW license in Los Angeles, his application would have been denied. It is not issued by the police chief.
lawsuit
Mr. Matthews filed a lawsuit against the city for violating his Second Amendment rights.
From the overview:
This case is simple.
Historical tradition has been that peaceful non-residents (who are already allowed to carry firearms in their home state) wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights must obtain a California Carry Permit (“CCW Permit”). There is no support for California's modern requirement to follow onerous procedures to obtain one. While visiting or passing through the state.
On the contrary, the law has historically exempted travelers from such local restrictions on their right to protect themselves while traveling.
Los Angeles was one of the cities that offered passes to travelers, along with Oakland and Sacramento. But no more. Anti-gun policy advocates are eager to limit the rights of Americans in the name of “reducing gun violence,” but they are reluctant to address the real problem of criminals who perpetrate gun violence. He was reluctant and long ago erased such passes.
Even if Matthews had known well in advance of his trip that he was coming to California, efforts to obtain a California-issued CCW would have proven impossible. The restrictions are outrageous.
He will need to prove he is in the state regularly as part of his occupation. You must pay a fee of several hundred dollars to obtain a two-year license. He must demonstrate attendance at 16 hours of classroom and practice training with a California certified trainer.
And even then, his application would have been rejected by the L.A. Police Chief, who is anti-gun control.
The brief argues that for the liberal Ninth Circuit, both Bruen (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen) and Rahimi (United States v. Rahimi) clarify the requirements that local governments must demonstrate. , reminded me that it was an enlarged version. that such limitations are within the historical tradition of such laws;
From two decisions:
The government must…justify its regulations by demonstrating that they are consistent with this country's historic tradition of firearms regulation. …(The government) must provide evidence of an established and representative historical analogue…(demonstrating) an enduring American tradition of state regulation. (Emphasis added.)
Traveler exception
The brief reminded the Ninth Circuit of the long history of cities and states granting “traveler exceptions” dating back to colonial times. The decision also reminded the appellate court that people with state-issued CCWs are among the most prudent and prudent citizens. They are one of the most law-abiding groups of citizens in this country. Even if a Los Angeles lawyer claims that “more guns means more crime,'' it just doesn't work. The summary states:
Visitors like Matthews with CCW permits issued by other states are not a danger to the city of Los Angeles. His arrest was unjustified on public safety grounds as well as on constitutional grounds.
It concluded as follows.
For these reasons, Amici urges this Court to reverse the district court and to ensure that appellants (i.e., Matthews and two other out-of-state residents who were caught in the LAPD's web while traveling in the Golden State) continue their claims. I strongly urge you to pursue this. Condemns the City for unconstitutional arrests that violate Second Amendment rights.
Related articles:
California files lawsuit over concealed carry policy
