The "Good Cause" is Freedom

Hans von Spakovsky:

"California law requires that applicants for a concealed carry permit establish “good cause” to acquire such a permit, but leaves it up to the sheriffs of each county to define what “good cause” means. ...Simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.” ...

The Ninth Circuit bases its conclusion that such a requirement is constitutional, and that the Second Amendment does not extend to carrying concealed firearms in public, to what it erroneously calls an “overwhelming consensus of historical sources.” It goes through a long history of bans on the ownership of weapons in England starting in 1299, and then says there is no reason to believe that the “law in the American colonies… differed significantly from the law in England.”

 But the court ignores the fact that these English laws – and the first laws in America when we were still a colony of the British Empire – were intended to repress the possibility of rebellion by making the public defenseless against the monarchy." ...........

There is "no reason to believe" that the motives of these judicial monarchs are any different than King George's before them; they intend "to repress the possibility of rebellion by making the public defenseless" against the Blob.

"They overlook the history of Lexington and Concord and the British attempt to seize American arms, a history very much in the minds of the Founders when they drafted the Second Amendment. The Framers of the Bill of Rights specifically wanted to ensure that Americans remained armed so that this British history could not be repeated in the United States by a repressive central government.

... Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently concluded that it “is unquestionable that the public carrying of firearms was widespread during the Colonial and Founding Eras.”

 Five Ninth Circuit judges dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that “the Second Amendment is not a ‘second-class’ constitutional guarantee.” According to the dissent authored by Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan, “any fair reading of Heller and McDonald compels the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond one’s front door.” Just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, “this right is indisputably constitutional in stature and part of this country’s bedrock.” In fact, the restrictions on licensing imposed by California and its counties are “tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.” Thus, in the dissenters’ view, there is no question that the public’s “Second Amendment rights have been violated.”...........

This isn't a court. It is a illegal and anti-legal free-floating Members Only Constitutional Convention--you're not invited to participate in your own governance, peasant.


What Would George Do?

UPDATE: Serf's Up! Thomas Lifson:


"Ever since high levels of immigration and taxation transformed California into a one-party state by driving out the middle class and importing an underclass, it has become a textbook example of a banana republic, in hi-tech guise. An editorial in the Washington Times  last year highlights stunning chicanery – truly unbelievable arrogance on the part of the state’s political class:

The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive."........

That's right; legislators exempted themselves from their own unconstitutional gun edicts. They also exempted themselves from paying taxes, paying speeding tickets and bribery laws. They also gave themselves lavish benefits, free cars and free gasoline. If, by "free", we mean paid for by the serfs.