Ninth Circuit Upholds Right to Carry a Gun

Against all odds and expectations, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, known far and wide for its extreme left opinions, this week actually struck down a key segment of California gun control laws and upheld the right of people to carry guns.

Quick, look out the window to see if pigs are flying.

Somebody call hell and get the weather report.

The court that is so wacky it is commonly referred to as the Ninth Circus even among fans ruled 2-1 yesterday that San Diego’s concealed carry permit law, which relies on the state’s guidelines, violates Second Amendment rights by requiring someone requesting a permit to show “good cause” and not merely the desire to protect themselves.

State law requires applicants to show “good cause” and be of good moral character, but it leaves actual permitting up to cities and counties.

If it stands, the ruling would require cities and counties to issue concealed carry permits to anyone of good moral character.


It’s unclear how common sense sneaked past the guards at the courthouse, but Judge¬†Diarmuid O’Scannlain, in the majority ruling, wrote, “The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

O’Scannlain’s ruling challenges other federal court rulings, such as in New York and New Jersey, that have upheld restrictions on concealed carry permits.

In practice, sheriffs in many of California’s rural counties already comply with the court ruling and give permits to anyone who’s not a criminal and who asks for one. But those liberal city mice are too afraid of their own kids to allow that to happen in their towns.

It’s likely that Thursday’s ruling will be overturned because San Diego plans to ask for a new hearing before the court’s full, 11-judge panel, complete with high wire act and dancing poodles. In a state full of ultraliberal government officials, gun rights are bound to be challenged by other district attorneys.

O’Scannlain seems to be one of the few decent judges who have served on the Ninth Circus bench in recent decades. As such, he frequently finds himself in the minority, such as when he wrote the dissenting opinion after the court upheld a ban on therapy to help homosexuals choose heterosexuality.

San Diego’s ban on concealed weapons denies people their right to “bear arms,” O’Scannlain said, and is therefore unconstitutional. He noted that the right to self-defense doesn’t end at the front doors of people’s homes.

While the court’s ruling is unusual, it’s not the only recent revolt against liberals’ tightening of gun restrictions. In Connecticut, the state was expecting a flood of registrations by gun owners before January 1 because of a new law requiring gun owners to register their rifles or face felony charges.

What state officials weren’t ready for was most of the state’s rifle owners ignoring the requirement. While about 50,000 people caved and registered, as many as 350,000 rifle owners are now technically willful felons under the law, in what may be one of the biggest acts of civil disobedience in recent memory.

Now, Connecticut’s Left is standing around sputtering, wondering why nobody wanted to come to their party.

Liberals always want to know what the rest of us need guns for — usually asked as they are hatching a scheme to seize lawful weapons. When push comes to shove, we need guns in order to defend ourselves against them.