Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Bruen impact on other permits, IE CA Dangerous Weapons

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bhobbs
    I need a LIFE!!
    • Feb 2009
    • 11848

    Bruen impact on other permits, IE CA Dangerous Weapons

    With the Bruen ruling on the horizon, I started thinking about how it may apply to other permits and situations. For instance, California, obviously, has many restrictions in place but does issue a permit that allows ownership of the restricted firearm.

    Is it possible that Bruen would remove any good cause requirement for other permits?
  • #2
    TruOil
    Senior Member
    • Jul 2017
    • 1930

    No one can answer that until the opinion is issued and the language it uses. It will probably NOT deal with allowable firearms since that is not within the scope of the issue submitted, the briefs, or the argument.

    Comment

    • #3
      Bhobbs
      I need a LIFE!!
      • Feb 2009
      • 11848

      From the limited information I can find, it seems the dangerous weapons permit is rarely issued, and mostly to businesses or armories for movies due to the good cause requirement. I know Bruen is dealing with CCW but it also involved good cause. I was just thinking about how it could carry over to other permits that also require good cause.

      Comment

      • #4
        guntrust
        CGN/CGSSA Contributor
        CGN Contributor
        • Jun 2009
        • 796

        Strict scrutiny will change everything, eventually, provided you live that long.
        David R Duringer JD LL.M (Tax), CA/WA/TX atty
        CRPA Mag Must Retract Erroneous Bulletin Slamming Gun Trusts
        Radio ads: http://Protect.FM
        FREE training: http://guntrust.org
        FREE design meeting: http://Protect.LIFE

        Comment

        • #5
          Foothills
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2014
          • 918

          Yeah, timing is everything...

          Originally posted by guntrust
          Strict scrutiny will change everything, eventually, provided you live that long.
          I don't think I'll be ordering a P90 anytime soon.
          CRPA Member

          Comment

          • #6
            DolphinFan
            Veteran Member
            • Dec 2012
            • 2574

            Bruen reaffirmed Heller. Heller acknowledged the 2A as an Individual Right, for self defense within the home.

            Bruen Acknowledged that Self Defense doesn't stop at the front door and expands the right to all but "Sensitive Places" in Public with government interest only very narrowly tailored ie. Strict Scrutiny.
            10/15/2022 - Called to get on the list
            2/18/2023 - Interview set
            4/27/2023 - Class
            4/30/2023 - Live Scan
            5/9/2023 - Interview
            6/26/2023 - Approval Letter
            8/1/2023 - Issued

            Comment

            • #7
              FISHNFRANK
              Senior Member
              • Jul 2008
              • 1024

              The opinion in full is on the SC web page. I did scan it fast for all the pertinent information. Suffice it to say there will be plenty of daylight in this opinion for the appeals courts to keep up their usual mischief with other things like magazine limits…

              Comment

              • #8
                mikeyr
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2011
                • 1553

                Nothing will happen in CA because of this. We won, they lost, but they will make a new law that will also go to SCOTUS and we will have no changes until that one is decided, if they lose again, they will make a law that will go to SCOTUS and nothing changes.

                Anyone that thinks this win will change anything is a dreamer. Sheriff Brown of SB County certainly will NEVER issue a CCW, EVER !!!

                We win the battles, but that is how they will win the war, keeping us in court.
                sigpic
                NRA Benefactor Member
                . CRPA Member

                Comment

                • #9
                  curtisfong
                  Calguns Addict
                  • Jan 2009
                  • 6893

                  Note that this is the case for *all* court decisions, whether you like their outcome or not. Their precedent only covers what the court is asked to decide. While I share your cynicism (if not outright pessimism), there are plenty of cases that will force SCOTUS to answer those questions directly, including the mag cap question.

                  We may not get the answer we want, but Bruen would never have been that regardless of outcome.
                  The Rifle on the WallKamala Harris

                  Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    FISHNFRANK
                    Senior Member
                    • Jul 2008
                    • 1024

                    Originally posted by curtisfong
                    Note that this is the case for *all* court decisions, whether you like their outcome or not. Their precedent only covers what the court is asked to decide. While I share your cynicism (if not outright pessimism), there are plenty of cases that will force SCOTUS to answer those questions directly, including the mag cap question.

                    We may not get the answer we want, but Bruen would never have been that regardless of outcome.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      MajorSideburns
                      Senior Member
                      • May 2013
                      • 1605

                      California declared itself a rogue state immune to federal laws and requirements a long time ago. I doubt you will see any changes here for the better.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        curtisfong
                        Calguns Addict
                        • Jan 2009
                        • 6893

                        Originally posted by FISHNFRANK
                        they only hear and decide 1% of the cases
                        GVRs do not require this. That said, I expect it will be an uphill battle in CA, regardless.
                        The Rifle on the WallKamala Harris

                        Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        UA-8071174-1