Does Peruta ruling protect UOC?

[dantodd]

This ruling holds that the 2A doesn't apply outside the home and if it did, it would be subject to such a weak form of so called intermediate scrutiny that all carry could be banned except for the split seconds before you needed to use a weapon in self defense.

-Gene

Isn't a law enacted under intermediate scrutiny supposed to be able to show hard evidence it is effective at forwarding the state's interest in which it as passed?

[Untamed1972]

This ruling holds that the 2A doesn't apply outside the home and if it did, it would be subject to such a weak form of so called intermediate scrutiny that all carry could be banned except for the split seconds before you needed to use a weapon in self defense.

-Gene

So is she trying to say that the average citizen is more skilled at seeing trouble coming then LEOs/CCWs such that a citizen will be able to see the trouble coming and load in time whereas the average LEO/CCW needs to carry loaded because they wont have time to load?

That logic seems rather backwards to me. If you're going to say carrying unloaded in sufficient then why would their be a need for CCWs at all? If someone can articulate their need for a CCW then they should know what the threat is and see it coming which would give them time to load.

It seems to me that in her support of UOC as a viable option she is completely ignorning that issue of someone protecting themselves should they become the random target of a violent criminal. Most of her comments seem to geared toward having time to load because of you see a known, specific threat coming. But even this ignores the 21ft rule taught to most LE these days. Someone can cover alot of ground in the time it takes to draw a loaded firearm and get off a shot, now add into that having to take extra time to load and you quickly see that UOC is mostly NOT a viable option.

Perhaps someone needs to do a counter video to the one Saldana did where the guy loaded in 2 seconds...do a video showing a guy trying to load when an attacker is coming at him.

[xXBigJoeXx]

Very disappointing indeed. However my hats off to Mr. Peruta and his legal team and everyone involved from CGF. With that said I was really hoping for a win on this one and even so far as LOC but that battle will have to be fought another day. I just hope that everyone presses forward with an appeal to see how far they can take it. As for the judge I can not understand her reasoning for not seeing that UOC is NOT a primary means of self defense. Sure it may only take a couple seconds to load up, rack the slide and get on target to fire, however the BADGUY with the gun only has to pull the trigger in a FRACTION of a second and then bang your dead. What I really want to see is laws that are simalar to Arizona's CCW & Loaded Open Carry here in the Golden State but they may be more of a wish then a reality at this point.

I will say this, I have never UOC before but after todays ruling I am strongly considering it just to make a point and am wondering if it is now time for all 2A supporters to come together and rally in a UOC movement or event of some sort. If that happens I will be there....

[GuyW]

So is she trying to say that the average citizen is more skilled at seeing trouble coming then LEOs/CCWs such that a citizen will be able to see the trouble coming and load in time whereas the average LEO/CCW needs to carry loaded because they wont have time to load?

As a current practical matter - if UOC is good enough for citizens, its good enough for LEO.

.

[Nor-Cal]

Very disappointing indeed. However my hats off to Mr. Peruta and his legal team and everyone involved from CGF. With that said I was really hoping for a win on this one and even so far as LOC but that battle will have to be fought another day. I just hope that everyone presses forward with an appeal to see how far they can take it. As for the judge I can not understand her reasoning for not seeing that UOC is NOT a primary means of self defense. Sure it may only take a couple seconds to load up, rack the slide and get on target to fire, however the BADGUY with the gun only has to pull the trigger in a FRACTION of a second and then bang your dead. What I really want to see is laws that are simalar to Arizona's CCW & Loaded Open Carry here in the Golden State but they may be more of a wish then a reality at this point.

I will say this, I have never UOC before but after todays ruling I am stringly considering it just to make a point and am wondering if it is now time for all 2A supporters to come together and rally in a UOC movement or event of some sort. If that happens I will be there....

I very much agree!

[Untamed1972]

As a current practical matter - if UOC is good enough for citizens, its good enough for LEO.

.

I just seems to me that if SCOTUS can say you have a right to a loaded firearm in your home for immediate self-defense, where theorectically you would have more time to retrieve a weapon and load if you heard someone breaking in, then how can anyone say that carrying unloaded in public where one would usually have less time to react to a threat be sufficent.

Just mind boggling.

[dustoff31]

I just seems to me that if SCOTUS can say you have a right to a loaded firearm in your home for immediate self-defense, where theorectically you would have more time to retrieve a weapon and load if you heard someone breaking in, then how can anyone say that carrying unloaded in public where one would usually have less time to react to a threat be sufficent.
Just mind boggling.

I don't think she is commenting on the sufficiency or effectiveness of UOC, but saying "In view of Heller, I'm not sure you have a right to carry a gun outside your home at all. But if you do, UOC is available and therefore the minimum standard has been met."

[RobG]

This ruling holds that the 2A doesn't apply outside the home and if it did, it would be subject to such a weak form of so called intermediate scrutiny that all carry could be banned except for the split seconds before you needed to use a weapon in self defense.

-Gene

Not suprising though. We are in Kalifornia, afterall.

[Casual_Shooter]

This ruling holds that the 2A doesn't apply outside the home and if it did, it would be subject to such a weak form of so called intermediate scrutiny that all carry could be banned except for the split seconds before you needed to use a weapon in self defense.

-Gene

Isn't she saying 2A does apply outside the home, just in the form of UOC?

[GrizzlyGuy]

Isn't she saying 2A does apply outside the home, just in the form of UOC?

No, she dodged the 2A question entirely:

Because Defendant’s policy for issuing concealed carry licenses under section 12050 would pass constitutional muster even if it burdens protected conduct, the Court does not need to decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses Plaintiffs’ asserted right to carry a loaded handgun in public.

[puppy8a9]

I think it would discourage lawmakers from wanting to ban open carry. If there is no legal way to carry, the court would likely rule differently.

Of course, this decision only applies to the San Diego area....

I agree it may discourage, however lawmakers have thick skulls. If they do go through with the bill in Jan to try and ban UOC a case like this will be successful but it would need to be a new case due to hindsight rules, new evidence rules in the appeal. At the time of the ruling it is legal so a new case needs to be filed as soon as the state decides to ban open carry.

Sad and unfortunate. Fixing the CCWs is supposed to be done this year too but I am still waiting on that to happen on discussions.

[Theseus]

What I do see this doing though, is providing a potential avenue for LOC. But I would not suggest trying it outside the "right people" and their influence. As wildhawker has stated, the wrong steps are just a waste of resources.