PENAL CODE SECTION 26350

[Librarian]

Zhyla,

I'm standing behind my statement. Attached is a copy of the Heller decision. Please refer to page 64, first paragraph.

See also page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guaran- tee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

P 29

We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes.

P 56

... he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelm- ingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.

The law at issue was DC's handgun prohibition

... the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

-- since that was the presented question, that had to be the scope of the applied decision.

But to get to any right the court had to perform the analysis. The line "... to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" is taken by some to mean 'self defense is protected ONLY in the home'.

Masciandaro provides the cert petition question "Does the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protect a right to possess and carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home?", starting

Three years ago, this Court announced that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms in self-defense and defense of the home. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). Since that time, numerous federal and state appellate courts from around the country have refused to recognize any Second Amendment self-defense right outside the home. Some courts have assumed (without deciding) that the right could extend beyond the home. Others have explicitly refused to recognize any constitutional self-defense right that exists outside of a traditional primary residence. These courts have read Heller as identifying a constitutional self-defense right only in one’s home or have refused to expand the right until this Court explicitly does so. Lower courts have, to date, upheld every challenged firearm regulation outside the home (with one known exception) using one of four alternative tests.

but cert was denied.

We're still waiting for SCOTUS to take a case that will resolve the issue Masciandaro offered.

[Tincon]

Do you have a right to bear arms outside the home? Probably, but you won't have protection in the courts until we get some additional favorable precedent. For now, the PC is enforceable as enacted. Please stand by.

[sandwich]

Please stand by.

And the joke in this discussion area is always, the answer/decision will be made/available "in two weeks."

[JunkYrdDog]

I googled "sasha alexander" out of curiosity and experienced a far different result that I would have expected.

I feel this thread is a perfect example of the irreconcilable differences that the state of CA has with the US Constitution, trying to make sense of some CA laws WRT the Constitution is an exercise in futility

LOL i did the same thing, clicked images, and now i'm smitten....

[JimWest]

...But to get to any right the court had to perform the analysis. The line "... to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" is taken by some to mean 'self defense is protected ONLY in the home'...

Certainly, the instance where one has no home, i.e., "homeless" was considered in this regard. How did that factor in?

[Sashaalexander]

I googled "sasha alexander" out of curiosity and experienced a far different result that I would have expected.

Exactly, what results you would have expected?

[RickD427]

See also page 19 P 29 P 56 The law at issue was DC's handgun prohibition -- since that was the presented question, that had to be the scope of the applied decision.

But to get to any right the court had to perform the analysis. The line "... to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" is taken by some to mean 'self defense is protected ONLY in the home'.

Masciandaro provides the cert petition question "Does the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protect a right to possess and carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home?", starting but cert was denied.

We're still waiting for SCOTUS to take a case that will resolve the issue Masciandaro offered.

Librarian,

All good points, but remember there is a difference between the "Dicta" in a court opinion and the "Holding." All of your points were quoted from the dicta.

They're good points, and I hope they will be used to support the development of additional case law. Heller was a landmark case, but like all cases, it only opened the door on the issue. It's going to take a lot more case work to define the limits of the right that Heller defined. Look at all of the case law that followed Miranda.

[Librarian]

Librarian,

All good points, but remember there is a difference between the "Dicta" in a court opinion and the "Holding." All of your points were quoted from the dicta.

They're good points, and I hope they will be used to support the development of additional case law. Heller was a landmark case, but like all cases, it only opened the door on the issue. It's going to take a lot more case work to define the limits of the right that Heller defined. Look at all of the case law that followed Miranda.

I disagree that was dicta, and it seems later filings, in other cases, also disagree; as I noted in the earlier reply, SCOTUS felt it had to do the analysis to get to whether there was any right at all in dispute.

Certainly the filings from the appellees that claim 'only in the home, not outside' are taking 'most acute' as part of the holding.

[Hoooper]

Exactly, what results you would have expected?

Pretty much just a bunch of people finding websites with 700 results for people whose names vaguely resemble what I searched for. That would be normal

[SpunkyJivl]

....Everything is so confusing? Why we fight for freedom and constitution if government openly takes it away from us and there is no freedom even promised by constitution. So confusing...

Amen brother. Amen.

To answer your question: Progessives. The Deomocrat party has been taken over by them. California has been run by them for decades. Vote Republican. Better yet, TEA Party. They are the true Constitutional Conservatives.

[Ron-Solo]

Also, what would happen if i go out in the Downtown LA with open carry hand gun? Long Gun?

Do NOT do this! It will cause you endless legal problems, loss of your guns, potential loss of your freedoms.

[Tincon]

I still do not understand, as a legal US citizen, do i have the right to carry a gun per 2nd amendment or it is illegal per this penal code?

Both may well be true, the law is in a state of flux. You may have the right, yet you may still be arrested and prosecuted for exercising it. A wise person would wait a few years for some more solid legal authority.

Also, what would happen if i go out in the Downtown LA with open carry hand gun? Long Gun?

You would probably be arrested, possible even shot and killed. Not a recommended course of action.

So confusing...

The law usually is. That's why people go to school for years and train to understand it. That is also why you pay those same people to explain the law to you, to the extent it may impact your life, and to seek to over-turn those laws you do not agree with.

You can accomplish both by supporting groups like the CRPA, NRA, etc.