The US Supreme Court delivered a bombshell last week in the case of The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (or simply "Bruen"). Six of the Court's nine justices voted to strike down a 100-year-old New York law that generally prohibited carrying firearms outside of the home. Previously, the state had granted "concealed carry" licenses only to applicants who could demonstrate some exceptional need for protection, beyond ordinary self-defense. The Court found this restriction to be unconstitutionally onerous, declaring for the first time that individuals do not shed their Second Amendment rights when they step outside.
Effectively, the Court announced that states must provide some legal means for law-abiding individuals to defend themselves with weapons outside of the home.
Until now, the Court had always analyzed Second Amendment challenges by applying a test called "intermediate scrutiny". Under intermediate scrutiny, judges try to determine the constitutionality of a law by performing a legal balancing act, weighing the interests of the government against the individual. If the state has some important public policy objective in mind (e.g. "safety"), and the law at issue is closely related to achieving that goal, then the law is generally upheld.
Applying the intermediate scrutiny test, courts have allowed laws to stand which limit the number of rounds that a firearm can hold, prohibit popular makes and models of weapons, and that ban common features, like detachable magazines. California appellate courts have ruled that all of these restrictions are supported by important state interests that outweigh any legitimate needs of the people.
In Bruen, though, the Supreme Court announced a new test for analyzing Second Amendment challenges. Rather than applying intermediate scrutiny and weighing the interests of the government against the people, courts are now directed to apply a "historical analogy" test. Under the new test, judges must try to determine whether a particular law is "historically analogous" to some other law that was generally accepted at the time at the time of the Constitution's adoption -- "Did this particular restriction exist at the time of the founding? Would the Framers have thought that it was acceptable?". Keep in mind that the Framers had cannons.
This new test is a gamechanger for a lot of California laws. CA has some of the most complicated, restrictive gun regulations in the country. Last week, the Supreme Court gave some indications that Bruen is just the tip of the iceberg for California gun control. The high court vacated a number of California appellate court decisions that had previously addressed Second Amendment-related issues. It sent those cases back to the lower courts with instructions to apply the new Bruen rule. The remanded cases involve California's concealed weapon licensing scheme, restrictions on "high capacity" magazines, and the state's ban on "assault weapons".
It will be really interesting to see how (if at all) this new ruling also affects California's non-firearm-related weapons laws. As I've previously discussed here, California has some goofy rules about carrying weapons in public. You can carry a machete on your belt, for instance, but you cannot carry a 3-inch fixed blade if it's concealed on your body (but it's OK to keep a fixed blade concealed under the driver's seat of your car). You can carry a concealed folding knife that's 3 feet long, as long as it isn't open and locked into position while it's concealed. You can keep an unloaded shotgun in your trunk, but you cannot carry a baseball bat. See what I mean? These rules are probably not consistent with the court's new "historical analogy" test.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions, and there will be plenty of litigation to work them all out. In the meantime, CA is frantically trying to adopt a new regulatory scheme for issuing concealed weapons permits that will pass constitutional muster. They still plan to interview applicants and to require that licensees complete an approved training course. Some state legislators have already proposed throwing up regulatory road blocks, like excessive fees, to deter applicants.
If you or a loved one has questions about weapons in California, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John.
We also have extensive experience in helping clients restore gun rights. Many disqualifying charges in California can be reduced or dismissed after the defendant completes probation. Depending on the circumstances, earning a reduction or dismissal may restore a person's right to purchase firearms.
No comments:
Post a Comment