I have been asked for commentary on the recent Ninth Circuit decision holding that Californians need not demonstrate a specific threat to their safety before receiving a permit to carry a firearm in public.
I have not had a chance to read the decision, so I can’t issue a final verdict on it, but it sounds right (accepting, as everyone in the legal world does, the dubious Incorporation Doctrine). What is there to say, other than that it is surprising to see a court make the right decision for once?
As with Heller, this was a case decided by one vote. And this can be reversed, either by the full en banc court or by the Supremes.
The courts are there to protect your rights . . . except when they aren’t, which is most of the time.