Biden Appointee Strikes a Blow for Second Amendment

 I do not have a link to it yet. 

CRPA v. Los Angeles Shariff's Depasrtment (C.D.Cal. 2024).   This is "ORDER GRANTING IN PART,

DENYING IN PART, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION."  This means the final decision still requires trial, but on a preliinary basis some California concealed carry licensing laws are unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs challenged the extraordinary license fees and limitation of licenses to California residents.  While the judge did not direct that California recognize out of state licenses, it appears that her decision would require non-residents to be able to apply for carry licenses.

Here, Plaintiffs have only demonstrated that the text of the Second Amendment likely applies to the first of its arguments, that non-residents have the right, like California residents, to apply to lawfully carry firearms for self-defense while in public.

 One of the other erteaining parts of California's defense (and upn which I( had great in the rebuttals) was:

Plaintiffs respond that the LA Defendants’ showing is insufficient. First, Plaintiffs contend the LA Defendants purportedly rely on laws that post-date both relevant eras.  Second, Plaintiffs argue that, to the extent the LA Defendants cite to laws from the Founding era, those laws are “explicitly racist laws that have no place here.”

The Court finds the LA Defendants have not carried their burden to demonstrate that the over 18-month delays imposed on Individual Plaintiffs Weimer and Messel are part of a historic tradition of firearms regulation.

Time for reparations?