Tag Archives: van Nieuwenhuyzen

9th Circuit is in a crack this time

Well done, Calguns Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, and Madison Society Foundation.

Riverside, California Sheriff Stan Sniff Sued for “Discriminatory and Unconstitutional” Handgun Carry Policies in Federal Court
After purchasing a handgun with the intention of eventually lawfully carrying it for self-defense, plaintiff Arie van Nieuwenhuyzen asked the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department how he could apply for a “CCW” license to carry it in public. But the Sheriff’s Department told him that, because he was a legal U.S. resident and not a U.S. citizen, he could not even apply for a license under Sheriff Sniff’s handgun policies and practices. That, the plaintiffs say, is unconstitutional.

Here is the Complaint. Good reading.

As I said, the 9th is in a tough spot of their own making.

Historically, 9th Circuit Courts have done their damnedest to uphold almost every California infringement of Second Amendment rights, going so far as to support a law requiring nonexistent “microstamping”.

On the other hand, a 9th Circuit Appellate panel did recently rule in favor of open carry. And that’s a precedent that may apply here, since California doesn’t allow any unlicensed carry.

What really gets interesting is that van Nieuwenhuyzen is challenging a blanket policy, one which appears to be in violation of California state preemption laws.

Sniff’s department, rather stupidly, did not reject van Nieuwenhuyzen’s application on the usual (and bogus) “good moral character” grounds. They refused his application because he isn’t a citizen. That was a mistake.

While I’m sure most judges in the 9th would like to uphold that policy (and often rule in favor of the state versus any sane reality), Sniff et al screwed up.

To find for the sheriff, the judge would have to find that the policy of a blanket ban on noncitizen legal residents — regardless of “good moral character,” community standing, whatever — is in the interest of “public safety.”

That noncitizen legal residents are an inherent threat to public safety. Simply by existing.

I almost hope the judge (and the 9th Appeals Court) is that stupid. If legal residents are an inherent threat, just imagine what a threat illegal aliens must be.

That would provide a precedent to challenge every “sanctuary” policy for illegal aliens out there. You know, the illegal aliens that Democrats expect to be voting for gun control in the mid-terms.

Or the judge (and Circuit) could opt for sanity, and we still chip a –admittedly small — hole in arbitrary CCW denials.

Win/Win.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail