December 17, 2008
California court rejects Second Amendment attack on public firearm possession crime
A helpful reader sent me an e-mail altering me to a new decision dealing with a Heller-based Second Amendment claim in a Califorinia criminal case. The ruling in People v. Yarbrough, No. A120721 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Dec. 17, 2008) (available here) , starts this way:
Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, § 12025, subd. (a)(2)), and carrying a loaded firearm in a public place (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1)). He was sentenced to the middle term of two years in state prison for the conviction of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, and sentence on the remaining conviction was stayed.
In this appeal defendant claims that his conviction of possession of a concealed weapon violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the trial court gave erroneous instructions in response to jury questions on the charge of carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. He also challenges the trial court’s sentencing decision to deny probation and impose a state prison term. We conclude that the conviction of possession of a concealed weapon does not contravene defendant’s Second Amendment rights as interpreted in the United States Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ___ U.S. ___ [171 L.Ed.2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783] (Heller), and the court properly instructed the jury on carrying a loaded firearm in a public place. We also find that no prejudicial sentencing error occurred. We therefore affirm the judgment.
I hope to get a chance to consume this opinion and comment on its particulars soon.
December 17, 2008 at 06:07 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California court rejects Second Amendment attack on public firearm possession crime:
» Blog Scan from Crime and Consequences Blog
The Third Circuit, Animal Cruelty, the First Amendment and (maybe) the Supreme Court: At Volokh Conspiracy Jonathan Adler predicts that the Third Circuit's en banc decision in United States v. Stevens, could get a chance to be heard before the... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 18, 2008 11:11:14 AM
There are several errors in the courts application of Heller. Particularly odd is the idea that a concealed revolver is a "dangerous and unusual weapon". Also the idea that a private driveway where people are gathering is a "sensitive place" under heller is absurd. While it may not receive the same protection as a home, sensitive places are things like schools and courthouses, not everywhere outside the home...
I don't know much about California's gun laws, is there any way in California that a law abbiding citizen could legally carry a concealed revolver?
Posted by: Monty | Dec 17, 2008 6:34:10 PM
I appreciate California court's suggestion. If the firearm is concealed then how someone allowed to carry it in public place.
Posted by: Firearms | Dec 29, 2008 5:56:27 AM