U.S. v. MADRID, CR 14-00038 CRB. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160627525
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING CONVICTION CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . Francisco Madrid was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Cal. Penal Code 25400(a)(1). See Judgment (dkt. 29). Madrid timely appealed to this Court. See Notice of Appeal (dkt. 28); Minute Entry (dkt. 32). Madrid argued that his conviction violated the Second Amendment because the regulatory framework underlying his offense—which required an applicant to show "good cause" before the applicant could rece
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING CONVICTION CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . Francisco Madrid was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Cal. Penal Code 25400(a)(1). See Judgment (dkt. 29). Madrid timely appealed to this Court. See Notice of Appeal (dkt. 28); Minute Entry (dkt. 32). Madrid argued that his conviction violated the Second Amendment because the regulatory framework underlying his offense—which required an applicant to show "good cause" before the applicant could recei..
More
ORDER AFFIRMING CONVICTION
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
Francisco Madrid was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 25400(a)(1). See Judgment (dkt. 29). Madrid timely appealed to this Court. See Notice of Appeal (dkt. 28); Minute Entry (dkt. 32). Madrid argued that his conviction violated the Second Amendment because the regulatory framework underlying his offense—which required an applicant to show "good cause" before the applicant could receive a concealed carry permit—infringed on his right to bear arms in self-defense. See Appeal (dkt. 39). The Court AFFIRMS Madrid's conviction for the following reasons.
The Ninth Circuit recently decided Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 10-56971, 2016 WL 3194315 (9th Cir. June 9, 2016) (en banc). In Peruta, the court stated the following:
Our holding that the Second Amendment does not protect the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public fully answers the question before us. Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry—including a requirement of "good cause," however defined—is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.
See id. at *15. The parties and amicus, in letter briefs filed after the Peruta decision was handed down, agree that no further briefing is necessary in light of the Ninth Circuit's holding and indicate that Madrid's appeal fails under the now-governing law of this circuit. See Madrid Letter (dkt. 78); United States Letter (dkt. 79); California Letter (dkt. 80).
For the foregoing reasons, this Court AFFIRMS the judgment of the magistrate judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
