Posted April 10, 2017 8:57 am by Comments

By Trevor Burrus, Thomas Berry Trevor Burrus, Thomas Berry

California law generally bans the possession of a gun within a
school zone. For many years, however, both retired peace officers
and those with a license to carry concealed weapons were exempted
from this ban. Then in 2015, a bill was proposed that would have
eliminated both of these exceptions. But after extensive lobbying
by interest groups aligned with federal workers and police
officers, the bill was amended to remove only the exception for
concealed-carry licensees. Dr. Ulises Garcia is one such license
holder, who obtained his license after receiving threats against
himself from a former patient. After the change in the law, Garcia
can no longer carry his weapon for protection when attending school
events with his family. Garcia and a group of other plaintiffs have
sued, arguing that the differing treatment afforded to retired
peace officers and concealed-carry license holders violates the
Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of
the laws. The federal district court rejected their claims, and
they have now appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. Cato has filed an
amicus brief
supporting Garcia and urging that the district
court be reversed. In rejecting Garcia’s equal-protection
arguments, the district court fundamentally erred in its
application of an important Supreme Court test. Legislation that
treats two groups unequally …Read the Rest

Source:: Cato Institute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.