Yesterday a federal district judge in Virginia invalidated the state's constitutional provision defining marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. The judge immediately stayed her decision until such time as an appeals panel could affirm or reverse it, but naturally the broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- all covered the development today on their respective morning programs.
But another federal court, this one in San Francisco and infamous for its leftist leanings, handed down another ruling Thursday which passed unreported on the Friday editions of Today, Good Morning America, and CBS This Morning. That decision was one striking down California's overly-restrictive concealed-carry gun law. Reported Bob Egelko of SFGate.com (h/t Human Events; emphasis mine):
California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state's permit system for handguns.
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution's Second Amendment by requiring residents to show "good cause" - and not merely the desire to protect themselves - to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.
State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection.
"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain said in the majority opinion.
He disagreed with federal appeals courts that have upheld similar laws in New York, New Jersey and Maryland, while endorsing an appellate court that struck down Illinois' absolute ban on concealed weapons in public. The split among appellate circuits increases the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue.
As Joe Biden might say, this is a big f-ing deal, even though, yes, there's still plenty of litigating to go on before this matter winds up at the Supreme Court. Regardless, it's a significant man-bites-dog story when the most liberal circuit court in America finds restrictive concealed-carry laws to be violative of the Constitution.
But alas, liberal journalists tend to be anti-gun rights/pro-gun control and to lack a rooting interest in pro-gun rights litigation. By contrast, the same liberal journalists are socially liberal and pro-same-sex marriage, meaning they do have a rooting interest in the outcome of same-sex marriage litigation.
Of course, the liberal media will laughably insist until they're blue in the face that they are completely objective and unbiased on both matters. The double standard in court coverage, however, proves otherwise.
