9th circuit rules no right to concealed carry guns

[Ura-Ki]

There is a lawyer over on reddit who has followed the case and broke down the round about way they cherry picked cases, including Old English law prior to the constitution, to come to the conclusion that the second does not cover concealed carry. The majority of the judges are appointed by Clinton.

I dont see the point of arguing these cases. There is really no need to even have human judges anymore since they are all corrupt and decide cases based on party requirements. Simply replace the judge with a big letter R or D and count them up

This case probably wont go to the supreme court either since there is a chance of having a liberal majority and since cases are not decided based on law or logic anymore, just party affiliation, there is no hope of decision based in reality.

And, they can always invoke "Admiralty law" to shore up there position!

 

[RicInOR]

It used to be that concealed carry was regarded as sneaky - or dastardly.

What I hear in the ruling, and IANAL, is no Constitutional Carry without a law mandating it's use. And, that the state is OK in requiring permits for Carry.

What I don't hear is that citizens cannot do that.

 

[Fordcragar]

Even more reason to not vote in any liberals.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The only problem I have with this new story, was that the Mom had a handgun stolen from her home and the baddy threatened her with it! How did the baddy get the gun? didn't Mom have it locked and secured? Good for her to beat the snot out of him, and with a chain saw no less!

 

[Steve Noble]

Typical 9th circus court thinks the second amendment does not contain the right to carry. They have more overturned rulings than any other circuit court which is why they are referred to as the 9th circus court. The only good thing? This may set up a fight in the Supreme Court.

Appeals court rules no constitutional right to carry concealed guns | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/appeals-court-rules-no-constitutional-right-to-carry-concealed-guns.html?intcmp=hpbt1)

 

[Ura-Ki]

woops, wrong thread!

 

[nammac]

woops, wrong thread!

Oh great now your cross-threading

 

[albin25]

Oh great now your cross-threading

Does that mean its now ok for Ura-Ki to use the "Women Shooters" forum?

 

[nammac]

Does that mean its now ok for Ura-Ki to use the "Women Shooters" forum?

Sure, if that's how he's identifying today

 

[NWGlockgal]

Typical 9th circus court thinks the second amendment does not contain the right to carry. They have more overturned rulings than any other circuit court which is why they are referred to as the 9th circus court.

Also known as the 9th circuit court of shlomiels.
Hopefully this is yet another one of their crazy rulings that gets over turned.

 

[nammac]

Here's an interesting dissertation by Ben Swann @ CBS 46 - Reality Check

The right to keep and bear arms may be the single most controversial and most contentious right listed in our Bill of Rights. Much of the root of that contention is in understanding what the founders and framers actually meant.

What is the Second Amendment really about?

This is a Reality Check you won't get anywhere else.

So many questions over the Second Amendment: is the amendment outdated?

If the Founders and Framers had been aware of the kind of weaponry we have today, would they have included the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights?

Is the Second Amendment about hunting and sportsmanship?

Let's begin with the actual language of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Some legal analysts say that it was not until the 1980s that the militia part of the Second Amendment became ignored, and thanks to an all-out push by the NRA the meaning of the Second Amendment was expanded from militia to the individual.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin writes in The New Yorker article, "So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?":

"The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government.

"Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find 'clear-and long lost-proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.'"

Toobin's analysis may be historically correct in as far as the change in modern or public view of the Second Amendment, but he is wrong when he indicates that the Second Amendment did not originally mean private ownership of a gun for individuals.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

What is a well regulated militia? What were the Framers talking about really? Of all the fears of the Founding Fathers, none was stronger than their fear of standing armies.

As constitutional scholar David Young has observed: "The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification period."

This may be a very foreign concept, but the first fight over the Second Amendment wasn't over whether the population should be armed. All the Framers agreed with that. The fight was between federalists and anti-federalists over whether we would have a standing army.

The Anti-Federalists―among them George Mason, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams―were militant advocates of the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution because they did not trust the power of the federal government to be restrained.

Don Kates, a scholar of the constitution and Second Amendment, points out that, "During the ratification debate, the Federalists vehemently denied that the federal government would have the power to infringe freedom of expression, religion, and other basic rights—expressly including the right to arms. In this context, Madison secured ratification by his commitment to support and to safeguard the fundamental rights that all agreed should never be infringed."

In short, the Federalists—including men like John Jay, James Madison and George Washington—wanted the Second Amendment because they believed a strong federal government would be able to control a standing army.

And the Anti-Federalists wanted it because it would mean every able-bodied man in America would be armed in the event that the federal government or America's own standing army turned on its own people.

I told you it's a hard truth. And that is what you need to know.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or even just defense of your own home. It was written by men who ultimately believed that governments and armies would turn on their own people.

The Second Amendment was written to guarantee that would never happen.

EDIT: adding link to the video
Reality Check: The True Purpose of the Second Amendment - IVN.us (http://ivn.us/2015/11/03/reality-check-the-true-purpose-of-the-second-amendment/)

 

[Ura-Ki]

And..........Those who INTERPRET what they THINK the constitution says, and what the framers had in mind, are only applying there opinion where none is/was needed! Those documents are clear and absolute in spelling out EXACTLY what they intended!

 

[Ura-Ki]

Oh great now your cross-threading

I all ready have a few screws loose, now i'm cross threading them as well My poor brain can hardly keep up these days!

 

[PiratePast40]

The fallout is starting already. No surprise that a legislator in Seattle is the first to jump on the bandwagon. Washington state lawmaker: Ruling opens door to limit concealed-gun permits (http://q13fox.com/2016/06/09/washington-state-lawmaker-ruling-opens-door-to-limit-concealed-gun-permits/).

Are Ginny, Floyd, and hags demanding they get some action wetting themselves yet?

 

[Bushman]

Great, legislators in Washington now say the door to limiting concealed carry in WA has been opened by this ruling. If this happens it will speed up my move to Idaho, Nevada or Florida.

Washington state lawmaker: Ruling opens door to limit concealed-gun permits (http://q13fox.com/2016/06/09/washington-state-lawmaker-ruling-opens-door-to-limit-concealed-gun-permits/)

 

[Bushman]

The fallout is starting already. No surprise that a legislator in Seattle is the first to jump on the bandwagon. Washington state lawmaker: Ruling opens door to limit concealed-gun permits (http://q13fox.com/2016/06/09/washington-state-lawmaker-ruling-opens-door-to-limit-concealed-gun-permits/).

Are Ginny, Floyd, and hags demanding they get some action wetting themselves yet?

The thing is, with the victory of banning free trading of privately owned firearms, it's only a matter of time before WA and OR turn into California. We may win a battle here or there, but it's only a matter of time before death by a thousand cuts. I began planning my escape from this nanny state in 2014. Rapid restrictions on our freedoms will just speed up my plan.

 

[Bushman]

I don't see the terms "Right to Openly Keep and Openly Bear Arms" in there, I see "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", which means it doesn't matter how you bear your firearms.... in the most inclusive explanation possible... it means you can bear your firearms any way you see fit... And how many states have said just that so far?

Reading this thread piece meal and just noticed your post. It raises an important point; just how did we get to the point where permit laws are legal? How did they interpret the 2A to mean you can't carry concealed without a permit? This seems unconstitutional. Yet we all know the courts are just pets of the executive and legislative branches. California will be the demise of this once great country.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Great, legislators in Washington now say the door to limiting concealed carry in WA has been opened by this ruling. If this happens it will speed up my move to Idaho, Nevada or Florida.

Washington state lawmaker: Ruling opens door to limit concealed-gun permits (http://q13fox.com/2016/06/09/washington-state-lawmaker-ruling-opens-door-to-limit-concealed-gun-permits/)

Well...shoot. I think we all knew the legiscritters weren't gonna let this slip by without taking a swipe at us.

The majority decision is SO bad that there's no way for it to stand up to a challenge. Unfortunately, the next step is the currently 4-4 SCOTUS...dicey. The 9th should have remanded the case back to the trial court because the OC laws in CA have changed since the original case was heard...it has been prohibited. That changes things, even in Cali. The precedent they cited was decided when OC was still an option, now it's not...they just punted into the unconstitutional backfield.

If nothing else it proves yet again that the anti-gun nuts are lying about their desire for "common sense" and "gun safety" by arrogantly targeting the safest and least threatening segment of society...lawful CCW holders.

 

[PiratePast40]

Well...shoot. I think we all knew the legiscritters weren't gonna let this slip by without taking a swipe at us.

The majority decision is SO bad that there's no way for it to stand up to a challenge. Unfortunately, the next step is the currently 4-4 SCOTUS...dicey. The 9th should have remanded the case back to the trial court because the OC laws in CA have changed since the original case was heard...it has been prohibited. That changes things, even in Cali. The precedent they cited was decided when OC was still an option, now it's not...they just punted into the unconstitutional backfield.

If nothing else it proves yet again that the anti-gun nuts are lying about their desire for "common sense" and "gun safety" by arrogantly targeting the safest and least threatening segment of society...lawful CCW holders.

Fortunately, the decision only applied to the actions of two SoCal counties. Yes, it does empower other scum and isn't much in the way of a silver lining, but it is some hope. A little like saying the odor from the person passing gas next to you won't kill you right away.

 

[Dave Workman]

Elections matter: 9th Circuit says no 2A right to concealed carry

In a divided ruling today, an 11-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that "there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public," in what the Associated Press is calling "a victory for gun control advocates."

<broken link removed>


Anti-gunners salivate, gun owners brace for battle after 9th Circuit ruling

It didn't take long yesterday for gun prohibitionists to seize on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that declared American citizens do not enjoy Second Amendment protection when carrying concealed sidearms in public.

<broken link removed>