9th circuit rules no right to concealed carry guns

[3MTA3]

We need more Federal Judges, especially in the Supreme Court that see the Constitution as the guiding law, and not something they can study and hair split to advance their own objectives. That they they interpret the Constitution as written is the most important thing, even if I disagree with the particular ruling.

Elections matter, especially this one. The next President will likely appoint several Supreme Court Justices. We need to make sure that these are ones who stand by our highest law. Please to what you can to open the eyes of those around you.

Otherwise the 9th Circuit Court will soon be conservative by comparison.

 

[RicInOR]

CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: Ninth Circuit Ignores Second Amendment to Uphold Ban on Concealed Carry.

 

[RLS]

Anyone that has been thinking about getting their permit in Oregon or Washington needs to stop thinking about it and get the process started before it is to late.

I know of a few that i am sure know nothing about this. Time for them to become more informed and get the ball rolling. Maybe now they will realize just what the goal is.

 

[nammac]

The goal is for the gubermint to disarm their subjects.... But not the criminals.... Go figure...

 

[PaulB47]

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

Back in the days when everybody normally carried openly...

It was also probably one of the Jim Crow laws. Easier to detect a dark brown person carrying a gun openly than concealed...

What's wrong with you people, can't you read? Doesn't the 2nd Amendment say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes only shall not be infringed."

Wait--- what, it doesn't?

It ain't the end of the world, even in California. Just man up and carry without asking permission from your "betters".

No, elections don't matter. Your will power is what matters. Liberty is defined by the disobedient, not by the old farts who wear black dresses, or the people willing to lick their boots.

 

[PiratePast40]

^^^Many people have security clearances and jobs that require you to be without a criminal record. Yes, I respect that we can give them the finger anytime that we want, but not all of us have the financial or political pull to feed our families while in jail.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I hope we are still at the ballot box stage........

Do you trust the GOV to count your vote correctly? I sure don't!!!

 

[Brutus57]

One word: "California" The real problem with this is that it's a Federal court decision. This isn't over yet.

They will take it to the SCOTUS, and all things being equal now...It loses because of Heller...but now, now, now more than ever gun owners need to vote R and keep SHillary out of the WH. If you want to keep your guns you will vote against her.

Brutus Out

 

[Steve32]

 

[Buster1]

And please let this remind all of you. Don't let your permits expire!!!!

I had a friend that had a concealed carry permit for all 50 states. He was a retired DEA Agent and worked for the govt after retirement. He let it lapse and couldn't get it back.

Has your friend not heard of H.R. 218 (the Law Enforcement Safety Act)? If he retired in good standing, has retired LEO credentials, and qualifies annually with a law enforcement agency or certified trainer, he can carry in all 50 states.

 

[L84Cabo]

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?

They have evolved over time. The question that is perpetually up for discussion of course is, "how much can you limit/regulate/restrict a right before that act of limiting/regulation/restricting infringes on the right?

We know that rights aren't absolute. That reasonable restrictions can be implemented. Asking someone to obtain a permit, take a class to prove proficiency, etc., does not fundamentally infringe on the right itself or overly burden the people. Hence, permits have stood up to legal scrutiny. Of course, we know that some states, counties, etc., have subsequently used the permitting process as a means of implementing gun control. Where this occurs, people are free to challenge the issue through the legal process.

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.

The below is an excerpt from the decision that I believe will provide an answer to your question.

The argument of the principal dissent is based on a logical fallacy. Even construing the Second Amendment as protecting the right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm in public (an issue we do not decide), and even assuming that California's restrictions on public open carry violate the Second Amendment so construed (an issue we also do not decide), it does not follow that California's restrictions on public concealed carry violate the Amendment.

As the uncontradicted historical evidence overwhelmingly shows, the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed weapon in public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect to some degree a right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm in public. If there is such a right, it is only a right to carry a firearm openly.

But Plaintiffs do not challenge California's restrictions on open carry; they challenge only restrictions on concealed carry. If there is a Second Amendment right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, and if that right is violated, the cure is to apply the Second Amendment to protect that right. The cure is not to apply the Second
Amendment to protect a right that does not exist under the
Amendment.
Peruta v. County of San Diego, pp. 50-51

The judges are technically correct that 2A does not specifically guarantee concealed carry. When the COTUS was ratified, open carry was really the accepted means of carrying a firearm. Consequently there are many that feel that open carry is the protected right enumerated in 2A. The obvious problem with this, of course, is that California specifically outlaws open carry. This was the State's decision. The State outlawed open carry and subsequently left the issuing of concealed carry permits to the respective county law enforcement agencies. Except some counties...San Diego in particular...have all but eliminated the issuing of permits, using "good cause" as a means of rejecting most permit requests, and thereby flushing people's constitutional rights right down the toilet.

It is patently clear to me that these judges are cowardly statists that while technically correct to the letter of the law, diligently worked and perverted the spirit of the law to support and further their own political ideologies. Quite simply, they legislated from the bench. Justice was, most certainly, not served. Moreover, this is likely the most severe trampling and mockery made of United States Constitution that I think I have ever seen. Our Founders would be dumping tea in the harbor. Or at the very least a handful of corrupt judges would be getting tarred and feathered on the steps of the capitol.

With the above said, the question becomes, "what do we do now?" Do we appeal and take our chances with SCOTUS? Or do we look around for a new case (or perhaps refile this one if that's possible) to challenge the notion of Open Carry? To that end, one would assume the 9th would have to rule in our favor on that. But who knows what trick they will pull out of their rear ends next?

 

[Stomper]

Conniving legalese double-speak. Those "justices" each need a punch to their nose.

 

[206thsense]

Conniving legalese double-speak. Those "justices" each need a punch to their nose.

Yep.

"Justice Does Not Come From Judges"

 

[cdmontgo]

Ninth Circuit Leading the Pack for 'Most Reversed', by Jonathan Keim, National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/373273/ninth-circuit-leading-pack-most-reversed-jonathan-keim)

 

[albin25]

The simple purpose is to next allow towns, counties, states, and private organizations to declare almost everywhere outside your property line, or perhaps just outside your own front door, as a "gun free zone".
With only open carry being legal....
....well YOU figure it out!

 

[coastal steelheader]

This will get worse, before Obama leaves office he will most likely do an Executive Order to further restrict gun ownership

This is only the beginning

Appeals court rules Americans don't have right to carry concealed guns | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/court-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public.html)

Sorry to quote myself..
The shooting in Orlando will probably speed the Executive Order along. It's coming, but I believe it will backfire on the left in this country.

 

[Buster1]

If he could do anything, he would've done it after Newtown. About the only ploy he has is to try and make gun owners look like homophobes if you're against gun control, and it won't have much traction.

My hunch is, a bunch of the LGBT crowd will be secretly pulling the red lever come November. It ain't no secret, especially after last night, Muslims are their enemy no matter what the clown in the rainbow house has to say.

 

[RB87]

We know that rights aren't absolute.

Well except for the right to vote. You don't need an ID for that. Literacy tests? Abominations! How dare you! But safety training for self-defense... should be required!

As for the 9th's new ruling, well I'm so glad we have Heller and McDonald wins under our belts. Nevermind this ruling directly contradicts the McDonald one by the Supremes. But that shouldn't matter because reasons.

 

[BlackRyder]

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/)

Thanks for this. I think that in this age of throw away communications people forget how important word choice was to the folks back in the day. The placement of that comma is super, super important! If you actually take the time to parse out the sentence, they are saying that because a well trained militia is necessary for a free state, the citizens of that state (who will make up the militia if the need arises) shall have the right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the amendment specifically relates to arming citizens, not armies!
Also most people these days think of a militia as something completely different then what it meant back then- they have no idea what the definition actually is.
In order to truly understand the bill of rights you have to use the definitions of the words that the founding fathers were working with, not the definitions as we have come to understand them today.

 

[PaulB47]

If he could do anything, he would've done it after Newtown.

Agree. The only effect is that the gun prohibitionists in the media Ministry of Propaganda will spout their usual BS, while gays go out and arm themselves en masse, and stop supporting gun-banning politicians.