Appeals court rules no right to carry concealed guns

[Matt Collins]

Appeals court rules no constitutional right to carry concealed guns

Published June 09, 2016

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that people do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public, in a sweeping decision likely to be challenged by gun-rights advocates.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the 7-4 ruling, upholding a state law requiring applicants to show "good cause," such as a fear of personal safety, to carry a concealed firearm.

The judges, further, definitively dismissed the argument that a right to carry a concealed weapon was contained in the Second Amendment.

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public," Judge William Fletcher wrote in the majority opinion.

If challenged, it could set up a Supreme Court battle.

more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/court-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public.html

[osan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/court-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public.html

Ninth Circuit.

What else would anyone have expected?

This may well go to SCOTUS, in which case much of their waffling as per Heller and McDonald would likely have to be clarified.

[Matt Collins]

This may well go to SCOTUS, in which case much of their waffling as per Heller and McDonald would likely have to be clarified.Not if they are split and come up with a 4-4 decision. Or worse, if the next President (Trump OR Hillary) appoints another loser to the court.

[osan]

Not if they are split and come up with a 4-4 decision. Or worse, if the next President (Trump OR Hillary) appoints another loser to the court.

By the time this is likely to he heard, that void may be filled. As for who gets the slot... well, I don't hold very high expectations there.

[Origanalist]

By the time this is likely to he heard, that void may be filled. As for who gets the slot... well, I don't hold very high expectations there.

Or anywhere else in the bastion of freedom.

[William Tell]

It would be great if SCOTUS stopped hearing gun cases. I don't imagine anything good will ever come out of appealing there in the future.

[Matt Collins]

By the time this is likely to he heard, that void may be filled. As for who gets the slot... well, I don't hold very high expectations there.
But we must vote for Trump to make sure we get a pro-gun nominee to the Supreme Court!


/sarc


:rolleyes: :( :mad:

[osan]

But we must vote for Trump to make sure we get a pro-gun nominee to the Supreme Court!

I understand your concern, but Clinton and Sanders would stack the court with ultra-progressives.

What then, is the choice?

The real problem, of course, is that we the people have to worry about such things. SCOTUS should have been reeled in by hanging the justices in 1804 after Marbury. But we failed to do that and any claim to authority that goes unchallenged becomes fact which only strengthens in time. So we did this to ourselves and will not be able to extricate from the noose without some extremes.

[Suzanimal]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Dealing a blow to gun supporters, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.

In a dispute that could ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said local law enforcement officials can place significant restrictions on who is allowed to carry concealed guns.

By a vote of 7-4, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must cite a "good cause" to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Typically, people who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are granted permits.

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public," Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

The ruling overturned a 2014 decision by a three-judge panel of the same court that said applicants need only express a desire for personal safety.

In a dissent, Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan said the ruling "obliterates the Second Amendment's right to bear a firearm in some manner in public for self-defense."

Three other federal appeals courts have ruled similarly in the past, upholding California-like restrictions in New York, Maryland and New Jersey. In addition, another federal appeals court struck down Illinois' complete ban on carrying concealed weapons.

The 9th Circuit covers nine Western states, but California and Hawaii are the only ones in which the ruling will have any practical effect. The others do not require permit applicants to cite a "good cause." Anyone in those states with a clean record and no history of mental illness can get a permit.

The National Rifle Association called the ruling "out of touch."

"This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection," said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.

Gun control advocates and others hailed the ruling.

"This is a significant victory for public safety and for local jurisdictions that apply sensible policies to protect the public," said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat.

...

http://www.wistv.com/story/32186024/court-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public

[Matt Collins]

I understand your concern, but Clinton and Sanders would stack the court with ultra-progressives.

What then, is the choice?
Work on your state legislators.... Trump isn't going to give us a result we want on the SCOTUS, this fight will have to be done at the state level.

[osan]

Work on your state legislators.... Trump isn't going to give us a result we want on the SCOTUS, this fight will have to be done at the state level.

This strikes me as fidupulatingly naïve in the face of today's reality. When was the last time the states held any significant sway over the feds, especially on non-trivial issues? Last I looked, both houses of the Congress were as trustworthy as Obama.

Seriously, what leads you to think that this would get us anywhere other than further down the path to utter tyranny? I see such measures as equivalent to the rearrangement of deck chairs on Titanic. What am I missing?

[William Tell]

This strikes me as fidupulatingly naïve in the face of today's reality. When was the last time the states held any significant sway over the feds, especially on non-trivial issues? Last I looked, both houses of the Congress were as trustworthy as Obama.

Seriously, what leads you to think that this would get us anywhere other than further down the path to utter tyranny? I see such measures as equivalent to the rearrangement of deck chairs on Titanic. What am I missing?
You are missing that gun rights is actually one issue we have been having victories at on the state level. Idaho recently passed Constitutional Carry. Courts ruling that states can ban carrying guns does not mean they will, since most gun control is enforced by state and local officials, fighting at the state level is the most important.

Of course, we have lost ground in other states. California has been a lost cause for years. But things are looking better in the south and west.

[Cleaner44]

Work on your state legislators.... Trump isn't going to give us a result we want on the SCOTUS, this fight will have to be done at the state level.

Hillary would put a much more anti-gun justice in place than Trump. There is no doubt about that in my mind.

[osan]

You are missing that gun rights is actually one issue we have been having victories at on the state level. Idaho recently passed Constitutional Carry. Courts ruling that states can ban carrying guns does not mean they will, since most gun control is enforced by state and local officials, fighting at the state level is the most important.

Of course, we have lost ground in other states. California has been a lost cause for years. But things are looking better in the south and west.

I've not missed that bit. What you may be missing is the fact that the SCOTUS could reverse itself at any time. If a heavily stacked progressive court becomes reality, they could simply say that all previous courts were wrong, there is no right to keep and bear arms by individuals, and that would open the door wide for federal legislation which would be claimed to override all state statutes.

What do you think the vast bulk of Americans would do? Fight in materially meaningful ways? Not in this lifetime.

The real point here is that where the fed moves decisively, the states have a long and wearisome track record of assuming their knees... lest they lose their highway funding... God forbid. We are, at this point, exactly one seat away from all the gains being taken away in one fell swoop because it can happen at any time due to the way in which things shook out in the wake of Marbury. Had those justices been hung from their necks until quite dead, there is a fair to middling chance that this nation would today be a very much improved place.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yk12KQVRhI

[Intoxiklown]

I never owned any type of weapons permiy until I was 39 years old, and that was due to my wife's insistence since AL considered a weapon in one's vehicle concealed. This law has since been repealed, and concealed carry is now only on one's person in public, but we do have open carry. Her logic was she'd rather pay for a 5 year permit for $100, than have to pay bail and lawyer fees if I was ever pulled over, since the city cops are sightly....notorious.

I don't bitch though, because oddly, the Sheriff's department and the hghway patrol in our area are actualy pretty straight up.

Point is, I've carried guns since I was 16. Both in my car, and on my person. All over the country. And I never once cared what some asshole wearing a black dress said about it. So, while it's wrong, and I want to see it changed on paper. I really don't give a fuck.

[ZENemy]

I never owned any type of weapons permiy until I was 39 years old, and that was due to my wife's insistence since AL considered a weapon in one's vehicle concealed. This law has since been repealed, and concealed carry is now only on one's person in public, but we do have open carry. Her logic was she'd rather pay for a 5 year permit for $100, than have to pay bail and lawyer fees if I was ever pulled over, since the city cops are sightly....notorious.

I don't bitch though, because oddly, the Sheriff's department and the hghway patrol in our area are actualy pretty straight up.

Point is, I've carried guns since I was 16. Both in my car, and on my person. All over the country. And I never once cared what some $#@! wearing a black dress said about it. So, while it's wrong, and I want to see it changed on paper. I really don't give a $#@!.

This is how we achieve freedom.

[Zippyjuan]

If the Supreme Court takes up the matter while they still have only eight members, the vote would likely split which would uphold the lower court's ruling making it national.

[Intoxiklown]

If the Supreme Court takes up the matter while they still have only eight members, the vote would likely split which would uphold the lower court's ruling making it national.

Considering the snail's pace at which the Supreme Court's docket moves, I feel quite confident that at least that particular scenario won't be playing out.

[Zippyjuan]

Given the disputes between both parties, it may take a long time to get a judge confirmed too. If Republicans refuse to consider Obama's choice and Trump wins, Democrats may decide to not consider his nominee. If Hillary wins, it could end up a judge who supports the Ninth Circuit ruling. A toss of the dice as to how it turns out.

[Keith and stuff]

As long as this isn't appealed, it only potentially hurts the people of MT, ID, NV, AZ, and the Pacific Ocean states.

[jllundqu]

As long as this isn't appealed, it only potentially hurts the people of MT, ID, NV, AZ, and the Pacific Ocean states.

Doesn't hurt a soul in AZ...

The ruling is actually a win for state's rights... The ruling said it's up to the states to decide who can carry concealed and the 2A doesn't guarantee concealed carry.

Arizona is a "Constitutional Carry" state... open or concealed, no permit required. This ruling only affirms that... sucks to be in CA and other leftist states!

[nobody's_hero]

If anyone knows that you conceal carry, you're doing it wrong.

[Slave Mentality]

My knives are regulation 3" or whatever too.

[kfarnan]

Danger... Stay away from Ca. Gun free zones are prone to mass shootings. !!

[TheTexan]

"We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public," Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

This ruling makes sense. There's really no need for concealed weapons when hunting or olympic target shooting, which are the 2 main things the 2nd amendment was designed to protect.

[ZENemy]

This ruling makes sense. There's really no need for concealed weapons when hunting or olympic target shooting, which are the 2 main things the 2nd amendment was designed to protect.

:eek::D

[DamianTV]

The way they apply the word "Right" seems to be that they are under the misguided pretense that our Rights come from them. They dont. Stop confusing "Right" with a "Permission" they grant. Stop asking Permission. No bully will ever give you Permission to defend yourself against their assaults.

[Contumacious]

Ninth Circuit.

What else would anyone have expected?

This may well go to SCOTUS, in which case much of their waffling as per Heller and McDonald would likely have to be clarified.

Sadly, it won't.

SCOTUS will vote 4 to 4 in which case the 9th Cir case law will become the law of the circuit. The motherf u c k e r s know that without Scalia SCOTUS won't have a majority in firearms issues.

[Contumacious]

more:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/court-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public.html

Given California’s Choice to Prohibit Open Carry, the
Counties’ Policies of Not Allowing for Concealed
Carry for Self-Defense are Unconstitutional
As the Plaintiffs have some right to carry a firearm in
public for self-defense, the next task is to determine whether
the counties’ policies, in light of the state’s open-carry
restrictions, are constitutional. We have held (and the
majority does not hold otherwise) that when a law burdens
conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s
guarantee, a two-step inquiry is appropriate. Jackson v. City
& Cty. of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 963 (9th Cir. 2014).
“The two-step inquiry we have adopted ‘(1) asks whether the
challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second
PERUTA V. CTY. OF SAN DIEGO 67
Amendment and (2) if so, directs courts to apply an
appropriate level of scrutiny.’” Id. at 960 (quoting United
States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)).

places. AB 144, 2011–12 Leg., 2011–12 Sess. (Cal. 2011).2
Thus, California now generally prohibits individuals from
openly carrying a handgun—whether loaded or unloaded—in
public locations. See Cal. Penal Code § 25850 (prohibiting
carry of a loaded firearm); id. § 26350 (prohibiting open carry
of an unloaded firearm).3
B. In the context of California’s ban on open carry, the
counties’ ban on concealed carry for self-defense is
unconstitutional

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting,

PERUTA V. CTY. OF SAN DIEGO (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/09/10-56971.pdf)