Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24669
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#1 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:21 pm

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (one of the more liberal circuits) issued a 7-4 en banc decision today upholding a California law requiring gun owners to show a good reason before they could get a concealed carry license. The basis for its ruling was its holding that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to carry concealed firearms in public:
"Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including the requirement of 'good cause,' however defined — is necessary allowed by the Amendment,"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/9th ... ry-n589041

Look for this one to get the the Supreme Court and look for it to become a campaign issue as a result.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#2 Post by Jeemie » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:26 pm

The big push now is for open carry. That's taking off in several states.
1979 City of Champions 2009

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 13737
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#3 Post by BackInTex » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:40 pm

..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to carry concealed firearms in public
By what definition of "infringed" do they get there?

And now we get into the debate on what "good reason" may be. In Texas "because" will good reason.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

War is where the government tells you who the bad guy is.
Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.
-- Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24669
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#4 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:47 pm

BackInTex wrote: And now we get into the debate on what "good reason" may be. In Texas "because" will good reason.
Apparently, in Texas, refusing to have sex with a man who paid $150 is a good reason to kill a woman.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 581027.php
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24669
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#5 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:00 pm

BackInTex wrote: By what definition of "infringed" do they get there?
From the majority opinion (quoting from the Heller decision written by Justice Scalia):
Relying on the phrase “shall not be infringed,” the Court in Heller viewed the Amendment as having “codified a preexisting right.” Id. at 592 (emphasis in original). The Court
focused on the history leading to the adoption of the Amendment, and on the common understanding of the Amendment in the years following its adoption. The Court concluded that the “pre-existing right” to keep and bear arms preserved by the Second Amendment was in part an individual right to personal self-defense, not confined to the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia. The Court struck down the challenged statute, concluding that the Amendment preserves the right of members of the general public to keep and bear arms in their homes for the purpose of self-defense: “[W]e hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate selfdefense.”

The Court in Heller was careful to limit the scope of its holding. Of particular interest here, the Court noted that the Second Amendment has not been generally understood to
protect the right to carry concealed firearms. The Court wrote: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

In analyzing the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald treated its historical analysis as determinative. The Court in Heller held that the Second Amendment, as originally adopted, “codified a preexisting right,” 554 U.S. at 592 (emphasis omitted), a “right inherited from our English ancestors,” id. at 599 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The Court in McDonald held, further, that this “pre-existing right” was incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, based in substantial part on the
importance attached to the right by a “clear majority” of the states. In determining whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a concealed weapon in public, we
engage in the same historical inquiry as Heller and McDonald. As will be seen, the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth
Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second
Amendment.

Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 27132
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#6 Post by Bob Juch » Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:08 pm

Jeemie wrote:The big push now is for open carry. That's taking off in several states.
In Arizona you don't need a permit for concealed carry but you do for open carry. I think you should for either.

I know this isn't an original thought, but how do you tell the difference between a "good guy" carrying a gun and a "bad guy" carrying a gun when they walk into your bank?
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24669
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#7 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:26 pm

Bob Juch wrote: I know this isn't an original thought, but how do you tell the difference between a "good guy" carrying a gun and a "bad guy" carrying a gun when they walk into your bank?

This is a good guy with a gun:

Image

These are bad guys with guns:

Image


Next question.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#8 Post by Jeemie » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:06 am

Bob Juch wrote:
Jeemie wrote:The big push now is for open carry. That's taking off in several states.
In Arizona you don't need a permit for concealed carry but you do for open carry. I think you should for either.

I know this isn't an original thought, but how do you tell the difference between a "good guy" carrying a gun and a "bad guy" carrying a gun when they walk into your bank?
You can't.

Now- why is the question of any relevance?
1979 City of Champions 2009

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 27132
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#9 Post by Bob Juch » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:46 pm

Jeemie wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
Jeemie wrote:The big push now is for open carry. That's taking off in several states.
In Arizona you don't need a permit for concealed carry but you do for open carry. I think you should for either.

I know this isn't an original thought, but how do you tell the difference between a "good guy" carrying a gun and a "bad guy" carrying a gun when they walk into your bank?
You can't.

Now- why is the question of any relevance?
If I'm a teller I want to know whether to press the alarm button.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Jeemie
Posts: 7303
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: City of Champions Once More (Well, in spirit)!!!!

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#10 Post by Jeemie » Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:58 pm

Bob Juch wrote:If I'm a teller I want to know whether to press the alarm button.
The same way you know when to do so now.
1979 City of Champions 2009

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7635
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#11 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:20 am

Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 24669
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Ninth Circuit Issues Major Concealed Carry Decision

#12 Post by silverscreenselect » Sat Jun 11, 2016 1:30 pm


Yes, the Georgia legislature and courts are hypocrites too. They insist on spending tons of my taxpayer money to put in metal detectors and hire screeners to keep weapons out of all government buildings and courthouses, all the while passing one law after another allowing them in virtually every other public building in the state. You would think they would want as many law abiding citizens as possible packing heat in these buildings to protect them from crazed transgender activists and Bernie Sanders supporters.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

Post Reply