2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Court Rules (1 Viewer)

[JANFU]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee the right of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public, upholding a California law that imposes stringent conditions on who may be granted a concealed-carry permit.

The 7-to-4 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overturned a decision by a three-judge panel of the same court and was a setback for gun advocates. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon, like working in a job with a security threat — a restriction sharply attacked by gun advocates as violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court said in a ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher.

If appealed will SCOTUS overturn the ruling?
Yes
No
Other- pls explain
Unsure

 

[RetiredUSN]

Very ignorant decision.

The 2nd amendment does not differentiate between open carry and concealed.

 

[joG]

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia



If appealed will SCOTUS overturn the ruling?
Yes
No
Other- pls explain
Unsure

Wait and see who is on the ussc, when the decision is made.

 

[JANFU]

Very ignorant decision.

The 2nd amendment does not differentiate between open carry and concealed.

I am on unfamiliar ground here. I know next to nothing about Fed- State laws for firearms
Are there not States that regulate concealed carry. Or prohibit open carry?

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

and the slide towards a leftist nightmare continues, arm up Americans, it's coming.

 

[JANFU]

and the slide towards a leftist nightmare continues, arm up Americans, it's coming.

Do you think the 2 A will be thrown out of the constitution?
Other wise what do you mean?

 

[Bodi]

Very ignorant decision.

The 2nd amendment does not differentiate between open carry and concealed.

It also doesn't differentiate between sawed off shot guns and muskets... so what?

 

[SocialD]

Very ignorant decision.

The 2nd amendment does not differentiate between open carry and concealed.

True. And since 2nd amendment doesn't mention or differentiate it then it should be left up to the states per the 10th amendment.
But as to how the scotus will rule... who knows.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

From the article:

“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,” Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif] Institute for Legislative Action

[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif]That "hostile sheriffs" term sounds like something one of those sovereign citizen nutjobs would say. What do they mean by that?[/FONT]

 

[Kal'Stang]

The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia



If appealed will SCOTUS overturn the ruling?
Yes
No
Other- pls explain
Unsure

Actually there is precedent for this ruling. In Robertson vs Baldwin, a case about some people that were detained at sea I believe one of the sections notes that it is not a violation of the 2nd amendment to ban concealed carry.

But we are also of opinion that even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the Thirteenth Amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people

Page 165 U. S. 282

to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.

So there is precedent for this ruling.

That said, I do not believe that CA could ban the carry of both concealed or open carry as then it would be a violation for the simple fact that if you can't do one or the other then you are essentially barred from carrying period.

Edit: Sorry, forgot the link: Robertson vs Baldwin

 

[Kal'Stang]

From the article:

[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif]That "hostile sheriffs" term sounds like something one of those sovereign citizen nutjobs would say. What do they mean by that?[/FONT]

Considering context I'd imagine that he's talking about sheriffs that are against citizens carrying guns.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Considering context I'd imagine that he's talking about sheriffs that are against citizens carrying guns.

I would imagine you are right, but considering its a state law, I don't think any of them there would have much discretion in the matter.

 

[jimbo]

Very ignorant decision.

The 2nd amendment does not differentiate between open carry and concealed.

Nor does it differentiate between good cause and I just feel like it.

Rulings such as this is the number one reason Hillary can't be in charge of Supreme Court nominations.

 

[jimbo]

True. And since 2nd amendment doesn't mention or differentiate it then it should be left up to the states per the 10th amendment.
But as to how the scotus will rule... who knows.

Except the 10th states "All powers not delegated". One would think that the 2nd delegates those powers, and in a clearly understood manner.

If the courts let California prevail, then the entire bill of rights is in serious trouble.

 

[AGENT J]

In my personal opinion it SHOULD be overturned . . ill say the same thing i said in the nonpoll thread about this...

Ill have to look up the gun laws in CA to give a better opinin later.
If its an open carry state, Im "OK"(dont like it but can deal) with a CWP as long as getting one is as easy as getting the gun itself.
If its not an open carry state and now there are muitiple blocks in place for a citzen to carry I'd fight it tooth and nail.

I have a CWP in PA, but PA is also open carry except in Philly so Im fine with it.
when I got my first hand gun like two decades ago I went to the sporting goods store, they did a back ground check, about 15mins back then and I had my gun.

To get a conceal weapons permit I had to fill out paper work, back ground check, reason and references. I mailed it in. They mailed me back I was approved and I had to go to the court house to get my Picture taken and a permit was made on the spot. About a 2 week process back then.
Im guessing i could probably do it all on line now.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I would imagine you are right, but considering its a state law, I don't think any of them there would have much discretion in the matter.

Actually the laws "good cause" clause is completely about discretion as it leaves it up to the local sheriffs to decide whether someone has "good cause" to be able to carry a gun or not. About the only times such "hostile" sheriffs couldn't say "no" is if its something obvious like a particular job that requires the use of a gun...like protecting politicians in a bodyguard capacity. Most of the time though situations are ambiguous and such "hostile" sheriffs have no problem denying a CCW permit.

The "Good Clause" laws have always been about reducing the number of legal guns that are out on the streets. I mean seriously, what criminal is going to apply for a CCW permit anyways?

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

What does the federal appeals court think the word "bear" means?

"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."

The Founding Fathers intended that the people possess a right to be armed for duty in the general militia, as well as a right to keep and bear arms for their self-protection. In other words, for their generation and all succeeding generations of free Americans, they intended that every man should be armed.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

 

[Lutherf]

This is going to go back to an argument of whether possession of a firearm in public is a protected right under the 2A. If CA prohibits both open and concealed carry in public then that is, without question, an infringement on the RKBA. While this is a setback for "shall issue" concerns across the nation it will definitely not be the last challenge.

 

[Kal'Stang]

What does the federal appeals court think the word "bear" means?

"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."

From The James Madison Research Library and information Center:



The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

As long as CA doesn't ban the open carry of guns then going by precedent they are able to ban concealed carry. So...what's CA laws on open carry?

 

[Kal'Stang]

This is going to go back to an argument of whether possession of a firearm in public is a protected right under the 2A. If CA prohibits both open and concealed carry in public then that is, without question, an infringement on the RKBA. While this is a setback for "shall issue" concerns across the nation it will definitely not be the last challenge.

Unless of course Hillary appoints SCOTUS judges...then it more than likely will be...at least for a long time at any rate.

 

[AGENT J]

This is going to go back to an argument of whether possession of a firearm in public is a protected right under the 2A. If CA prohibits both open and concealed carry in public then that is, without question, an infringement on the RKBA. While this is a setback for "shall issue" concerns across the nation it will definitely not be the last challenge.

agreed

 

[Beaudreaux]

As long as CA doesn't ban the open carry of guns then going by precedent they are able to ban concealed carry. So...what's CA laws on open carry?

Here ya go, from the folks that try to get gun laws passed to restrict us, this what they say:

Prior to 2012, it was legal for a gun owner in California to carry a handgun in public, as long as it was both unloaded and carried in plain sight. However, a 2011 California law, which took effect January 1, 2012, generally prohibits any person from carrying an exposed and unloaded handgun upon his or her person outside of a vehicle in a public place.1 This prohibition is subject to a number of exceptions, including for peace officers, military personnel, licensed hunters, and the carrying of an unloaded handgun in a locked container.2 The violation of this law is a misdemeanor in most cases.3

California law also prohibits the carrying in public, outside of a vehicle and on or about one’s person, of an unloaded long gun in any incorporated city or county.4 This is subject to several exceptions similar to those that apply to the open carrying of handguns in public, including exceptions for peace officers, licensed hunters, and military personnel.5 The violation of this law is a misdemeanor in most cases.6

Although the open carrying of loaded firearms (both handguns and long guns) in public is generally prohibited,7 when the population of a county is less than 200,000 persons, the sheriff of the county, or the chief of police of a city within that county, may issue a license to carry a loaded, exposed handgun.8 This license is only valid in the county where it is issued.9 This license is identical to a California concealed weapons license in all other respects. For more information about these licenses, and about the carrying of concealed firearms in California generally, see the Concealed Weapons Permitting in California section.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence / Gun Law Information Experts

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

As long as CA doesn't ban the open carry of guns then going by precedent they are able to ban concealed carry. So...what's CA laws on open carry?

HANDGUNS

Pursuant to California Penal Code section 25610, a United States citizen over 18 years of age who is not prohibited from firearm possession, and who resides or is temporarily in California, may transport by motor vehicle any handgun provided it is unloaded and locked in the vehicle’s trunk or in a locked container. Furthermore, the handgun must be carried directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while being carried must be contained within a locked container.

Pursuant to California Penal Code section 16850, the term "locked container" means a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment.

Transporting Firearms in California | State of California - Department of Justice - Kamala D. Harris Attorney General

Prior to 2012, anyone legally permitted to own a gun could carry an unloaded handgun in public.

This so-called "open carry" exception to California's gun laws applied as long as the gun was in plain sight and the individual was not in a prohibited area.1

However, California's "open carry" right was repealed effective January 1, 2012. This is the date on which California Assembly Bill 144 went into effect as Penal Code 26350.2

Thanks to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is now illegal.3

Openly Carrying a Firearm | California Penal Code 26350 PC

 

[Kal'Stang]

Here ya go, from the folks that try to get gun laws passed to restrict us, this what they say:

In which case I'd say that yes, this law is unconstitutional as it pretty much bars any guns from being carried when combined with what you quoted. States cannot completely ban or make it prohibitively hard to be able to exercise a persons right to bear arms.

 

[countryboy]

Considering context I'd imagine that he's talking about sheriffs that are against citizens carrying guns.

He's talking about sheriffs who refuse to issue concealed carry permits.