• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry

Interpretation and bench legislation.
The entire Constitution could be completely disregarded and unless there was a forceful movement against such an action, it could stand.

The Constitution is simply a document. It has ALWAYS depended on it's enforcement by those following it or willing to sacrifice to defend it.
We seem to have an astonishing lack of resolve to defend it, thus making it easy to trample.

A person that thinks is hard to find these days. Quite correct the rights owners have every right to intercede in governments business and demand correct functioning of any arm. Unfortunately this situation develops where many things happen each day and it is not possible for citizens to divide their time between all these functions. In particular monitoring government in all aspects.

We set up watch dog organisations for that. Thus far firearm owners have not seen the need for a watchdog organisation and/or an organisation to offer advice, help, training, leadership and support in opposing such government shenanigans. If they had done this gun control would be some other countries problem.

Consider firearm owners are only bothered by keeping the firearms they have and any defence may or may not take place depending on how much value is attached to their firearms. The right is not even thought of and is a meaningless term.

Here is an example of the value of those rights.

A firearm owner watches a miscreant bend down and start unscrewing his tyre value caps.

! They spring into action to prevent that theft.
2 They watch with interested to see what happens.
3 They have better things to do and get on with it.

Government announces that it intends to increase firearm restrictions, mainly "closing loopholes" with increased and broadened background checks. As such this is qualification of who may enjoy the right to firearm ownership. Which firearm owner at any time during the process of that bill and law springs into action? Yet clearly his rights are being tampered with and reduced. Value, less than a tyre valve cap. Option 3.

Who is to blame for this low value of our rights? Firearm owners or the organisations that promise to protect these rights but do not in any way?

Nothing is going to happen until firearm owners kick organisation butt and demand they preform the required functions so individuals who have the power to change governments mind, are advised, taught and lead into opposition government cannot ignore. That is how one protects rights when the need arises. Government will recognise nothing other than power, the power to make it look bad in public (loss of popularity), the power to remove significant votes and the will to do that if need be.

It's really is not rocket science.
 
Any comment to that effect by the Court in that case would have been dicta, because that was not the issue before the Court.

I don't see anything surprising about this decision. Justice Scalia made clear in D.C. v. Heller that the Court was not suggesting that laws against concealed weapons violated the Second Amendment:


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. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. 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. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). (my italics)

It's a States Rights issue. and thanks to Bloomberg and his scuzzy, misguided group, there are plenty of political whores, willing to take his money and vote down gun rights in their states. Washington and Oregon just went through that crap.

this case came about because california has an outright ban on open carry and some counties overly restrict concealed carry. Before enbanc it was ruled the state may restrict open OR concealed carry but not both. The 2A clearly defines the right to bear arms so one way or another bearing arms Is allowed. Fine, no open carry, then the state has to allow concealed, no concealed, then the state has to allow open. Not too hard to understand.

Calif is a mess. When I worked there decades ago, as a police officer, things were much simpler.

Why hasn't anyone challenged the requirement of a CCW license? If it's our right to carry (concealed or open) why not challenge states requiring a CCW to carry concealed?

7 states have......and won.
 
As ex-LE does Oregon issue you license that designates you as such and does Ca recognize it? Just curious. My brother is retired NYPD, New York has a specific "Former LEO" permit and I'm pretty sure the surrounding states recognize it.
Ca does not recognize another states ccw. Retired LEO must have state ccw issued to them.
 
Calif is a mess. When I worked there decades ago, as a police officer, things were much simpler.

You got that right. But, hard to believe, most of ca (by area) is basically shall issue. It's when you get close to the coast that your rights get infringed. Hmmmm, I wonder why that is.
 
Supreme Court... it'll have no other choice but to end up there with a current 4-4 arrangement (arguably.) Assuming they agree to hear it.

If our Republican Congress would get off their asses and actually nominate Garland, we wouldn't have to deal with this 4-4 crap any more.
 
Why hasn't anyone challenged the requirement of a CCW license? If it's our right to carry (concealed or open) why not challenge states requiring a CCW to carry concealed?

Er because they think they have won.... instead all they have done is embrace registration.

How you win is convert small numbers of firearm owners to support gun control. Eventually there is nothing left to convert and sad to say once you accept gun control all you now can do is argue over how much to accept. There is nobody left to fight because nobody fights what they accept. Gun control wins. How long it takes does not really matter they will win.

Why? No firearm organisation protects our rights as a mandate or duty. There is also some concern, CCW is widely accepted as "constitutional" so and case will probably fail and cost plenty.

The courts are not the place to fight this war.
 
A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.

By a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a California law that requires gun owners to show a good reason before they can get a license to carry a concealed handgun.

"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."

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry - NBC News

under the original concept of the constitution, the second amendment could not be used to attack moronic state laws, such as this one. The bill of rights did not apply to state deprivations of constitutional rights. This changed with the 14th amendment and then McDonald meaning courts are going to be engaged in judging traditional police powers of states with the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun judges (normally Democrats) are going to try to limit the second amendment's prohibition on state actions as much as possible. Pro gun (usually Republicans) are going to read the second amendment's prohibitions more widely

Honestly, the actual line where the second amendment prohibits state action is a nebulous area. it should have never been an issue at a federal level because the federal government was never given any proper power in that area-sadly FDR and cowardly justices changed that so we get the BS line drawing nonsense when in reality, the federal government should have been completely devoid of any rule making authority on this issue

now as to concealed weapons-I believe Equal protection is the best way to attack arbitrary and capricious assholes in public office who won't let people carry firearms while more enlightened bureaucrats in other counties do for the same reasons

If I were writing the laws, I would deny any law enforcement officer the ability to carry a firearm off duty if he denied a license to other civilians. Of course If I had the power, no one who refused to issue a law abiding citizen a license to carry would every be able to hold ANY public office whatsoever.

The 7 judges in the majority disgust me because THEY can carry concealed and have bodyguards that do too
 
Why hasn't anyone challenged the requirement of a CCW license? If it's our right to carry (concealed or open) why not challenge states requiring a CCW to carry concealed?

until McDonald and the full incorporation, the second amendment was not applicable to the states
 
If our Republican Congress would get off their asses and actually nominate Garland, we wouldn't have to deal with this 4-4 crap any more.

They should give him a hearing

now lets say Garland testifies that he disagrees with Heller and thinks that the second amendment does not protect an individual right

would it be proper for the senate to vote him down?

I sure believe so
 
They should give him a hearing

now lets say Garland testifies that he disagrees with Heller and thinks that the second amendment does not protect an individual right

would it be proper for the senate to vote him down?

I sure believe so

Then let's have that hearing and have that question be asked. Why is the Senate holding up the process while the Republicans have the majority?
 
Then let's have that hearing and have that question be asked. Why is the Senate holding up the process while the Republicans have the majority?

why did the minority dems stonewall Miguel Estrada for an appellate court. Why was Peter Keisler twice stonewalled by the Democrats-once when they were in a minority and once when they had the majority>

Why was Bork borked when no one with a shred of honesty could claim the man was unqualified, He was the sterling professor of Constitutional Law at Yale. That is the top position in the world in terms of scholarship on constitutional law.

its called POLITICS

DUH
 
Someone needs to give these clowns a dictionary and tell too look up, "bear".
 
why did the minority dems stonewall Miguel Estrada for an appellate court. Why was Peter Keisler twice stonewalled by the Democrats-once when they were in a minority and once when they had the majority>

Why was Bork borked when no one with a shred of honesty could claim the man was unqualified, He was the sterling professor of Constitutional Law at Yale. That is the top position in the world in terms of scholarship on constitutional law.

its called POLITICS

DUH

And that's why we have elections, to make sure that the rights of all people, not just a privileged few, are protected. See you in November!
 
And that's why we have elections, to make sure that the rights of all people, not just a privileged few, are protected. See you in November!

if you had nothing relevant to say, why did you not just refrain from posting?
 
The 9th Circuit Court also has the highest rate of overturned rulings of them all.

It is easy to see why, they are mostly all insane.
 
if you had nothing relevant to say, why did you not just refrain from posting?

Wow that didn't take you long. See, there's this thing called obstructionism, and Congressional Republicans have it in spades. There is a silent majority of Americans that is sick of crap like that and ready to return to having a functioning, more healthy government.
 
frequently we hear from gun nuts that it's only the "criminals" who will ignore the law, thus making us less safe

but they miss the point as usual. It's the gun nuts who conceal carry who are now the criminals, and not just criminals-in-waiting
 
Let's hope history repeats

lol the article is from 2010 and the data from 2008. It's now the 6th circuit that's the most overturned, by far. Now with scalia gone the odds are even less likely to overturn this. The only question is if concealed carry gets banned nationwide
 
this case came about because california has an outright ban on open carry and some counties overly restrict concealed carry. Before enbanc it was ruled the state may restrict open OR concealed carry but not both. The 2A clearly defines the right to bear arms so one way or another bearing arms Is allowed. Fine, no open carry, then the state has to allow concealed, no concealed, then the state has to allow open. Not too hard to understand.

no, the right to bear arms applies to militia only, and only so long as it's "necessary for the security of a free state," which it clearly hasn't been since the 18th century. Being as generous as i am though, i can countenance gun ownership in the bedroom for self defense and that's it. Hunters can use a bow and arrow
 
Wow that didn't take you long. See, there's this thing called obstructionism, and Congressional Republicans have it in spades. There is a silent majority of Americans that is sick of crap like that and ready to return to having a functioning, more healthy government.

I guess I cannot tell if you were upset when the dems did the same crap to guys who were as or more qualified for the bench positions they sought

Most Americans care more who wins American Idol than paying attention to what really goes on in DC. I bet less than 5% of the population can tell you who the current Obama Nominee is
 
no, the right to bear arms applies to militia only, and only so long as it's "necessary for the security of a free state," which it clearly hasn't been since the 18th century. Being as generous as i am though, i can countenance gun ownership in the bedroom for self defense and that's it. Hunters can use a bow and arrow

that's stupid. If the NINTH amendment somehow can be used to strike down laws banning homosexual sodomy, it certainly is more legitimate to be used to strike down gun restrictions. BTW anal sex has caused more deaths in the USA over the last 30 years than legally owned firearms
 
A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.

By a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a California law that requires gun owners to show a good reason before they can get a license to carry a concealed handgun.

"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."

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry - NBC News

I could see the left circuit's judgement having some validity if Californians were still allowed to open carry. Because the 2nd amendment clearly states you have the right to bear arms IE carry.
 
frequently we hear from gun nuts that it's only the "criminals" who will ignore the law, thus making us less safe

but they miss the point as usual. It's the gun nuts who conceal carry who are now the criminals, and not just criminals-in-waiting

How so? I carry, both openly and concealed. I've got a little card for which I paid for in time and money which says I legally can. I've shown said card to LEO on occasion and stated I was carrying. To date, no arrests.
 
Back
Top Bottom