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.
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)
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.
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?
Ca does not recognize another states ccw. Retired LEO must have state ccw issued to them.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.
Ummm, that is what is being challenged here.
7 states have......and won.
Calif is a mess. When I worked there decades ago, as a police officer, things were much simpler.
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.
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?
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
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?
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
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
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?
Let's hope history repeats
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.
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.
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
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
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?