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

[MickeyW]

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

 

[MickeyW]

Absolute lunacy, because California law no longer allows open carry.

And of course, all criminals can ignore this and operate as usual.

 

[MickeyW]

This only effects those in California for now, but it sets a dangerous precedent.

I will still carry concealed, when visiting Calif.

 

[Winchester]

Absolute lunacy, because California law no longer allows open carry.

And of course, all criminals can ignore this and operate as usual.

It's too bad the case also didn't address open carry. I can see the case that concealed carry might not be constitutionally protected, but no way open carry wouldn't be.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

You enjoy talking to yourself, huh?

 

[OrphanSlug]

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.

 

[MickeyW]

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.

I doubt it will be heard this year.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I doubt it will be heard this year.

It could not be heard until the next session, unless there are some extraordinary circumstances. At best late this year, probably early next year and might get a decision out by next summer.

 

[Crimefree]

It's too bad the case also didn't address open carry. I can see the case that concealed carry might not be constitutionally protected, but no way open carry wouldn't be.

I'm astounded quoting the constitution can you explain the case of denial of any form of carry. I think that would be reasonable jurisprudence since no higher law exists. I would be interested to see where these different forms of carry were developed from.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

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.

This may be the desired goal. With the court being as it is, and considering the open seat, it is entirely possible to get a Supreme Court that will begin dismantling the 2nd Amendment.

 

[azgreg]

Didn't the SC decide in Robertson v. Baldwin that laws against concealed carry didn't infringe on 2A rights?

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

I'm astounded quoting the constitution can you explain the case of denial of any form of carry. I think that would be reasonable jurisprudence since no higher law exists. I would be interested to see where these different forms of carry were developed from.

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.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Drip, drip, drip. That ringing sound that keeps slowly getting louder is the dripping of the waters of rights repealed sounding the death knell for the Second Amendment.

I can't image that the Democrats that are also Pro-Second Amendment can be too happy about this given Clinton's stance and how it impacts the prospects for Obama or Clinton either one regarding the open SCOTUS seat.

 

[American]

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

Oh, the infamous 9th Circus Court of Appeals................the most overturned court in history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html

Those who criticize the court say the best evidence for their argument is the Supreme Court, which overturns the decisions of the Ninth more often than those of any other circuit. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in Washington, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth 14 times of the 16 cases in the 2008-2009 term — an 88 percent reversal rate.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

Didn't the SC decide in Robertson v. Baldwin that laws against concealed carry didn't infringe on 2A rights?

Regardless of ANY court decision, I believe the INTENT of the 2nd amendment was to empower citizens with the ability to possess and bear arms.
Naturally, as government power increases and control over the population grows, many in that government see the possession of arms by the controlled as a problem.
That is EXACTLY why he 2nd exists.

Too bad most Americans don't have to will and resolve to make good on the intent of the 2md.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

Oh, the infamous 9th Circus Court of Appeals................the most overturned court in history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html

Let's hope history repeats

 

[Crimefree]

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

One might ask who pays those judges because it is not possible reading the constitution to come to such a conclusion. However I have no doubt they dredged the canal and scraped the bottom of the barrel to find precedent.

 

[jonny5]

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 guess we can open carry them, then. Awesome.

 

[Winchester]

I'm astounded quoting the constitution can you explain the case of denial of any form of carry. I think that would be reasonable jurisprudence since no higher law exists. I would be interested to see where these different forms of carry were developed from.

Then why do so many states require a CCW permit? If it was a constitutional right would not the act of requiring a license be infringing? If it isn't then what is to stop states from requiring a firearm ownership license?

 

[matchlight]

Didn't the SC decide in Robertson v. Baldwin that laws against concealed carry didn't infringe on 2A rights?

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)

 

[Bootlace]

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.

 

[Winchester]

One might ask who pays those judges because it is not possible reading the constitution to come to such a conclusion. However I have no doubt they dredged the canal and scraped the bottom of the barrel to find precedent.

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?

 

[MickeyW]

Oh, the infamous 9th Circus Court of Appeals................the most overturned court in history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html

Yep, for good reason.

Regardless of ANY court decision, I believe the INTENT of the 2nd amendment was to empower citizens with the ability to possess and bear arms.
Naturally, as government power increases and control over the population grows, many in that government see the possession of arms by the controlled as a problem.
That is EXACTLY why the 2nd exists.

Too bad most Americans don't have the will and resolve to make good on the intent of the 2md.

Same type of apathy that occurs by allowing a criminal liar, like Hillary, to go as far as she has!

One might ask who pays those judges because it is not possible reading the constitution to come to such a conclusion. However I have no doubt they dredged the canal and scraped the bottom of the barrel to find precedent.

No doubt.

I guess we can open carry them, then. Awesome.

Not in Calif. They kicked that out about 3 years ago.

The state with the most criminals per capita, who don't give a rat's ass about carrying illegal guns, has some of the worst restrictions on their citizens, leaving them to be victims.

Then why do so many states require a CCW permit? If it was a constitutional right would not the act of requiring a license be infringing? If it isn't then what is to stop states from requiring a firearm ownership license?

They really shouldn't require it at all. 7 states, now have legal CC, without any permit, for their residents. I may have to move someday.

 

[Gaius46]

This only effects those in California for now, but it sets a dangerous precedent.

I will still carry concealed, when visiting Calif.

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.

 

[Bootlace]

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?

Ummm, that is what is being challenged here.