Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 181

Thread: 9th rules concealed carry is not a 2nd amenment right - broad application

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192

    9th rules concealed carry is not a 2nd amenment right - broad application

    full story at the link

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3438442/posts

    The Ninth Circuit Court has upheld the ruling of the lower court in the Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego case and affirmed the Second Amendment does not include a right to conceal a firearm. The Peruta case challenged the legality of denying permits to conceal and carry a firearm unless the applicant for a permit has "good reason" to do so. A three-judge panel initially ruled that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department did not have the right to deny the permit. The case was subsequently heard by the entire Ninth Circuit Court and their decision was released today.

    Here is a summary of the ruling:

    The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
    Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 06-09-2016 at 02:31 PM. Reason: fixed title
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  2. #2
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Very unsurprising as the majority of cases say open carry is the right to bear arms. Now the right to bear arms means nothing in Kalifornia. It is a void.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Very unsurprising as the majority of cases say open carry is the right to bear arms. Now the right to bear arms means nothing in Kalifornia. It is a void.
    Aah yes, Cali is in a niche by itself - lots of work to be done there.

    The thing is the 9th circuit covers more than just California - other areas will be impacted in some manner by this decision.

    Maybe to the supreme court next.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Activist Member swinokur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montgomery County, MD
    Posts
    984
    It's why some refer to it as the 9th Circus.

    The most overturned C of A in the US.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Looks like Charles Nichols is the only 9th circuit game in town now. Time to donate to his case, if you haven't already!

    https://secure.piryx.com/donate/oQHh...aRightToCarry/

    Unrestricted open carry is the only thing that will force California to go shall issue with respect to concealed carry! Open carry is not the problem, its the cure, for California's concealed carry woes!
    Last edited by OC4me; 06-09-2016 at 03:59 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Aah yes, Cali is in a niche by itself - lots of work to be done there.

    The thing is the 9th circuit covers more than just California - other areas will be impacted in some manner by this decision.

    Maybe to the supreme court next.
    Yes. This will open and reopen the controversy with other courts of appeal, I believe an original SCOTUS jurisdiction.

    It makes proper replacement of Scalia essential.

    We held our noses and elected the Bushes, Carter, Clinton and now Obama. It is time to hold our noses and elect D. J. Trump. I am enjoying saying to the establishment TRUMP U! Okie dokie?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    Ninth Circus Peruta case site

    Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego

    Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to provide access to case information.

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722

    En Banc Opinion PDF. 190 pages

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20webcites.pdf
    Last edited by Nightmare; 06-09-2016 at 04:16 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Federal Appeals Court: Second Amendment Doesn’t Guarantee Right to Concealed Carry

    California has a rich tradition in restricting carrying handguns.

    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

    An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

    California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit.

    Wow. The article goes on to state that more people carrying guns endangers police lives. But one qualification to obtain a permit is to have a good moral character. This is an oxymoron. This state wants to rescind their 2A and their leaders in DC want to rescind 2A from all states!

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016...ncealed-carry/

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    Posted Noon in News & Political Alerts. Search is your friend.

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ad-application



    --Moderator note--
    A copy of the of the later thread has been merged with this one.
    The original of the later thread has been left in the California sub-forum, but locked with a link to this thread.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 06-09-2016 at 06:19 PM. Reason: explanation
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    And now this:

    An attorney for the plaintiffs said Thursday that he is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court, but indicated that future challenges might need to focus on the right to carry a firearm in the open rather than in a concealed manner.
    “The Peruta decision specifically avoided answering the critical legal question of whether, if concealed carry is prohibited, some form of open carry of firearms must be allowed,” said attorney Chuck Michel. “California law bans open carry, so the constitutionality of that ban will now have to be tested.”

    Charles Nichols will be pleased to note that what should have been obvious previously, has finally been accepted as fact.
    Last edited by OC4me; 06-09-2016 at 10:30 PM.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    It's the ninth circuit court of appeals, what do you expect.....

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    full story at the link

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3438442/posts

    The Ninth Circuit Court has upheld the ruling of the lower court in the Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego case and affirmed the Second Amendment does not include a right to conceal a firearm. The Peruta case challenged the legality of denying permits to conceal and carry a firearm unless the applicant for a permit has "good reason" to do so. A three-judge panel initially ruled that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department did not have the right to deny the permit. The case was subsequently heard by the entire Ninth Circuit Court and their decision was released today.

    Here is a summary of the ruling:

    The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
    Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
    The have jurisdiction of the western states. I don't think the people in those states have the will to fight this ruling. Many decades of positivism liberalism and socialism have brainwashed these folks.
    Last edited by Law abider; 06-09-2016 at 07:08 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Fayetteville NC
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    The have jurisdiction of the western states. I don't think the people in those states have the will to fight this ruling. Many decades of positivism liberalism and socialism have brainwashed these folks.
    Just my opinion mind you, but this statement does a disservice to the individuals and groups that constantly fight the state governments for their rights. It is not whether there is will to fight, but the fact what they are fighting against is the political climate you describe.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Let's see if this news results in a bump in national firearms sales and concealed pistol license applications. If so then its more evidence that Americans, as a whole, are coming around to the realization that the Second Amendment is actually relevant.

  15. #15
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,167
    has everyone read this decision yet? they flat out said if they would have argued that their rights were violated because they aren't allowed to open carry, they would have won!

    this is perfect set up for a challenge to the open carry ban.

  16. #16
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up What's next? My California Open Carry appeal is what's next.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC4me View Post
    And now this:

    An attorney for the plaintiffs said Thursday that he is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court, but indicated that future challenges might need to focus on the right to carry a firearm in the open rather than in a concealed manner.
    “The Peruta decision specifically avoided answering the critical legal question of whether, if concealed carry is prohibited, some form of open carry of firearms must be allowed,” said attorney Chuck Michel. “California law bans open carry, so the constitutionality of that ban will now have to be tested.”

    Charles Nichols will be pleased to note that what should have been obvious previously, has finally been accepted as fact.
    I took quite a few law courses in college, most of them in the late 1970s. One of the professors was an old lawyer who told us "The only thing better than having 100 years of precedents supporting your case is to have a recent precedent affirming those 100 years of prior precedents."

    There was absolutely no way any court decision in the past 400 years could be read to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry as two of the judges said in the sharply divided and vacated (dead) three judge panel decision in Peruta. The Heller decision certainly did not say that and not a single decision it cited in the courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment right could be read to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.

    Every decision cited in Heller regarding the right to bear arms had held that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry is not a right.

    I read today that the NRA is going to file its own Open Carry case and might not appeal the Peruta decision. What the NRA won't tell you is that it is impossible for them to get ahead of me on appeal. Appeals are heard in the order filed and mine is the only carry case in the 9th Circuit which is a pure Open Carry case.

    Alan Beck blew his Hawaii appeal because he asked for something that courts cannot do. Instead of asking for an injunction, he asked the court of appeals to issue an order compelling that a new law be written. Courts can issue injunctions. Courts can strike down part, or all of a law. A court can even stay its injunction for a period of time to give a legislature time to write a new law (as in Moore v. Madigan). The one thing a court can't do is to write a new law or issue an order requiring that a new law be written.

    Like it or not, the future of the Second Amendment right to carry in the 9th Circuit rests on my shoulders.

    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  17. #17
    Regular Member garand_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    495
    Peruta v. Gore, Part I: Open Carry is Constitutionally Protected

    My take on whole thing, at least for the benefits to open carry. This plays right into our hands when it comes to the library thing in Nevada.

    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Like it or not, the future of the Second Amendment right to carry in the 9th Circuit rests on my shoulders.

    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    I gave you a couple bucks. Good luck. I think they sunk their own battleship, but they'll probably dream up some BS.
    Last edited by garand_guy; 06-10-2016 at 01:25 AM.
    Nevada Carry and Frontier Carry

    Helpful guide to gun laws in the Intermountain West

  18. #18
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by garand_guy View Post
    Peruta v. Gore, Part I: Open Carry is Constitutionally Protected

    My take on whole thing, at least for the benefits to open carry. This plays right into our hands when it comes to the library thing in Nevada.



    I gave you a couple bucks. Good luck. I think they sunk their own battleship, but they'll probably dream up some BS.
    Thank you. It will be very difficult for the judges assigned to my appeal, whomever they turn out to be, to dream something up. Thanks to an inebriated decision by the California Court of Appeals, the 1967 ban applies to the curtilage of one's home and so I raised both an in-home and non-sensitive public places challenge in my lawsuit.

    Moreover, California's 1967 ban was copied and pasted from Illinois' 1962 ban which the 7th Circuit struck down in 2012. Which means that if I were to lose before the 9th Circuit, my loss would create a SCOTUS Rule 10 Circuit split which is something none of the concealed carry cases had (or any of the 2A cases for that matter).

    Also, in her motion for judgment on the pleadings in my case, AG Harris argued that racially motivated gun bans are constitutional under the Second Amendment. She has inextricably linked race and the Second Amendment. I really don't see even the most left-wing members of the 9th Circuit buying her argument but we'll see.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I'm sure the NRA is loving this. Think of the fear driven gun and ammo sales that will result as I'm sure they will not delay in using this in their marketing campaign. Fortunately, for the security of the free state, this will not impact the well regulated militia.
    Last edited by beebobby; 06-10-2016 at 08:51 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member garand_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    Thank you. It will be very difficult for the judges assigned to my appeal, whomever they turn out to be, to dream something up. Thanks to an inebriated decision by the California Court of Appeals, the 1967 ban applies to the curtilage of one's home and so I raised both an in-home and non-sensitive public places challenge in my lawsuit.

    Moreover, California's 1967 ban was copied and pasted from Illinois' 1962 ban which the 7th Circuit struck down in 2012. Which means that if I were to lose before the 9th Circuit, my loss would create a SCOTUS Rule 10 Circuit split which is something none of the concealed carry cases had (or any of the 2A cases for that matter).

    Also, in her motion for judgment on the pleadings in my case, AG Harris argued that racially motivated gun bans are constitutional under the Second Amendment. She has inextricably linked race and the Second Amendment. I really don't see even the most left-wing members of the 9th Circuit buying her argument but we'll see.
    I hope you win. I can't wait to move home and start bringing a dose of reality back to my hometown.
    Nevada Carry and Frontier Carry

    Helpful guide to gun laws in the Intermountain West

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Why do people ask tyrants to stop being tyrants? They likely will just say " no thanks".

    In this case a gov't body said no initially but then changed their mind ... our rights did not change during this time frame.


    An excellent example of how the gov't does what it wishes regardless of any of your pesky rights. OC/CC - both covered under your natural rights.

    Maybe Ed with still CC ... I would never find him guilty of anything in this regard. Would you?

  22. #22
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,004
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Why do people ask tyrants to stop being tyrants? They likely will just say " no thanks".

    In this case a gov't body said no initially but then changed their mind ... our rights did not change during this time frame.


    An excellent example of how the gov't does what it wishes regardless of any of your pesky rights. OC/CC - both covered under your natural rights.

    Maybe Ed with still CC ... I would never find him guilty of anything in this regard. Would you?
    We still have it too good. Not enough people will join us in civil disobedience, never mind shooting them.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  23. #23
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,271
    When will these attorneys/NRA/SAF learn, even Scalia pined that OC was the right intended. It has long been ruled that CC was not included in the 2A whether agreed with or not. There is no right to CC in NC, but we still have a decent CC law. Before that law OC was very very common in NC. Get OC recognized, and they will run to change the CC laws to get people to stop OCing.

    The ruling from the 10th has long been in place that CC is not covered by 2A, yet Colorado is shall issue. CO also has OC except for Denver.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 06-10-2016 at 11:17 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by bc.cruiser View Post
    Just my opinion mind you, but this statement does a disservice to the individuals and groups that constantly fight the state governments for their rights. It is not whether there is will to fight, but the fact what they are fighting against is the political climate you describe.
    Yes yes. I agree.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    I took quite a few law courses in college, most of them in the late 1970s. One of the professors was an old lawyer who told us "The only thing better than having 100 years of precedents supporting your case is to have a recent precedent affirming those 100 years of prior precedents."

    There was absolutely no way any court decision in the past 400 years could be read to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry as two of the judges said in the sharply divided and vacated (dead) three judge panel decision in Peruta. The Heller decision certainly did not say that and not a single decision it cited in the courts first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment right could be read to say that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry.

    Every decision cited in Heller regarding the right to bear arms had held that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that concealed carry is not a right.

    I read today that the NRA is going to file its own Open Carry case and might not appeal the Peruta decision. What the NRA won't tell you is that it is impossible for them to get ahead of me on appeal. Appeals are heard in the order filed and mine is the only carry case in the 9th Circuit which is a pure Open Carry case.

    Alan Beck blew his Hawaii appeal because he asked for something that courts cannot do. Instead of asking for an injunction, he asked the court of appeals to issue an order compelling that a new law be written. Courts can issue injunctions. Courts can strike down part, or all of a law. A court can even stay its injunction for a period of time to give a legislature time to write a new law (as in Moore v. Madigan). The one thing a court can't do is to write a new law or issue an order requiring that a new law be written.

    Like it or not, the future of the Second Amendment right to carry in the 9th Circuit rests on my shoulders.

    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
    Yeah. In Wisconsin as far back as the 1870s or so. carrying concealed was banned. But I suppose weather one can carry concealed is a 10th amendment issue.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •