• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
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 a moderator:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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/oQHhxxyh/CaliforniaRightToCarry/

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:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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/201...nt-doesnt-guarantee-right-to-concealed-carry/
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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:

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
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:

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
786
Location
Fayetteville NC
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.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
750
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
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.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
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.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
What's next? My California Open Carry appeal is what's next.

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
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
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.

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:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
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:

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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?
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
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:
Top