Law abider
Regular Member
Yes yes. I agree.
-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter Firearms Iinstuctor
- Start date
Yes yes. I agree.
Law abider
Regular Member
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.
idk. maybe if push came to shove.
why not denver?
it looks as though it is a 10th amendment issue. there's no reason why a state constitution can't be more liberal than the federal constitution.
Dave Workman
Regular Member
:cuss: :banghead: Anti-gunners salivate, gun owners brace for battle after 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit ruling
It didn’t take long yesterday for gun prohibitionists to seize on the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that declared American citizens do not enjoy Second Amendment protection when carrying concealed sidearms in public.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ant...ers-brace-for-battle-after-9th-circuit-ruling
It didn’t take long yesterday for gun prohibitionists to seize on the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that declared American citizens do not enjoy Second Amendment protection when carrying concealed sidearms in public.
http://www.examiner.com/article/ant...ers-brace-for-battle-after-9th-circuit-ruling
Last edited by a moderator:
actually you mean "liberal".
utbagpiper
Banned
Which translates into "offering greater protections against government intrusion into personal decisions" or even "imposing greater limits on government power in favor of individual rights."
For example, under the Kelo decision, the 5th amendment takings clause can be used to force an eminent domain sale of private land to another private entity for the purpose of greater economic benefit to the community. In response to Kelo, some half dozen States passed laws or State constitutional amendments preventing the use of State or local eminent domain power to force a sale to another private entity. Interestingly, California had such bans in place prior to Kelo.
Similarly, these two tidbits from the Wiki Article on the Utah State Constitution:
Beginning with Hansen v. Owens, 619 P.2d 315 (Utah 1980), the Utah Supreme Court embarked upon a short-lived venture during which the court interpreted Article I, § 12 of the Utah Constitution as providing greater protection against self-incrimination than that which is provided by the Fifth Amendment. The Hansen decision was based upon the unique language of Article I, § 12, which speaks in terms being compelled "to give evidence against [one]self" rather than being compelled "to be a witness against [one]self." A mere five years later the court retreated from this position and in American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 701 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1985), overruled Hansen. This, however, did not put an end to the notion that the Utah Constitution may provide greater protection than does the federal Bill of Rights.
It is now clear that Article I, § 14 of the Utah Constitution provides greater protection to the privacy of the home and automobiles than does the Fourth Amendment.[3] Interestingly, the expansion of the protection afforded by the state constitution has not been based upon distinctions in the language used, nor has it been the result of Utah’s unique political and religious history. The Utah Supreme Court has embraced broader constructions as “an appropriate method for insulating this state’s citizens from the vagaries of inconsistent interpretations given to the fourth amendment by the federal courts.”[4]
Back to the subject of RKBA, State Constitutional RKBA provisions can be far more explicit in terms of protecting individual RKBA than is the 2nd. To wit:
Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States said:
Original 1895 Article I Section 6 Utah State Constitution said:
Article 1 Section 6 of the Utah State Constitution as it stands today said:
And, of course, nothing prevents any level of government for providing statutory protections for individual rights (or private choices as the case may be) that exceed the guarantees provided in either federal or State constitution.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
I think your statement is--unintentionally I'll assume--offensive to many. Consider that in addition to the left coast and Hawaii, the 9th circuit also includes Alaska and Arizona which are the first and second State, respectively, to move to permit-free concealed carry, in addition to being shall issue for those who want/need a permit, in addition to both being Gold Star Open Carry States. The 9th circuit also includes Idaho and Montana which are both Gold Star Open Carry States, shall issue on permits, and this year Idaho joined the growing list of States not requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm (for those 21 or older). This change in Idaho law actually only affected incorporated cities, because the legal ability to conceal sans permit outside incorporated areas (probably 90% of the land mass in Idaho) had long been State law.
This ruling from the most overturned appeals court in the nation will have zero effect on the residents of these 4 States.
It will be interesting to see how the ruling ultimately washes out for Cali, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. If it is overturned on appeal, shall issue would be a huge step forward in a couple of those States. If it is upheld, but a federal right to OC is recognized by SCOTUS, I expect Cali and Hawaii to rush to pass shall issue so as to encourage discrete carrying rather than OC.
Charle
which actually translates to Libertarian.
exactly.
it was established Denver (read as Denver county) functions under a CO constitutional home rule tenet and therefore does not follow the State exemption in Denver v State in 1990, quote:
[5] Colorado Constitution, Article XX, Section 6 states in relevant part:
Home rule for cities and towns. The people of each city or town of this state, having a population of two thousand inhabitants as determined by the last preceding census taken under the authority of the United States, the state of Colorado or said city or town, are hereby vested with, and they shall always have, power to make, amend, add to or replace the charter of said city or town, which shall be its organic law and extend to all its local and municipal matters.
Such charter and the ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith. unquote.
http://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1990/89sa60-0.html
ipse
Law abider
Regular Member
No. He does mean conservative. If 9th circuit bans CC, Wisconsin can still have CC. States do have a right to decide since 2A is not amended away, which will never happen. In this case they said it is not a right, which I disagree with. However states under their wings can still offer CCLs. I think banning CC, states must use the nullification doctrine and continue on as usual.
Law abider
Regular Member
No. It is not meant as offensive. I personally believe that people eventually just give up because the whole system is bent towards progressiveness. Take New Jersey, phew I got the spelling right this time, no one is trying anymore. However me thinks that miracles do happen. So in one way you are right. I should not assume a negative.
this case lines up with hundreds of years of precedent though....
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Federal Constitution limitations
Justice Scalia once gave an interview where he said something along the lines of "The Federal Constitution does not require the states to have a death penalty. The Federal Constitution cannot be read to prohibit the death penalty. States are free to ban the death penalty if they wish."
This applies to concealed carry, nude skydiving and sheep shagging as well. Provided that something has not been precluded by the Federal Constitution or valid Federal law, the states can prohibit or allow pretty much anything. There is nothing in the Federal Constitution which prohibits the states from not criminalizing concealed carry (or nude skydiving or sheep shagging). In short, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which requires states to do one thing or the other about concealed carry.
What the 9th Circuit held is that there is absolutely no right to carry a weapon concealed in public under the Second Amendment and that was all it really held.
Justice Scalia once gave an interview where he said something along the lines of "The Federal Constitution does not require the states to have a death penalty. The Federal Constitution cannot be read to prohibit the death penalty. States are free to ban the death penalty if they wish."
This applies to concealed carry, nude skydiving and sheep shagging as well. Provided that something has not been precluded by the Federal Constitution or valid Federal law, the states can prohibit or allow pretty much anything. There is nothing in the Federal Constitution which prohibits the states from not criminalizing concealed carry (or nude skydiving or sheep shagging). In short, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which requires states to do one thing or the other about concealed carry.
What the 9th Circuit held is that there is absolutely no right to carry a weapon concealed in public under the Second Amendment and that was all it really held.
i'm glad somebody gets it
Law abider
Regular Member
I also did say the same thing but maybe not as clearly.
since9
Campaign Veteran
I had a long talk with my Congressman this afternoon. He seems to think their ruling is nonsense that will soon be overturned by the higher court.
I agree. The 9th's ruling is about as diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" as a blithering idiot can get.
I agree. The 9th's ruling is about as diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment's "shall not be infringed" as a blithering idiot can get.
California Right To Carry
Regular Member
Your congressman is an idiot. Why would SCOTUS overturn a decision which does not conflict with the Baldwin, Heller, McDonald and Caetano decisions?
Heller said that concealed carry is a not a right and can therefore be banned. McDonald, in applying the Second Amendment to the states, explicitly held that it is the Second Amendment right defined in the Heller decision which was incorporated against the states and the Caetano decision reversed a decision of the Massachusetts high court which directly conflicted with the Heller decision.
Justice Scalia did not write decisions written in invisible ink. With the possible exception for travelers while actually on a journey, which was not at issue in Peruta/Richards, there is no right to concealed carry in public. Especially when it is a state law which is at issue.