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

[Grapeshot]

Donald J. Trump must[/B] appoint the next Associate Justice of the US.

In this, there are be no question, no choice, no other alternative.

To actually not vote or to vote for a third person IS tantamount to helping the Hildabeast.

Please do not continue this off topic aside on this thread.

 

[press1280]

While I agree with the caselaw angle presented in this thread, it ignores the political reality. That is, will the 9th actually rule to allow meaningful OC in the state? Do we think they've gone through all the nonsense associated with Peruta (the en banc and all) just to give the people OC?

I'm thinking there's a bait and switch coming. And it won't be a ruling that'll directly split with Moore.

 

[hammer6]

In this, there are be no question, no choice, no other alternative.

To actually not vote or to vote for a third person IS tantamount to helping the Hildabeast.

Please do not continue this off topic aside on this thread.

wait- so you're telling us who to vote for? i'm don't vote "the lesser of 2 evils" when i vote. i vote for whom i believe is the best candidate that lines up with my beliefs.

 

[hammer6]

While I agree with the caselaw angle presented in this thread, it ignores the political reality. That is, will the 9th actually rule to allow meaningful OC in the state? Do we think they've gone through all the nonsense associated with Peruta (the en banc and all) just to give the people OC?

I'm thinking there's a bait and switch coming. And it won't be a ruling that'll directly split with Moore.

the case at hand had nothing to do with open carry, which was explicitly stated multiple times in the decision...legal rulings aren't really about reality when you're talking about judges...a jury, yes, but not judges.

 

[davidmcbeth]

In this, there are be no question, no choice, no other alternative.

To actually not vote or to vote for a third person IS tantamount to helping the Hildabeast.

Please do not continue this off topic aside on this thread.

Finally, someone laying out clearly that Johnson is who should be voted for.

Yet folks miss this point : This opinion is just that, opinion. Opinions of gov't employees are not relevant to your natural rights.

 

[davidmcbeth]

It is amazing how we curse them when we disagree but praise them and quote them while we agree; some times even the very same congress critter.
<snip>.

OMG ... right on the money. I don't care what they say in either event .... except that when they out themselves as lizzurds ... and they do in all cases as in all cases they never say "we should not encroach on this issue at all".

10 points for Griffindor !

 

[cjohnson44546]

Judges shouldn't be able to change the meaning of words... it sickens me. The constitution should trump all other laws, case laws and history. A judge shouldn't be able to twist the words to pretend they mean what the judge wants them to mean.

Anyways, we won't have guns much longer...

The total loss of your gun rights, brought to you in a couple years by the #NeverTrumpers

 

[hammer6]

Judges shouldn't be able to change the meaning of words... it sickens me. The constitution should trump all other laws, case laws and history. A judge shouldn't be able to twist the words to pretend they mean what the judge wants them to mean.

Anyways, we won't have guns much longer...

The total loss of your gun rights, brought to you in a couple years by the #NeverTrumpers

take a chill pill, and stop drinking the koolaid.

did you read the decision?

the 9th circuit didn't change any meanings..... they simply did a thorough historical research on case law and statutes to make a decision in line with the overwhelmingly majority of evidence in history.....

 

[Freedom1Man]

How will this affect states like Texas that claim that OC is a PRIVILEGE?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[SFCRetired]

As far back as 1840, at least in Alabama, concealed carry was, at best, frowned upon. This is what I found:

1. The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly, or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution.
(State vs Reid, 1840)

The constitution mentioned in the cite is, of course, the constitution of the State of Alabama. However, you will also notice the inclusion of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State" which is almost a verbatim copy of the Second Amendment. Although I am here quoting Alabama case law, I cannot see how, if this gets to SCOTUS, they can ignore the basic right which is noted in more recent cases such as Heller and McDonald. Simply put, I firmly believe that open carry is intended as the expression of the RKBA and, while concealed carry is, at times, a desirable practice, as long as it requires a permit, it is a privilege and not an expression of a right.

If, and that is a very big "if", Trump does obtain the Presidency, I fully expect that he will appoint a conservative Justice and just as fully expect he will work to reverse some of the damage done to our rights over the last eight years. If Clinton obtains the Presidency, we are all in some very deep kimchi.

 

[California Right To Carry]

As far back as 1840, at least in Alabama, concealed carry was, at best, frowned upon. This is what I found:

1. The act of the 1st of February, 1839, "To suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," does not either directly, or indirectly tend to divest the citizen of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State;" and is, therefore consistent with the 23d section of the 1 Art. of the constitution.
(State vs Reid, 1840)

The constitution mentioned in the cite is, of course, the constitution of the State of Alabama. However, you will also notice the inclusion of the "right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State" which is almost a verbatim copy of the Second Amendment. Although I am here quoting Alabama case law, I cannot see how, if this gets to SCOTUS, they can ignore the basic right which is noted in more recent cases such as Heller and McDonald. Simply put, I firmly believe that open carry is intended as the expression of the RKBA and, while concealed carry is, at times, a desirable practice, as long as it requires a permit, it is a privilege and not an expression of a right.

If, and that is a very big "if", Trump does obtain the Presidency, I fully expect that he will appoint a conservative Justice and just as fully expect he will work to reverse some of the damage done to our rights over the last eight years. If Clinton obtains the Presidency, we are all in some very deep kimchi.

Here is a link to the Heller decision -> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946

The Heller decision cited the Reid case. State v. Reid, 1 Ala. (1840) quoting the decision "A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional."

The Reid decision considered the hypothetical case where Open Carry was banned and concealed carry permitted and concluded that would still result in the destruction of the right.

The individual Second Amendment Right is to openly carry arms for the purpose of self-defense and it is not the right to carry arms secretly as the only purpose of concealed carry is secret advantage and unmanly assassination.

Of course I have been saying this for years.

 

[Citizen]

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.

Sooooo. Sounds to me like the question is whether there is a 2A right to conceal a firearm in public.

That is to say, the court concedes by implication there is a right to carry a firearm in public, but no right to conceal it.

Read that as, "no right to be discreet about it."

 

[since9]

Your congressman is an idiot.

Oh, well then! That clinches your argument beyond any reproach...

Not.

As for your slander, let's see how much of an "idiot" people are when they choose to actually follow the law, specifically "the supreme Law of the Land:"

Why would SCOTUS overturn a decision which does not conflict with the Baldwin, Heller, McDonald and Caetano decisions?

Because it's the law. That's why.

Specifically:

1. The 9th's decision conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. Details to follow.

2. Article VI, Clause 2 establishes the U.S. Constitution, and not the Supreme Court, as "the supreme Law of the Land."

3. Article VI, Clause 3 binds the Supreme Court "by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution," along with all other elements of our federal government.

4. Article Vi declares that all Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution." Thus, the Second Amendment is "Part of this Constitution" and is therefore also "the supreme Law of the Land," which the Supreme Court is bound to support.

Back to precisely how the 9th's decision conflicts with the U.S. Constitution...

...there is no right to concealed carry in public...

Hogwash.

I took the same oath of office "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" as the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, along with all other civil officers of our federal government. One cannot "support and defend" what one doesn't know, so I took the time to study our Constitution in considerable detail. With items 1-4 above clearly in mind, let's examine the Second Amendment further:

1. It applies to individuals. Our Founding Fathers knew that when they wrote "the right of the people," but I guess it took the Supreme Court a couple of centuries to recognize that in an official decision (District of Columbia v. Heller).

2. The "shall not be infringed" prohibition is absolute, without limit. The word "shall" is an imperative. It was (and still is) "used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory." It does not apply itself to only one entity, as does the First Amendment with it's "Congress shall make no law..." preface. Instead, the Second Amendment is universal, applying to all levels -- local, county, state, and federal.

3. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been repeatedly upheld to mean all people of these United States, to keep as in own or possess, and to bear as in carry. Many clauses in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically restrict activities. By contrast, the Second Amendment does not, thereby specifically reiterating its absolute nature, particular on the bear (carry) part. Thus, its moratorium on infringement against "bear" applies to all modes of carry.

Especially when it is a state law which is at issue.

Not only is this inconsequential, the U.S. Constitution specifically states that it's "notwithstanding," which means that the Constitution stands in matters of conflict between state and federal law: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." It also states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Thus, a state law that contradicts the Second Amendment is in violation of "the supreme Law of the Land" and violates the right of the people of these United States.

The original states signed off on the Second Amendment when it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the other first ten Amendments in our Bill of Rights. California signed on to all of this when it applied for statehood, which was granted on September 9, 1850. Thus, California is as bound by the Second Amendment's absolute prohibition against infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as it is all other elements of the U.S. Constitution, commensurate with the incorporation doctrine. The fact of the Second's application to the states (and D.C.) is reflected in both Heller and McDonald, as well as a rather large number of other Supreme Court rulings.

Thus, the city of California is without excuse for passing this flagrantly un-Constitutional infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Also without excuse is the State of California and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for upholding it.

Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court has more sense as to the nature of what "shall not be infringed" really means. Sadly, their historical decisions indicate they'll probably flub this one, too.

 

[California Right To Carry]

Law 101

Oh, well then! That clinches your argument beyond any reproach...

Not.

As for your slander, let's see how much of an "idiot" people are when they choose to actually follow the law, specifically "the supreme Law of the Land:"

I deleted your incoherent ramblings because there is no sense in debating someone who thinks the Second Amendment means what he wants it to mean and the people who actually wrote it and voted it into law didn't know what they wrote or enacted.

By the way, my writing that your congressman is an idiot is protected speech but even if it were not, it would have been libel, not slander. Libel is written, slander is spoken.

Perhaps you should pass Law 101 before sharing with us your wisdom on the Second Amendment? :lol:

 

[nonameisgood]

How will this affect states like Texas that claim that OC is a PRIVILEGE?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Because, as the first state to ban all carry in public, Texans still aren't part of the Union. We have essentially been without visible firearms here for 140 years, and now everyone freaks out because they somehow think we are the first to allow open carry. Very sad how disconnected the folks here really are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[since9]

I deleted your incoherent ramblings because there is no sense in debating someone who thinks the Second Amendment means what he wants it to mean and the people who actually wrote it and voted it into law didn't know what they wrote or enacted.

Frankly, I'm interested in knowing what your problem is, CRTC. The Second Amendment was written in a straightforward manner. It's authors discussed its meaning both in depth and at length, in speeches and period writings, both of which are available to the public via our nation's Library of Congress. When you term "my" text as "incoherent ramblings," you're actually speaking ill of our Founding Fathers. All I'm doing is reflecting their many writings. Naturally, this begs the question as to whether your moniker is an accurate depiction of your purpose on this forum or whether you're a pro-infringement plant.

By the way, my writing that your congressman is an idiot ... (is) ... libel, not slander. Libel is written, slander is spoken.

True.

Perhaps you should pass Law 101...

I did well enough.

Sorry to see you assumed otherwise, instead of simply asking.

 

[press1280]

Here is a link to the Heller decision -> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946

The Heller decision cited the Reid case. State v. Reid, 1 Ala. (1840) quoting the decision "A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional."

The Reid decision considered the hypothetical case where Open Carry was banned and concealed carry permitted and concluded that would still result in the destruction of the right.

The individual Second Amendment Right is to openly carry arms for the purpose of self-defense and it is not the right to carry arms secretly as the only purpose of concealed carry is secret advantage and unmanly assassination.

Of course I have been saying this for years.

How many people legally carry concealed nationwide? ALL of them are looking for secret advantages and unmanly assassinations? A rather broad brush, sir.

 

[WalkingWolf]

How many people legally carry concealed nationwide? ALL of them are looking for secret advantages and unmanly assassinations? A rather broad brush, sir.

We have had at least one former member on this forum that openly talked of carrying concealed to ambush criminals. Then add that the problems that have existed with screw ups have been mostly if not all CC.

The very premise of CC invites criminal activity, then responding to it, instead of preventing it in the first place. And the Reid decision at the time the majority of CC was for nefarious purposes.

Even if one takes comfort level OC is more than CC. Safety level, probably OC wins. Criminals that carry firearms CC wins, that is why most states early in history probably made CC illegal.

As for all of them looking for secret advantages, well the firearm IS concealed, and the claim of almost EVERY CC advocate is the element of surprise.

 

[hammer6]

Oh, well then! That clinches your argument beyond any reproach...

Not.

As for your slander, let's see how much of an "idiot" people are when they choose to actually follow the law, specifically "the supreme Law of the Land:"



Because it's the law. That's why.

Specifically:

1. The 9th's decision conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. Details to follow.

2. Article VI, Clause 2 establishes the U.S. Constitution, and not the Supreme Court, as "the supreme Law of the Land."

3. Article VI, Clause 3 binds the Supreme Court "by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution," along with all other elements of our federal government.

4. Article Vi declares that all Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution." Thus, the Second Amendment is "Part of this Constitution" and is therefore also "the supreme Law of the Land," which the Supreme Court is bound to support.

Back to precisely how the 9th's decision conflicts with the U.S. Constitution...



Hogwash.

I took the same oath of office "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic" as the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, along with all other civil officers of our federal government. One cannot "support and defend" what one doesn't know, so I took the time to study our Constitution in considerable detail. With items 1-4 above clearly in mind, let's examine the Second Amendment further:

1. It applies to individuals. Our Founding Fathers knew that when they wrote "the right of the people," but I guess it took the Supreme Court a couple of centuries to recognize that in an official decision (District of Columbia v. Heller).

2. The "shall not be infringed" prohibition is absolute, without limit. The word "shall" is an imperative. It was (and still is) "used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory." It does not apply itself to only one entity, as does the First Amendment with it's "Congress shall make no law..." preface. Instead, the Second Amendment is universal, applying to all levels -- local, county, state, and federal.

3. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" has been repeatedly upheld to mean all people of these United States, to keep as in own or possess, and to bear as in carry. Many clauses in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically restrict activities. By contrast, the Second Amendment does not, thereby specifically reiterating its absolute nature, particular on the bear (carry) part. Thus, its moratorium on infringement against "bear" applies to all modes of carry.



Not only is this inconsequential, the U.S. Constitution specifically states that it's "notwithstanding," which means that the Constitution stands in matters of conflict between state and federal law: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." It also states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

Thus, a state law that contradicts the Second Amendment is in violation of "the supreme Law of the Land" and violates the right of the people of these United States.

The original states signed off on the Second Amendment when it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the other first ten Amendments in our Bill of Rights. California signed on to all of this when it applied for statehood, which was granted on September 9, 1850. Thus, California is as bound by the Second Amendment's absolute prohibition against infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as it is all other elements of the U.S. Constitution, commensurate with the incorporation doctrine. The fact of the Second's application to the states (and D.C.) is reflected in both Heller and McDonald, as well as a rather large number of other Supreme Court rulings.

Thus, the city of California is without excuse for passing this flagrantly un-Constitutional infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Also without excuse is the State of California and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for upholding it.

Let's hope the U.S. Supreme Court has more sense as to the nature of what "shall not be infringed" really means. Sadly, their historical decisions indicate they'll probably flub this one, too.

good read thanks

 

[press1280]

We have had at least one former member on this forum that openly talked of carrying concealed to ambush criminals. Then add that the problems that have existed with screw ups have been mostly if not all CC.

The very premise of CC invites criminal activity, then responding to it, instead of preventing it in the first place. And the Reid decision at the time the majority of CC was for nefarious purposes.

Even if one takes comfort level OC is more than CC. Safety level, probably OC wins. Criminals that carry firearms CC wins, that is why most states early in history probably made CC illegal.

As for all of them looking for secret advantages, well the firearm IS concealed, and the claim of almost EVERY CC advocate is the element of surprise.

But these opinions such as Reid don't do any kind of analysis to see whether that really was the case (that CC is overwhelmingly for a nefarious purpose). For example, the "on a journey" exceptions to CC, does that mean you're all of a sudden less likely to assassinate someone? Why have that exception?

And I'm not sure how CC "invites" criminal activity. That means everyone not open carrying is inviting criminal activity, which is another very broad brush.

And some folks like myself prefer to CC because I don't feel like getting into any public discussions with strangers over the issue, being kicked out of stores because of some weenie manager, or dealing with cops who don't know the law or think I'm some kind of threat. It's just my personal choice, as it may be yours to do the opposite which is fine by me.