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

[defcon4]

(Bliss v. Commonwealth is the only case which held that concealed carry (of a sword in a cane) cannot be criminalized under its state constitution which was then in effect. It made no claim that the Kentucky Constitutional provision was analogous to the Second Amendment but even if it had, SCOTUS has decided that concealed carry is not a right.)

California: Please cite where SCOTUS has decided that concealed carry is not a right. If you are going to rebut a statement then you should provide validation/verification. It was my understanding that the SCOTUS has never actually weighed in on this issue. I am not trying to be disagreeable. Just want to know.

 

[Bikenut]

Courts do not define rights. Courts define under what circumstances the exercising of a right can be punished.

 

[California Right To Carry]

(Bliss v. Commonwealth is the only case which held that concealed carry (of a sword in a cane) cannot be criminalized under its state constitution which was then in effect. It made no claim that the Kentucky Constitutional provision was analogous to the Second Amendment but even if it had, SCOTUS has decided that concealed carry is not a right.)

California: Please cite where SCOTUS has decided that concealed carry is not a right. If you are going to rebut a statement then you should provide validation/verification. It was my understanding that the SCOTUS has never actually weighed in on this issue. I am not trying to be disagreeable. Just want to know.

Read Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) in which the majority said that there is no right to concealed carry and the minority agreed with the majority on that particular point, and then read what SCOTUS explicitly held in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Or, you could read the majority opinion in Peruta v. San Diego (limited en banc).

I have posted the citations here more than a few times which suggests to me that you are trying to be disagreeable.

 

[nonameisgood]

Just to point out a couple of things about Texas: 1) the legislature outlawed all handgun carry outside the home (except when traveling) in 1871 (the first state to do so.) and 2) the 1876 constitution was after this prohibition and specifically allows legislative restriction of carry. But we are like a country all to ourselves.

What I get from all these readings is that time change. Our enshrined right appears to be individual for the purpose of protecting The People.
The individual right to self protection was most likely understood to be an original right. "Who would have even contemplated not letting an individual have arms except a despot?"

Courts are run by people with agendas. Even if the collective We wants to restrict rights, like whites did against slaves here and against free blacks in So Africa, as we become enlightened things change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[California Right To Carry]

Two more concealed carry lawsuits go down in flames because of Peruta en banc

Peterson v. Farrow, Dist. Court, ED California 2016 - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16148026850428177844
And let us not forget Ronald Nordstrom v. Geoff Dean in which attorney Jon Birdt :monkey filed an appeal last Monday. In another of his concealed carry lawsuits, Birdt filed a supplemental brief in which he argued that the en banc Peruta decision somehow means he wins -> Christopher Anderson et al v. John Scott et al :banana:

 

[utbagpiper]

"The Supreme Court stated in Heller that “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.”

"As just seen, an overwhelming majority of the
states to address the question — indeed, after 1849, all of the
states to do so — understood the right to bear arms, under
both the Second Amendment and their state constitutions, as
not including a right to carry concealed weapons in public."

The last sentence is particularly telling as it relates to because every case cited in the Heller decision and in the en banc Peruta decision which held that there is an individual right to bear arms, also held that the right is to Open Carry.

There is a marked, and dangerous difference between "the right to bear arms... [does] not including a right to carry concealed weapons in public" and "the RKBA includes a right to openly carry arms in public." You implicitly hit on this below but don't bother to actually explore it.

Notwithstanding the fact that the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban extends to those parts of my home which the California courts have deemed "public places." Whatever one might say about the scope of the Second Amendment applicability outside of one's home, it is impossible to read the Heller or McDonald decision to say that the Second Amendment does not apply to one's home.

So the court can comply with Heller and protect your "right" to "bear arms" by allowing you to have a loaded gun, openly possessed, in some portion of your home that hasn't been deemed to be a public place?? Small consolation to find that the interior of your home, when devoid of guests (or even your own children) with the shades drawn, is the only place the courts will deign to respect your RKBA.

For me to lose, the court of appeals will have to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to any part of one's home the state deems to be a public place and, of course, the court will have to hold that the Second Amendment right does not extend to any place outside of the home.

Or the court may hold that the "right to bear arms" simply doesn't include the right to carry a loaded, visible firearm in public. Or the court will find that you must be allowed to OC a firearm in non sensitive public places, but the state can enforce all manner of "reasonable" restrictions on what places might be sensitive (say 5000 feet from all schools) and what kinds of guns can be carried (no more than a 3 shot revolver).

Your court has demonstrated utter hostility toward and contempt for our RKBA in every decision. The very tone of the decision you celebrate is one snarky attack on RKBA after another.

I wish you well in advancing RKBA.

I predict the 9th circuit doesn't hand you any meaningful victory. They may well be crafty enough to give you enough to deny your ability to appeal to the SCOTUS (unless Hillary has successfully packed that court by then), while still denying you any meaningful victory.

The judges on the 9th are liberal. They are not stupid. To presume to be so much smarter than a dozen of your opponents that they will have no choice but to rule in your favor is a very dangerous, and delusional kind of egotism. Good luck.

Charles

 

[nonameisgood]

And again we are back to the notion that it's not a right is it is subject to regulation or legislation. Is it a right or not? Or is the minutiae of how one carries a gun really something on which we need to waste tax money? This is not an essential function of government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[since9]

Open Carry has always been the right.

As has concealed carry. By not specifying mode of carry while simultaneously prohibiting any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, our Second Amendment implicitly covers both modes of carry.

SCOTUS has decided that concealed carry is not a right.

SCOTUS is wrong. It's certainly not the first time, either.

As for the rest of the cited precedence, that's part of the problem. Used to be, precedent was used to to augment and clarify the written law. The problem today is that if you remain focused on all the precedent, you miss seeing the forest through the trees. The forest is the law, and contrary to the apparent meaning of the term, it takes precedence over precedent. Courts have repeatedly attempted to legislate from the bench, often succeeding (un-Constitutionally, I might add). The net effect is the erosion of the law, not its building. Our Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land," deserves better, as do We the People of this Union.

Both the 7th Circuit (Moore v. Madigan) and the 9th Circuit in the en banc Peruta decision have held that concealed carry can be banned.

The United States Constitution explicitly states otherwise. It's high time We the People insist our elected representatives, appointed government officials, and judges at all levels, including the Supreme Court, follow the law. It's only about 12 pages when printed, a testimony to our Founding Fathers express desire that it be available everyone in a clear, easily understood format.

And so it is.

Sadly, most Americans don't know it because they've never studied it. Other forces are working hard to take our eyes off "the supreme Law of the Land," diverting our attention to "precedent this" and "decision that."

Phooey, and it's time to take our country back, people. Whether it's a statute, federal legislation, precedent, or even a Supreme Court majority decision, if it violates the Constitution, then it's wrong. Supreme Court justices aren't getting paid to write the law, or even "reinterpret" the law to mean something different than its authors intended. That's the job of Congress, reflecting the will of the people. The job of the courts is to uphold the law, not legislate from the bench.

Hold the courts accountable, people, even -- especially -- our highest court. America deserves nothing less than the best.

California Right to Carry: The antis have you busy chasing ghosts in the weeds of precedents. I suggest you re-focus and get back to the basics: "shall not be infringed" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Hammer that point home often enough and the antis will eventually run out of excuses.

And again we are back to the notion that it's not a right is it is subject to regulation or legislation. Is it a right or not? Or is the minutiae of how one carries a gun really something on which we need to waste tax money? This is not an essential function of government.

Bingo.

 

[California Right To Carry]

California Right to Carry: The antis have you busy chasing ghosts in the weeds of precedents. I suggest you re-focus and get back to the basics: "shall not be infringed" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Hammer that point home often enough and the antis will eventually run out of excuses.

If I were to go into a court of law and argue to the court that these binding precedents are meaningless then I would lose and my making that argument would make me a moron. It would make me almost as moronic as the attorneys for the so called gun-rights groups in their concealed carry lawsuits.

So let me ask this question of you. If you are so right then why don't you file your own concealed carry lawsuit and make your arguments in your case instead of telling me how to make my arguments in mine?

 

[davidmcbeth]

If I were to go into a court of law and argue to the court that these binding precedents are meaningless then I would lose and my making that argument would make me a moron. It would make me almost as moronic as the attorneys for the so called gun-rights groups in their concealed carry lawsuits.

So let me ask this question of you. If you are so right then why don't you file your own concealed carry lawsuit and make your arguments in your case instead of telling me how to make my arguments in mine?

They are meaningless if you ask me ... a right cannot be regulated. But maybe you should...they always do the opposite, right?