Federal appeals court rules gun owners do not have right to concealed carry

[TrueBlue]

Federal appeals court rules gun owners do not have right to concealed carry

https://www.veooz.com/news/8L2AVY_.html

"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. California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns."


================================
Thanks to Veooz for this report.

Imho, Republicans have just got to swallow this bitter pill! Too bad advocates of gun rights. That decision may well result in an appeal to the SCOTUS but if it does, it is very probable that it will result in a 4-4 ruling which means that the ruling of the Appeals Court will stand. This correct ruling obviously helps to protect the public from trigger-happy wildcats who would not hesitate to draw their weapon in an instant and use it to shoot another for whatever purpose since it's right there in their holster. KUDOS to the Federal Appeals Court for this decision!

The forum rules will be strictly observed by participants in this thread or non-conforming members will be thread banned.

If You Don't Like What Is Being Discussed In the OP You Can Always Do the Courteous Thing and Just Leave the Thread.

[Subdermal]

“The ruling misrepresented our complaint…Our complaint was that there is a right to carry and the law in question did not allow it in any form. The court ignored what this case was really about to get around the challenge we raised.”—Alan M. Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation

[waltky]

But what about carrying guns openly like dey did inna wild, wild west?...
http://www.politicalforum.com/images/smilies/icon_gun.gif
US Appeals Court: No Constitutional Right to Carry Hidden Guns
June 09, 2016 - A federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.


The 11-judge panel overturned a decision by a smaller panel from the same court. Thursday's ruling upholds a California state law requiring applicants for permits to carry hidden weapons to show a good reason why they need to carry a gun, such as defending themselves against someone who poses a true threat.


http://gdb.voanews.com/03C0FF4A-B59C-4AE8-BA77-D40915B2A989_w640_r1_s_cx0_cy12_cw0.jpg
A gun is surrendered during a buyback event at Los Angeles Sports Arena in Los Angeles, California. May 31, 2014. A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.

The original suit was brought by California citizens who were denied permits to carry a gun by sheriff’s departments in two counties. They argued the sheriffs were violating their constitutional right to bear arms as spelled out in the Second Amendment. But California's attorney general appealed the initial ruling. The case eventually could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-appeals-court-no-constitutional-right-carry-concealed-weapon/3370121.html

See also:

No constitutional right to concealed guns: U.S. appeals court
Jun 09 2016 - Firearm owners have no constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public, a divided U.S. appeals court in California ruled on Thursday, upholding the right of officials to only grant permits to those facing a specific danger.


The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a victory for gun control advocates which sets a legal precedent in western states, was seen as unlikely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. The San Francisco-based court, in a 7-4 decision, found California's San Diego and Yolo counties did not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms, when they denied some applicants a concealed firearm license. "We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public," Judge William Fletcher wrote in a 52-page opinion.

Sheriffs in the two California counties had limited their permits to applicants showing "good cause" to be armed, such as documented threats or working in a wide range of risky occupations. The ruling places the 9th Circuit Court in line with other U.S. appellate courts that have upheld the right of officials in the states of New York, Maryland and New Jersey to deny concealed carry applications in certain cases. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, in the middle of a raging national debate on guns, declined to weigh in on whether firearm owners have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns.


http://s1.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20160609&t=2&i=1140671664&w=644&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC581E0
Guns are seen inside a display case at the Cabela's store in Fort Worth, Texas

The 9th Circuit Court's opinion noted the Supreme Court had not answered the question of whether the Second Amendment ensures a right to carry firearms openly, as opposed to concealed under clothing. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote that her colleagues on the 9th Circuit had gone too far. "The Second Amendment is not a 'second class' amendment," she wrote. Under California's concealed carry law, more than 70,000 residents or less than 1 percent of the state's population had active permits last year, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris applauded the ruling while Chuck Michel, president of gun rights group the California Rifle and Pistol Association, criticized it. "This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection," Michel said in a statement.

If plaintiffs appeal, the Supreme Court may refrain from reviewing the case because other U.S. circuit courts have also upheld certain requirements for concealed carry permits, said University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Adam Winkler in an email. The decision by the full 9th Circuit reversed a 2-1 decision in 2014 by a panel of the appellate court that found California residents have an inherent right to a concealed weapon for self defense.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-guns-idUSKCN0YV2B1

[stjames1_53]

I'll still carry
so because I gave my opinion, are you going to ban me from this thread, too?
The federal government does not have any Right to encroach upon my Rights. No court can determine that Right unless it is on an Individual Basis. It is not a "Group Right"......You BoR is Individual in nature.
Screw this courts ruling.
Look where it came from...California, concerning a California case.
I live in southern Indiana. I'm not listening to some butt nugget over 3000 miles away form me.

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

[donttread]

Federal appeals court rules gun owners do not have right to concealed carry

https://www.veooz.com/news/8L2AVY_.html


================================
Thanks to Veooz for this report.

Imho, Republicans have just got to swallow this bitter pill! Too bad advocates of gun rights. That decision may well result in an appeal to the SCOTUS but if it does, it is very probable that it will result in a 4-4 ruling which means that the ruling of the Appeals Court will stand. This correct ruling obviously helps to protect the public from trigger-happy wildcats who would not hesitate to draw their weapon in an instant and use it to shoot another for whatever purpose since it's right there in their holster. KUDOS to the Federal Appeals Court for this decision!

The forum rules will be strictly observed by participants in this thread or non-conforming members will be thread banned.

If You Don't Like What Is Being Discussed In the OP You Can Always Do the Courteous Thing and Just Leave the Thread.


How can the phrase "shall not be infringed" be interpreted to mean anything other than what it says?

[Subdermal]

I notice that the OP article does not mention which court made this ridiculously anti-Constitutional ruling.

It was the 9th Circuit.

The 9th Circuit is famous. Famous for being liberal; famous for being overturned by SCOTUS. The leftist judges on the 9th Circuit are pieces of crap.

[gamewell45]

I believe this will most likely end up before SCOTUS and if the decision is upheld, it will be a game changer in the US. Film at 11!

[Common]

Has to be the most over ridden court in the country by Scotus. Even liberal scotus spanks them regularly

[Subdermal]

I believe this will most likely end up before SCOTUS and if the decision is upheld, it will be a game changer in the US. Film at 11!

Derp.

How about you comment on the baselessness of this ruling; on how it abjectly contradicts the words and meaning of the Constitution, and how there is no focking way that anyone other than anti-Constitutional leftist judges would have ruled this way?

[domer76]

How can the phrase "shall not be infringed" be interpreted to mean anything other than what it says?

What part of "the militia" can be interpreted other than what it says?

[Cletus]

I am not certain the Supreme Court will overrule this decision. Historically, concealed carry has always been up to state legislatures to decide. Even my state, which is very gun friendly has it written directly in the State Constitution.

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article II, Section 6.

“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”

That is why had to pass a separate concealed carry act in 2003. If concealed carry was historically considered a basic component of the right to keep and bear arms, we would by now, have national concealed carry reciprocity. We do not. That said, more states are now passing what they refer to as "Constitutional Carry" acts which do recognize an inherent right to carry a concealed firearm... a right protected by the Second Amendment.

I would certainly like to see it happen, but I am hesitant to try to predict which way the Court would swing if this case was presented to them.

[The Xl]

Openly rogue court with no legitimacy.

[TrueBlue]

I am not certain the Supreme Court will overrule this decision. Historically, concealed carry has always been up to state legislatures to decide. Even my state, which is very gun friendly has it written directly in the State Constitution.

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article II, Section 6.

“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”

That is why had to pass a separate concealed carry act in 2003. If concealed carry was historically considered a basic component of the right to keep and bear arms, we would by now, have national concealed carry reciprocity. We do not. That said, more states are now passing what they refer to as "Constitutional Carry" acts which do recognize an inherent right to carry a concealed firearm... a right protected by the Second Amendment.

I would certainly like to see it happen, but I am hesitant to try to predict which way the Court would swing if this case was presented to them.
There can be little doubt that if it went next to the SCOTUS it would more than likely result in a 4-4 tie vote which, of course, means that the Federal Appeals Court ruling would stand.

Bet Senate Republicans now wish they had taken President Obama's Supreme Court nominee and voted to confirm him. He may have been just the person to help them out and save the day for gun rights activists. :)

[domer76]

Openly rogue court with no legitimacy.

"Activist judges"! You poor slobs!

[Truth Detector]

There can be little doubt that if it went next to the SCOTUS it would more than likely result in a 4-4 tie vote which, of course, means that the Federal Appeals Court ruling would stand.

Which makes the argument already made that this court is beyond disgusting taking a case and re-interpreting the law in the hopes this would not get a hearing for quite some time.

But then, unconstitutional judicial activism is the ONLY leftist tards can move their agenda forward. They could never win the hearts of the majority of voters as has been illustrated time and time again.


Bet Senate Republicans now wish they had taken President Obama's Supreme Court nominee and voted to confirm him. He may have been just the person to help them out and save the day for gun rights activists. :)

Why? They are much better off waiting for a Trump Presidency. Man, December is going to be a tough month for Liberuls who think Hillary has already won. :biglaugh:

[domer76]

Which makes the argument already made that this court is beyond disgusting taking a case and re-interpreting the law in the hopes this would not get a hearing for quite some time.

But then, unconstitutional judicial activism is the ONLY leftist tards can move their agenda forward. They could never win the hearts of the majority of voters as has been illustrated time and time again.



Why? They are much better off waiting for a Trump Presidency. Man, December is going to be a tough month for Liberuls who think Hillary has already won. :biglaugh:

You poor fucks should have taken Obama's nominee.

[TrueBlue]

Which makes the argument already made that this court is beyond disgusting taking a case and re-interpreting the law in the hopes this would not get a hearing for quite some time.

But then, unconstitutional judicial activism is the ONLY leftist tards can move their agenda forward. They could never win the hearts of the majority of voters as has been illustrated time and time again.



Why? They are much better off waiting for a Trump Presidency. Man, December is going to be a tough month for Liberuls who think Hillary has already won. :biglaugh:
Wrong. We won't "think" Hillary has already won. She will have WON!! Period. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/madhouse/sarcastic.gif

[Truth Detector]

You poor $#@!s should have taken Obama's nominee.

See above; DERP

[Truth Detector]

Wrong. We won't "think" Hillary has already won. She will have WON!! Period. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/madhouse/sarcastic.gif

Good luck with that; November might be even tougher on you than December and January when Trump is inaugurated.

[domer76]

See above; DERP

Even you Scalia court indicated this was the case, fool.

[TrueBlue]

Good luck with that; November might be even tougher on you than December and January when Trump is inaugurated.
Right back at you! The "October surprise" will partly be that even Republicans, as they have been talking about doing, will cross over to support Hillary Clinton because they can't stand Trump. Wait and see! :)

[Truth Detector]

Even you Scalia court indicated this was the case, fool.

WTF is "you" Scalia court? You must be in between brain farts. :biglaugh:

[Cletus]

There can be little doubt that if it went next to the SCOTUS it would more than likely result in a 4-4 tie vote which, of course, means that the Federal Appeals Court ruling would stand.

Bet Senate Republicans now wish they had taken President Obama's Supreme Court nominee and voted to confirm him. He may have been just the person to help them out and save the day for gun rights activists. :)

There is no sure thing about it being deadlocked. Sotomayor and Kagen have more than once actually sided with the Constitution and against Obama. They have slapped him down more than once. It is just hard to tell how they would go on this particular issue. Would they do their duty or would they bow to Obama and the freedom haters?

[TrueBlue]

There is no sure thing about it being deadlocked. Sotomayor and Kagen have more than once actually sided with the Constitution and against Obama. They have slapped him down more than once. It is just hard to tell how they would go on this particular issue. Would they do their duty or would they bow to Obama and the freedom haters?
It remains to be seen of course but without the ninth justice they have nothing to lose by ruling in favor of the Appellate Court's decision.

[Cletus]

Right back at you! The "October surprise" will partly be that even Republicans, as they have been talking about doing, will cross over to support Hillary Clinton because they can't stand Trump. Wait and see! :)

Clinton is scum and only other scum will support her for President. Trump is far from the ideal candidate, but at least he didn't sit around with his head up his ass while Americans were being killed on his watch... especially after they asked repeatedly for help, help she could have given them but didn't.

Oh, and if you are going to try to get me thread banned, you need to refer to rule # 10 before you abuse the system again. You are the biggest offender here. The rules apply to you as much as they do anyone else... or at least they should.

[domer76]

WTF is "you" Scalia court? You must be in between brain farts. :biglaugh:

Your. Big fucking deal.

[Peter1469]

People who feel the need to carry will carry.

[stjames1_53]

Right back at you! The "October surprise" will partly be that even Republicans, as they have been talking about doing, will cross over to support Hillary Clinton because they can't stand Trump. Wait and see! :)

what an ignorant statement. Nothing supports your claim, However, you can chew on this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/265330-some-dems-would-defect-for-trump-poll-shows
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/03/10/donald-trump-inspiring-ohio-democrats-independents-to-vote-in-gop-race-for-or-against-him.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/democrats-link-trump-republicans/2016/05/05/id/727472/

[Ethereal]

What part of "the militia" can be interpreted other than what it says?

The militia are the people.

Let me know if you're confused and I will explain it for you.

[Ethereal]

It doesn't matter what the SCOTUS says or does not say.

In the end, Americans will do what is necessary in order to preserve their rights.

And there is nothing the Domers of the world can do to stop them.

But I welcome them to try.

[Common Sense]

The militia are the people.

Let me know if you're confused and I will explain it for you.

A militia is a body of citizens organized into a paramilitary group.

[Cletus]

A militia is a body of citizens organized into a paramilitary group.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

[jimmyz]

How exactly is this ruling going to affect Arizona? Not at all.

[stjames1_53]

A militia is a body of citizens organized into a paramilitary group.

with each required to supply his own arms....................That's why we have the part of Individual Right to keep and bear arms...starting to get it?

[Ethereal]

A militia is a body of citizens organized into a paramilitary group.

What's your point?