Ninth Circuit Rules 2A Doesn’t Protect a Right to Carry a Concealed Firearm In Public

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cartoons

NES Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
2,183
Likes
3,406
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Rules 2A Doesn’t Protect a Right to Carry a Concealed Firearm In Public






The Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision of Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to carry a concealed in public. This in effect ratifies jurisdictions’ use of “may issue” permitting, requiring individuals to show good cause to obtain a concealed carry license.


From the ruling:
The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment.

Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.



 
shocking 9th circuit.

SCOTUS needs to once and for all clarify what the ****ing 2A means.

It's pretty damned clear what it means....everything else is just political/legal spin and distortion.
 
The ninth circuit judges obviously can't read and comprehend english. They must have read bear as bare.
 
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Rules 2A Doesn’t Protect a Right to Carry a Concealed Firearm In Public






The Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision of Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to carry a concealed in public. This in effect ratifies jurisdictions’ use of “may issue” permitting, requiring individuals to show good cause to obtain a concealed carry license.


From the ruling:
The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment.

Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.





So now by default, as "the 2nd amendment does not protect concealed carry", open carry must be 2A protected and allowed everywhere?
 
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Rules 2A Doesn’t Protect a Right to Carry a Concealed Firearm In Public






The Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision of Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to carry a concealed in public. This in effect ratifies jurisdictions’ use of “may issue” permitting, requiring individuals to show good cause to obtain a concealed carry license.


From the ruling:
The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment.

Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.




Nope, sorry retards. The word BEAR as a verb is a direct synonym of the word CARRY. "The right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) (fire)arms shall not be infringed.". Its not difficult to understand.
 
Just as I predicted - en banc granted because they did not like the lower court decision.
 
Nope, sorry retards. The word BEAR as a verb is a direct synonym of the word CARRY. "The right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) (fire)arms shall not be infringed.". Its not difficult to understand.

agreed..it doesn't exclude one or the other so not sure what they are basing their ruling on....unless that it was more common for people to open carry at the time the amendment was written. Even so, it never excluded concealed carry and neither practice was mentioned. So one can assume they meant it to be up to the citizen to make the choice.
 
Court shopping - until you get the result you want. (Kinda like what Brady is doing).

Except the court is doing the shopping.

Whenever a "right to CCW" case is won, the next level court grants a hearing (even if it does not have to), sometimes on a sua sponte basis. This repeats until some level of court makes the desired decision, at which point no further appeals are granted. Happened in MD; happened here; and it will happen the next time the federal courts rule in favor of equal protection when a "some are more equal than others" system is challenged.
 
Last edited:
And then there's this.....a Washington court ruled today that the DC's requirement that a person needs a good reason to carry may be unconstitutional.
 
So now by default, as "the 2nd amendment does not protect concealed carry", open carry must be 2A protected and allowed everywhere?

I would think so.

That was my first thought too.

This reminds me of another thread where I stated that if HRC is elected, all she has to do is appoint anti-gun, activist, progressive judges and justices on SCOTUS to change the scope and meaning of the 2A. Another poster added, how can she do this without overturning Heller & McDonald? I replied, "very easily," which the ninth circuit clearly shows in their decision by stating that concealed carry is not protected by the constitution, which is BS because it still comes down to the fact that the individual has the natural, fundamental, God-given right to self-defense and the government has NO RIGHT to infringe on it or state otherwise; unless of course it becomes a tyrannical government.
 
Last edited:
That was my first thought too.

This reminds me of another thread where I stated that if HRC is elected, all she has to do is appoint anti-gun, activist, progressive judges and justices on SCOTUS to change the scope and meaning of the 2A. Another poster added, how can she do this without overturning Heller & McDonald? I replied, "very easily," which the ninth circuit clearly shows in their decision by stating that concealed carry is not protected by the constitution, which is BS because it still comes down to the fact that the individual has the natural, fundamental, God-given right to self-defense and the government has NO RIGHT to infringe on it or state otherwise; unless of course it becomes a tyrannical government.

This doesn't need HRC. The BHO / Harry Reid court packing Senate rules change has already done it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom