9th Circuit court of Appeals in San Francisco ruling on concealed carry

[Worriedman]

From the ruling and attached article:

“The protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/breaking-federal-appeals-court-rules-no-constitutional-right-to-carry-a-concealed-gun/

Edited June 10, 2016 by Worriedman

[Wingshooter]

Here we go. With a 4-4 SCOTUS, the NEXT president will decide this indirectly by nominating a SC judge.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Wingshooter

[Mindless-Focus]

The line of has been drawn in the sand. The war has begun. 

[Scorpion Equalizer]

35 minutes ago, Mindless-Focus said:

35 minutes ago, Mindless-Focus said:

The line of has been drawn in the sand. The war has begun. 

 

And it looks like most of the country are crossing the line onto the anti- 2nd side.

[MemHeli]

5 minutes ago, Scorpian Equalizer said:

And it looks like most of the country are crossing the line onto the anti- 2nd side.

Man I hope not.

 

[Randall53]

Their setting things up for the Hillary administration to gut the 2nd amendment.

[Ugly]

Yep, a non vote for trump won't hurt us. 

[Pete123]

All I can say about the San Francisco Court is shown in the title of the following articles.

"California lawmakers try to extend ObamaCare to illegal immigrants"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/06/california-lawmakers-try-to-extend-obamacare-to-illegal-immigrants.html

"3rd time a charm? San Francisco to try yet again to give illegal immigrants voting rights"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/08/3rd-time-charm-san-francisco-to-try-yet-again-to-give-illegal-immigrants-voting-rights.html

[Grand Torino]

San Francisco...the cesspool of Kalifornia...and that's saying something.

[Wingshooter]

21 minutes ago, Ugly said:

Yep, a non vote for trump won't hurt us. 

Exactly. Our gun rights and the 2A itself are very much on the line with this election.

[Hershmeister]

Of course - the framers made a typo when writing the bill of rights - they meant to write "bare arms" not bear arms. It all makes sense now

[btq96r]

You all might not like this...but the judges made the right ruling, IMO.  The plaintiffs didn't address carry in general, just concealed carry, and because that was the only type of carry argued, that was the only type of carry decided.  They also found no historical evidence concealed carry was ever an intent of the 2nd Amendment, and they have a lot of evidence to back it up.  From that, they decided that the state has the right to place whatever restrictions on concealed carry they see fit.  

 

From reading the opinion and glancing at the dissent, and this is what stuck out.

From Judge Fletcher’s Opinion…

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry.  That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here.  Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.  Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment- whatever the scope of that protection may be- simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.

The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public.  But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here.  We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.  (pg. 19)

On firearm carry in general…

If there is such a right, it is only a right to carry a firearm openly.  But Plaintiffs do not challenge California’s restrictions on open carry; they challenge only restrictions on concealed carry.  (pg. 51)

From all that, the court found that any restrictions on concealed carry are legal, as there is no right protecting concealed carry by itself.  If the plaintiffs had argued that California law prohibiting open carry by default makes their laws restricting concealed carry illegal, they would have had a new can of worms opened that might have been benefited by Heller and McDonald.  But, since they chose to challenge concealed carry alone, they didn't get to make that argument.

 

This part was interesting, since it's the majority of the court saying they didn't factor in one of our favorite arguments, that "carry permit holders are less likely to commit crime" that was submitted through amicus briefs...

Nationwide, since May 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have shot and killed at least 17 law enforcement officers and more than 800 private citizens- including 52 suicides.  (pg. 54)

Finally, the tried and true standard of courts deferring to legislatures, even if they're stupid (e.g.: California)...

...lawmakers are entitled to weight he severity of the risk as well as the likelihood of its occurrence.  (pg. 54)

 

So, sorry folks, this is a loss we have to take.

[Wingshooter]

35 minutes ago, Hershmeister said:

Of course - the framers made a typo when writing the bill of rights - they meant to write "bare arms" not bear arms. It all makes sense now

And the framers also meant to put a footnote after "shall not be infringed" to include 'unless you're a liberal judge' 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Wingshooter

[The Legion]

1 hour ago, Wingshooter said:

And the framers also meant to put a footnote after "shall not be infringed" to include 'unless you're a liberal judge' 

 

 

You beat me to it.  I couldn't say it better!!

Edited June 9, 2016 by The Legion

[Worriedman]

5 hours ago, btq96r said:

You all might not like this...but the judges made the right ruling, IMO.  The plaintiffs didn't address carry in general, just concealed carry, and because that was the only type of carry argued, that was the only type of carry decided.  They also found no historical evidence concealed carry was ever an intent of the 2nd Amendment, and they have a lot of evidence to back it up.  From that, they decided that the state has the right to place whatever restrictions on concealed carry they see fit.  

 

From reading the opinion and glancing at the dissent, and this is what stuck out.

From Judge Fletcher’s Opinion…

 

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry.  That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here.  Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.  Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment- whatever the scope of that protection may be- simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.

 

 

 

 

The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public.  But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here.  We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.  (pg. 19)

 

 

 

On firearm carry in general…

 

If there is such a right, it is only a right to carry a firearm openly.  But Plaintiffs do not challenge California’s restrictions on open carry; they challenge only restrictions on concealed carry.  (pg. 51)

 

 

 

From all that, the court found that any restrictions on concealed carry are legal, as there is no right protecting concealed carry by itself.  If the plaintiffs had argued that California law prohibiting open carry by default makes their laws restricting concealed carry illegal, they would have had a new can of worms opened that might have been benefited by Heller and McDonald.  But, since they chose to challenge concealed carry alone, they didn't get to make that argument.

 

 

 

This part was interesting, since it's the majority of the court saying they didn't factor in one of our favorite arguments, that "carry permit holders are less likely to commit crime" that was submitted through amicus briefs...

 

Nationwide, since May 2007, concealed-carry permit holders have shot and killed at least 17 law enforcement officers and more than 800 private citizens- including 52 suicides.  (pg. 54)

Finally, the tried and true standard of courts deferring to legislatures, even if they're stupid (e.g.: California)...

...lawmakers are entitled to weight he severity of the risk as well as the likelihood of its occurrence.  (pg. 54)

 

So, sorry folks, this is a loss we have to take.

Sadly, I have to concur.

I would ask, of that 17 LE shot by permit holders, were any of those justified?  Of the 748 private Citizens shot by permit holders (excluding suicides), how many resulted in convictions for wrongful action?

[Sidecarist]

I guess I simply don't get it. If 2A memorialized the right to "bear arms" how does that allow restrictions on HOW those arms are borne? If I choose to carry openly or concealed is not relevant to the 2A.

I'm a simple guy, some say simple minded...but this nit picking cap just rubs me the wrong way.

[Wingshooter]

37 minutes ago, Sidecarist said:

I guess I simply don't get it. If 2A memorialized the right to "bear arms" how does that allow restrictions on HOW those arms are borne? If I choose to carry openly or concealed is not relevant to the 2A.

I'm a simple guy, some say simple minded...but this nit picking cap just rubs me the wrong way.

Exactly. Kind of like saying the 1A gives us freedom of speach, but that may or may not apply to speach on radio, TV, internet or by carrier pigeon; therefore, the 1A is not relevant in those instances. 

[btq96r]

2 hours ago, Sidecarist said:

I guess I simply don't get it. If 2A memorialized the right to "bear arms" how does that allow restrictions on HOW those arms are borne? If I choose to carry openly or concealed is not relevant to the 2A.

I'm a simple guy, some say simple minded...but this nit picking cap just rubs me the wrong way.

Start at page 40.  They lay out the case that carrying concealed has never been a key part within the intent of the Second Amendment, and point to laws from pre and post civil war times to support that.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971 6-9 EB opinion plus webcites.pdf

[Grand Torino]

4 hours ago, Wingshooter said:

Exactly. Kind of like saying the 1A gives us freedom of speach, but that may or may not apply to speach on radio, TV, internet or by carrier pigeon; therefore, the 1A is not relevant in those instances. 

Exactly....and you're allowed to carry openly but not under your coat. Really? The 2nd doesn't say you can't carry or even under your coat but some liberal judge want's to nit pick it to death. I'm sorry but I find this kind of ruling ridiculous no matter what some arm chair lawyers seem to think.

[Grand Torino]

In an unrelated note but none the less about SF lawmakers....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/09/san-francisco-pol-wants-flyover-ban-so-blue-angels-cant-strafe-city.html?intcmp=hplnws

San Francisco pol wants flyover ban so Blue Angels can't 'strafe' city

In the wake of last week's fatal Blue Angels jet crash in Tennessee, a San Francisco lawmaker wants to ban the famed F/A-18 fighter jets from being able to fly over his city -- and, in his words, "strafe neighborhoods."

City Supervisor John Avalos, who long has waged a public battle decrying the squadron's aerial acrobatics over San Francisco -- at one point calling them loud "killing machines" -- has introduced a nonbinding resolution to require the jets to only fly over the bay. 

[tnhawk]

During the time I was in the Army, I was usually happy to have "loud killing machines" fly over me.

[DaveTN]

We knew it was coming to this. The SCOTUS didn’t do their job. They split the 2nd in half and didn’t address “Bear Arms”. They didn’t do it (IMO) because they knew there would be states that would not comply no matter which way they ruled.

They may address “concealed” and still not answer the question…. “Can everyone in this country strap on a gun and walk down the street?” The answer is “No” it violates States Rights.

I’m a staunch supporter of States Rights. The worst war our nation has fought was fought over States Rights. The 2nd violates States Rights. The Feds are not responsible for local law enforcement so they don’t get to tell you whether you can carry a gun in public or not. If California wants to tell their citizens they can’t carry guns, and Tennessee wants to tell theirs they can; that is exactly what is going to happen.

We have had great success in gun privileges/rights lately, and have blocked the libs attempt to legislate unreasonable bans. But forcing states like CA and NY to allow carry? Not going to happen; and they would not comply.

I believe I have a basic inalienable right to carry a gun; I do not believe that right comes from the 2nd amendment. The state of Tennessee agrees with me (somewhat, although they call it a privilege and want paid).

[Worriedman]

47 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

We knew it was coming to this. The SCOTUS didn’t do their job. They split the 2nd in half and didn’t address “Bear Arms”. They didn’t do it (IMO) because they knew there would be states that would not comply no matter which way they ruled.

They may address “concealed” and still not answer the question…. “Can everyone in this country strap on a gun and walk down the street?” The answer is “No” it violates States Rights.

I’m a staunch supporter of States Rights. The worst war our nation has fought was fought over States Rights. The 2nd violates States Rights. The Feds are not responsible for local law enforcement so they don’t get to tell you whether you can carry a gun in public or not. If California wants to tell their citizens they can’t carry guns, and Tennessee wants to tell theirs they can; that is exactly what is going to happen.

We have had great success in gun privileges/rights lately, and have blocked the libs attempt to legislate unreasonable bans. But forcing states like CA and NY to allow carry? Not going to happen; and they would not comply.

I believe I have a basic inalienable right to carry a gun; I do not believe that right comes from the 2nd amendment. The state of Tennessee agrees with me (somewhat, although they call it a privilege and want paid).

I agree Dave, all the more reason to vet the candidates for State legislative office and to get involved in the campaigns.

Keyboarding about Rights or what should be is one thing.  Putting our money where our mouth is what needs to happen.

Letting Jon Lundberg take Ramsey's senate seat is the worst thing that could happen for our shared interest.  He is a puppet for the Haslam control manifest.  Tony Shipley is a friend our endeavors to remove restrictions on lawful carry, and is an anti-Haslam candidate for that seat.

Sending Sargent home is just as important.

These races may not be in your district, but they are very important to the effort.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Worriedman

[Sidecarist]

What has made states rights a farce is all the federal funding tied to infrastructure. 

Unless/until states tell the feds to keep the $$$$$$$$$ then the states have no rights.

[DaveTN]

20 minutes ago, Sidecarist said:

What has made states rights a farce is all the federal funding tied to infrastructure. 

Unless/until states tell the feds to keep the $$$$$$$$$ then the states have no rights.

Certainly States have Rights. They just have to be willing to stand up for them. Caving to 55MPH speed limits to get your Federal money is a lot different than letting the Feds tell you whether you can/can’t carry guns. The Tennessee Firearms freedom act hasn’t been tested either. The state says its law and the Feds say they will arrest violators. Someone has to fold; right now it’s the state.