Americans have no right to concealed carry in public

Ringo

A WATCHMAN
Federal appeals court rules Americans have no right to concealed carry in public​
Americans have no constitutional right to carry concealed firearms outside the home, a federal appellate court ruled Thursday in a decision that immediately came under sharp criticism from Second Amendment advocates.​

 
Only counts in the 9th District. They are usually overturned and hardly ever right.

Overturned? By whom? A 4-4 split SCOTUS can not overturn a ruling. Unless Trump wins and puts SCOTUS back to a 5-4 split in favor of gun rights, this ruling is going to stand. Even with a Trump win and change to a 5-4 split, it is quite possible that SCOTUS won't touch it.
 
Only counts in the 9th District. They are usually overturned and hardly ever right.

Even if that particular 9th Circus ruling is overturned, the premise that concealed carry is not a right has been true across the country forever, and permission-slip schemes are the irrefutable proof of that statement being true. Even in the eight or nine states that don't require a permission slip to conceal it's true, because there's not one single ruling at the Supreme Court level that prevents those states from turning the "right" into a permitted privilege with the simple act by their Governors of signing a newly-passed permission-slip scheming bill.

The Second Amendment has never been treated in this country as the unambiguous natural "right" that it purports to acknowledge and protect.

This particular ruling really changes nothing. The premise put forth in the headline of the OP is completely compliant with the language of both Heller and McDonald, where permission-slip schemes were deemed fully constitutional both before and after the rulings, and both of those rulings only applied to possession in the home of unlocked, ready-to-fire weapons. Neither Opinion ruled on the constitutionally-protected right of carrying outside the home, nor anything about how state or local governments could, should or would restrict/regulate outside-the-home possession/carry post-Heller/McDonald. This ruling by the 9th Circus isn't even the first of its kind. Rulings from appeals-level courts have gone both ways, but several rulings have upheld the authority of states/municipalities to restrict/regulate outside-the-home carry for essentially the same rationale as the recent 9th Circus'. From Jurist.org on concealed and open carry legal analysis comes this excerpt:

District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear firearms in the home for self-defense, but left unanswered whether it protects other conduct. Writing for the majority in Heller, Scalia Link Removed that Heller marked the Supreme Court's first substantive exploration of the Second Amendment, and that determining the scope of conduct protected by the Amendment presented a challenge for future courts. McDonald Link Removed little more to the discussion. Presently, federal circuit courts are grappling with the reach of Second Amendment protections outside the home in the context of concealed-carry permits.

Generally, the divisive question is whether state laws or local ordinances requiring applicants for a concealed carry permit to provide evidence of specific threats against their person, rather than a general concern for self-defense, infringe on protected Second Amendment conduct. Several federal circuit courts found that laws requiring evidence of specific threats are constitutional under the Second Amendment. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester Link Removed a challenge to the constitutionality of New York concealed carry permit law, which required that applicants demonstrate specific evidence of a need for self-protection. While the Second Circuit stated that the right to self-defense articulated in Heller had some application outside the home, New York's law was a presumptively constitutional longstanding restriction and the permit requirement was not a complete ban on public carrying. Using a similar analysis, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Link Removed Maryland's permit requirement in Maryland in Woollard v. Gallagher. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Drake v. Filko Link Removed New Jersey's permit requirement constitutional as a longstanding presumptively lawful measure, it offered a different analysis than the Second Circuit. For the Third Circuit, the proper question was not whether the Heller right existed outside the home, but whether a similar right could be said to exist in public. The Supreme Court Link Removed certiorari for Drake in May 2014.

Even New Jersey's near-ban on permit issuance withstood constitutional muster, which will combine with other similar rulings to provide precedence for the next-level justices to hang their hats on should the SCOTUS accept a challenge to this new CA/9th Circus ruling.

I don't like it and don't agree with it, but I don't think this 9th Circus ruling is going anywhere. If anyone is looking for a sliver of silver lining in this dark cloud, the 9th Circuit did refrain from saying anything at all about the open carry of weapons outside the home, which leaves CA's ban on open carry up for challenge.

Blues
 
To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Well it would seem that I was reading the vacated opinion and not the one from June 9th. I still feel that the ban on open carry will not survive the 9th. We shall see what they do with Nichols v. Brown.
DD
 
You DO however have the right to be shot to death in public by Islamists for being a homosexual.

Not having the right to be armed in public makes that easier.
 
No right to carry huh? I have a permit signed by a Superior Court Judge that says different.
 
That case was flawed from the beginning. And I lend very little credence to decisions handed down by the 9th Circus Court.
 
No right to carry huh? I have a permit signed by a Superior Court Judge that says different.

You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried - but we know here that it comes naturally to you. You have a permit signed by a Superior Court Judge that says the government has granted you the privilege of carrying a firearm under the government's terms, conditions, laws and regulations. That is no right at all. And your statement that the government granting you permission grants you a right is exactly the reason we don't have any rights left in this country any more.
 
You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried - but we know here that it comes naturally to you. You have a permit signed by a Superior Court Judge that says the government has granted you the privilege of carrying a firearm under the government's terms, conditions, laws and regulations. That is no right at all. And your statement that the government granting you permission grants you a right is exactly the reason we don't have any rights left in this country any more.

Link Removed



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top