PDA

View Full Version : "No automatic right to carry concealed weapons"



gabosaurus
06-10-2016, 12:37 PM
This is one of those "test cases" that I have been referring to. To establish a legal precedent for future arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Which will soon be different than it is now.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/09/gun-concealed-weapons-peruta-ruling-ninth/


In a long-awaited opinion, a federal appeals court decided Thursday that people do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.

Judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that California counties may require people who want permits for concealed guns to show a specific reason why they need them.

The ruling upends a previous one from two years ago in which the court struck down a San Diego County Sheriff’s Department policy which required applicants to show “good cause” as to why they needed a concealed weapons permit.



Gun control -- coming to your neighborhood sooner than later. :cool:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-10-2016, 02:35 PM
This is one of those "test cases" that I have been referring to. To establish a legal precedent for future arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Which will soon be different than it is now.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/09/gun-concealed-weapons-peruta-ruling-ninth/



Gun control -- coming to your neighborhood sooner than later. :cool:

Wrong...
I do have a right to self -defense.
For that right to be valid I have a right to conceal carry..Criminals conceal carry--thus create the necessity for me to do the same.
Otherwise my right to self-defense has been invalidated.
Just because so many laws have been unconstitutionally written and enforced invalidating that right does not mean its not a right, or that its suddenly unconstitutional.
REALITY says for my right to exist I have the right to conceal carry--same as the criminals do.
Deny me that right , you have unconstitutionally voided it...
Second Amendment says you can not do so--but courts and politicians HAVE IGNORED THAT AND ENGAGED IN
METHODS AND MEANS TO FRAUDULENTLY MAKE IT A CRIME FOR ME TO DO SO WITHOUT A PERMIT.
The Second Amendment never mentions a permit--but does say--"shall not be infringed".----Tyr

Gunny
06-10-2016, 03:39 PM
I have to agree with the ruling although it's never slowed me down. :laugh: The right to keep and bear arms does not address concealed carry. When the Second Amendment was written, everyone open carried.

How ironic is it that gun control laws created concealed carry? Dumbass lefties.

Surf Fishing Guru
06-11-2016, 02:19 AM
This is one of those "test cases" that I have been referring to. To establish a legal precedent for future arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Which will soon be different than it is now.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/09/gun-concealed-weapons-peruta-ruling-ninth/



Gun control -- coming to your neighborhood sooner than later. :cool:

Don't get too excited . . .

Gunny is right . . . Nobody expected the 9th to find a federally enforced (by the 2ndA) right to carry concealed, and this could be just like the 7th Circuit's ruling in McDonald, being legally correct for that Circuit (given the Illinois constitution) only to be set straight in the big room in DC. . .

Historically, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd was not held to speak on any aspect of concealed carry (primarily because the 2nd was not applicable to the states). The concealing of a weapon was widely considered dishonorable and the action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was the domain of state criminal law. The thing you need to understand is that going back to the early 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black). Note, the 9th here made special effort to say multiple times that they were not speaking in any manner of the 2ndA's action protecting open carry.


This California situation is peculiar in the overall scheme of public carriage of arms simply because California is among the few states who do not have a right to arms provision in their state constitution. Since the state's beginnings the state legislature has taken that to mean anything is possible as far as gun control goes so they prohibited all carry . . . For the most part, with the delay (McDonald, 2010) and since then, the unrealized application of the 2nd under the 14th, they have been allowed to continue to do what they want.

This has created a legal problem though, California state court's legal justification for them sustaining various state gun control schemes (especially those of the last 50 years) was not established by any sophisticated testing of state laws against a state RKBA provision. California sustained its laws by lazily relying on 20th Century lower federal court decisions pushing invalid "collective right" theories. This has led to much confusion regarding state court decisions which establish the underlying law for the 9th to examine. It is a mess because decades of California's case law is actually abrogated and invalid and of zero use; judges (state and these 9th Circuit ones) are making it up as they go.

Please, if you think this "test case" is of such value to the legal record, by all means explain to me the wider legal principles employed in deciding this case (ya know, what the "test" is that can be applied to other jurisdictions).

Gunny
06-11-2016, 04:19 AM
Don't get too excited . . .

Gunny is right . . . Nobody expected the 9th to find a federally enforced (by the 2ndA) right to carry concealed, and this could be just like the 7th Circuit's ruling in McDonald, being legally correct for that Circuit (given the Illinois constitution) only to be set straight in the big room in DC. . .

Historically, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd was not held to speak on any aspect of concealed carry (primarily because the 2nd was not applicable to the states). The concealing of a weapon was widely considered dishonorable and the action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was the domain of state criminal law. The thing you need to understand is that going back to the early 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black). Note, the 9th here made special effort to say multiple times that they were not speaking in any manner of the 2ndA's action protecting open carry.


This California situation is peculiar in the overall scheme of public carriage of arms simply because California is among the few states who do not have a right to arms provision in their state constitution. Since the state's beginnings the state legislature has taken that to mean anything is possible as far as gun control goes so they prohibited all carry . . . For the most part, with the delay (McDonald, 2010) and since then, the unrealized application of the 2nd under the 14th, they have been allowed to continue to do what they want.

This has created a legal problem though, California state court's legal justification for them sustaining various state gun control schemes (especially those of the last 50 years) was not established by any sophisticated testing of state laws against a state RKBA provision. California sustained its laws by lazily relying on 20th Century lower federal court decisions pushing invalid "collective right" theories. This has led to much confusion regarding state court decisions which establish the underlying law for the 9th to examine. It is a mess because decades of California's case law is actually abrogated and invalid and of zero use; judges (state and these 9th Circuit ones) are making it up as they go.

Please, if you think this "test case" is of such value to the legal record, by all means explain to me the wider legal principles employed in deciding this case (ya know, what the "test" is that can be applied to other jurisdictions).

I believe in open carry laws. You ain't got to guess what I'm thinking. Concealed carry is a result of restrictive gun laws. I'd rather wear my gun on my hip out in the open. You don't have to guess. I've been able to draw a six shooter since I was 4. I've illegally carried in more than a few states because I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.

Legally, I think this goes to the 10th. What I find ironic is I owned more guns in CA than anywhere else I've ever lived.

However , the 2nd Amendment does not address concealed carry.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
06-11-2016, 08:21 AM
I believe in open carry laws. You ain't got to guess what I'm thinking. Concealed carry is a result of restrictive gun laws. I'd rather wear my gun on my hip out in the open. You don't have to guess. I've been able to draw a six shooter since I was 4. I've illegally carried in more than a few states because I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.

Legally, I think this goes to the 10th. What I find ironic is I owned more guns in CA than anywhere else I've ever lived.

However , the 2nd Amendment does not address concealed carry.

I firmly believe in open carry law myself.
However, the 2nd Amendment makes no limiting distinction in restricting the right to bear arms--be it open or conceal carry.
Neither government state or Federal has any constitutional authority to restrict open carry.
If any leeway is to be given it should only be in the conceal carry aspect--such as restrictions on convicted felons, (or medically verified crazy people), that are never applicable to law-abiding citizens that have no felony record...
That is as far as I would go--and even there I tend to think that if the felony did not involve any weapon use, the right to bear arms, should be restored when the time is done - that being disregarded if given early release...

The 9th circus is known to be made up of idiots, that get more wrong than right IMHO..-Tyr
.

Trigg
06-11-2016, 09:13 AM
I don't have a problem with concealed carry laws. I'd rather people know that I'm able to protect myself.

Gunny
06-11-2016, 04:59 PM
I firmly believe in open carry law myself.
However, the 2nd Amendment makes no limiting distinction in restricting the right to bear arms--be it open or conceal carry.
Neither government state or Federal has any constitutional authority to restrict open carry.
If any leeway is to be given it should only be in the conceal carry aspect--such as restrictions on convicted felons, (or medically verified crazy people), that are never applicable to law-abiding citizens that have no felony record...
That is as far as I would go--and even there I tend to think that if the felony did not involve any weapon use, the right to bear arms, should be restored when the time is done - that being disregarded if given early release...

The 9th circus is known to be made up of idiots, that get more wrong than right IMHO..-Tyr
.

I'm going with Surf Fishing Guru on this one. Although, I WILL say I believe the 2nd Amendment trumps state law. And as I said before, the law was written when people carried openly. Gun laws, at least here in the SW were town to town. If it weren't for idiots and criminals we wouldn't need them. And if you want to stick a .44 or .50 caliber flintlock down your pants, you go right ahead. I'll watch, thanks. The second amendment was written when people openly carried.

I don't see the need for concealment. Yes, this IS a Winchester Model 94 in ,30-30 and if you f*ck with me I WILL use it. I'm all for putting bad guys on notice. I'm sick of them running our country over stupid gun laws.

One example I can think of is if a woman's got a .25 in her purse? It may be "concealed" but who really gives a damn? I think this is just another leftwing, contrived issue. Let's not pay attention to the criminal elephant in the room. Let's create a diversion. Name of their game. Deflection. EVERY time. The only time they can focus on anything is when they're going after a conservative.

Elessar
06-11-2016, 05:36 PM
Although, I WILL say I believe the 2nd Amendment trumps state law. <snip> If it weren't for idiots and criminals we wouldn't need them. <snip> The second amendment was written when people openly carried.

I don't see the need for concealment. Yes, this IS a Winchester Model 94 in ,30-30 and if you f*ck with me I WILL use it. I'm all for putting bad guys on notice. I'm sick of them running our country over stupid gun laws.

One example I can think of is if a woman's got a .25 in her purse? It may be "concealed" but who really gives a damn? I think this is just another leftwing, contrived issue. Let's not pay attention to the criminal elephant in the room. Let's create a diversion. Name of their game. Deflection. EVERY time. The only time they can focus on anything is when they're going after a conservative.

I am used to seeing 'open carry' in Oregon. Lots of ranchers are strapped with a Wheel Gun loaded with shotshells for rattlesnakes and varmints.
I am used to seeing rifles, shotguns, and bows mounted on racks here. The only difference is the long guns cannot be loaded and the ammo
located someplace else in the vehicle. As I said in a duplicate thread to this, I can usually spot someone with a concealed handgun.

Try any of that in Liberal Heaven - California - and see how fast your ass will be stopped. In Long Beach CA, I used to target shoot my compound
bow at the Olympic range in El Dorado Park. Then Long Beach came out with a law that bows must be unstrung and cased during transport.
This was due to Liberal whiners complaining of the danger of bows. Let me tell you this - unstringing and restringing a compound constantly ruins
the balance and tune of the bow.

Gunny
06-11-2016, 05:46 PM
I am used to seeing 'open carry' in Oregon. Lots of ranchers are strapped with a Wheel Gun loaded with shotshells for rattlesnakes and varmints.
I am used to seeing rifles, shotguns, and bows mounted on racks here. The only difference is the long guns cannot be loaded and the ammo
located someplace else in the vehicle. As I said in a duplicate thread to this, I can usually spot someone with a concealed handgun.

Try any of that in Liberal Heaven - California - and see how fast your ass will be stopped. In Long Beach CA, I used to target shoot my compound
bow at the Olympic range in El Dorado Park. Then Long Beach came out with a law that bows must be unstrung and cased during transport.
This was due to Liberal whiners complaining of the danger of bows. Let me tell you this - unstringing and restringing a compound constantly ruins
the balance and tune of the bow.

I hear ya. I mentioned the duplicate thread. What I learned about CA is there is no provision for transporting weapons. These laws were all written when common sense prevailed. People didn't think they needed all this over-regulation crap the left has dumped on us. I'm surprised there's no rule about you can shower. They're just absurd to me.

This is just another symptom of a bigger issue. I'm surprised there's no law on which way to brush your fangs. Complete control freaks; yet, call themselves liberal. What a joke. They want my food monitored. They want my car to drive for me. My computer tries to think for me. So-called "smart" phone is worse. Where does this crap end?

Elessar
06-11-2016, 05:54 PM
Where does this crap end?

THAT is the question of the Century!