Why The Ninth Circus Court's Concealed-Carry Gun Ruling Is Nonsense

[Little-Acorn]

To pretend their ruling makes any sense, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals must ignore the Constitution, ignore the Supreme Court, and make up new and different meanings to common English words.

But that's all in a day's work for liberals. It's what they do.

---------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/06/10/why-the-ninth-circuits-concealed-carry-gun-ruling-is-nonsense/#5b505e2a38b9

Why The Ninth Circuit's Concealed-Carry Gun Ruling Is Nonsense

Frank Miniter
Contributor

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7-4 that the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights does not protect the individuals right to carry a concealed firearm in public even though the Second Amendment protects the right to “bear arms.” (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7 to 4 that the “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

To accomplish this they had to ignore the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights, misinterpret the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and cite English laws going back to 1299.

As you’ll see, this court’s ruling is not just nonsensical and unconstitutional, but also nonsense.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights says, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” As used here, the word “bear” is a synonym for “carry.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as much in Heller: “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ means to ‘carry.’”

The justices on the Ninth Circuit can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court; it is their job to follow Supreme Court precedents. When questions haven’t been resolved by the high court, it is their job to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to dismiss language so plain any dictionary could have set them straight.

So U.S. citizens clearly have the right to carry firearms in public. This ruling found they don’t have a constitutional right to carry concealed in public. When writing this majority opinion, these 7 justices disregarded the fact that citizens in California also can’t carry a handgun openly in California without a permit. According to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is illegal.

So this ruling effectively declares citizens don’t have a constitutional right to carry. They completely place this right at the discretion of the state—this means this court legally treats the “right to bear arms” as a “privilege,” as opposed to a constitutionally protected right. They’ve legally placed this right on the same level as the right to obtain a driver’s license.

[NightTrain]

Yeah, the 9th Circuit needs to be dismantled and repopulated. Alaska is under their jurisdiction and we dread any cases that end up there.

[Elessar]

Yeah, the 9th Circuit needs to be dismantled and repopulated. Alaska is under their jurisdiction and we dread any cases that end up there.

Aye. That one is the most extreme Liberal-leaning in the country.

[Gunny]

Aye. That one is the most extreme Liberal-leaning in the country.

We actually already have a thread on this. I'll try to make it short. The 2nd Amendment doesn't address concealed carry because you ain't concealing on of those old hawg leg flintlocks they carried. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, you could open carry.

And I despise the 9th circuit, but I think for once they actually got it right. You don't have an express right to concealed carry simply because there was no such notion when the FFs wrote the Constitution.

Open carry would be a completely different argument. I have the Right to keep and bear arms. And I'm a damned redneck Texan. We have made a habit of saying :fu:to the government at every turn. That's how we roll. :laugh:

[Elessar]

We actually already have a thread on this. I'll try to make it short. The 2nd Amendment doesn't address concealed carry because you ain't concealing on of those old hawg leg flintlocks they carried. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, you could open carry.

And I despise the 9th circuit, but I think for once they actually got it right. You don't have an express right to concealed carry simply because there was no such notion when the FFs wrote the Constitution.

Open carry would be a completely different argument. I have the Right to keep and bear arms. And I'm a damned redneck Texan. We have made a habit of saying :fu:to the government at every turn. That's how we roll. :laugh:

Open carry up here in Oregon, but I am sure you need a permit - which I think is a
good idea. It takes 20 seconds to an hour here to be approved depending on internet speed. California? Good luck
with a reply in a month!

I can usually tell if someone is packing concealed as well.

[Gunny]

Open carry up here in Oregon, but I am sure you need a permit - which I think is a
good idea. It takes 20 seconds to an hour here to be approved depending on internet speed. California? Good luck
with a reply in a month!

I can usually tell if someone is packing concealed as well.

I honestly don't have a problem with concealed carry. Law-abiding citizens with the proper vetting should be allowed. What I have a problem with is people who couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground not knowing the difference between a law-abiding citizen and an outlaw. Think he's giving his gun back? He already owns it illegally. How stupid and illogical can you be?

We can't keep drugs or illegal people out of this country. Think some words on paper are going to stop the guns? That is just so ludicrous an idea it actually boggles my mind.

[aboutime]

To pretend their ruling makes any sense, the 9th Circus Court of Appeals must ignore the Constitution, ignore the Supreme Court, and make up new and different meanings to common English words.

But that's all in a day's work for liberals. It's what they do.

---------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/06/10/why-the-ninth-circuits-concealed-carry-gun-ruling-is-nonsense/#5b505e2a38b9

Why The Ninth Circuit's Concealed-Carry Gun Ruling Is Nonsense

Frank Miniter
Contributor

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7-4 that the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights does not protect the individuals right to carry a concealed firearm in public even though the Second Amendment protects the right to “bear arms.” (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7 to 4 that the “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

To accomplish this they had to ignore the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights, misinterpret the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and cite English laws going back to 1299.

As you’ll see, this court’s ruling is not just nonsensical and unconstitutional, but also nonsense.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights says, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” As used here, the word “bear” is a synonym for “carry.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as much in Heller: “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ means to ‘carry.’”

The justices on the Ninth Circuit can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court; it is their job to follow Supreme Court precedents. When questions haven’t been resolved by the high court, it is their job to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to dismiss language so plain any dictionary could have set them straight.

So U.S. citizens clearly have the right to carry firearms in public. This ruling found they don’t have a constitutional right to carry concealed in public. When writing this majority opinion, these 7 justices disregarded the fact that citizens in California also can’t carry a handgun openly in California without a permit. According to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is illegal.

So this ruling effectively declares citizens don’t have a constitutional right to carry. They completely place this right at the discretion of the state—this means this court legally treats the “right to bear arms” as a “privilege,” as opposed to a constitutionally protected right. They’ve legally placed this right on the same level as the right to obtain a driver’s license.


There is a good reason the 9th is often called the 9th CIRCUS court. This is just another example. Think about it. They insist Conceal is wrong. So, everybody should just NOT HIDE their weapons.

[gabosaurus]

Wait a few years. You will need a permit to carry, open or closed. And any business, public or private, will have the right to deny access.

[Elessar]

I honestly don't have a problem with concealed carry. Law-abiding citizens with the proper vetting should be allowed. What I have a problem with is people who couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground not knowing the difference between a law-abiding citizen and an outlaw. Think he's giving his gun back? He already owns it illegally. How stupid and illogical can you be?

We can't keep drugs or illegal people out of this country. Think some words on paper are going to stop the guns? That is just so ludicrous an idea it actually boggles my mind.

In a nutshell...right on target.

[Elessar]

Wait a few years. You will need a permit to carry, open or closed. And any business, public or private, will have the right to deny access.

That all exists now. Why not enforce what we have instead of packing on more laws
that are ludicrous and unenforceable.?

Only legal owners or carriers will abide to the existing laws. What is so hard to
realize about that?

Add more to appease liberal whiners?

Please....get real and smell the coffee.

[Little-Acorn]

Open carry up here in Oregon, but I am sure you need a permit - which I think is a
good idea.
Q: And if you don't get this permit this government is requiring you have.... then what happens?
A: The government will infringe your right to keep and bear arms.

BZZZZZZTTT, not even close to Constitutional.... but thanks for playing!

[Gunny]

Q: And if you don't get this permit this government is requiring you have.... then what happens?
A: The government will infringe your right to keep and bear arms.

BZZZZZZTTT, not even close to Constitutional.... but thanks for playing!

It already does. Used to you could buy guns at the hardware store. Now you have to fill out a BTF form and leave a paper trail to the Feds. State laws are ridiculous. Since you can't force owners to register guns, IL registers the owners themselves. If you're arrested for ANY reason there, the first thing they do is take your firearms. Doesn't matter if the arrest is BS or not. They're total Nazis in that state.

Virginia was pretty bad. You have to go down to the police station and have a background check and form signed THEN you can go back and get your gun.

Glad I'm from Texas.

[debater]

The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The usual road to slavery is that first they take away your guns, then they take away your property, then last of all they tell you to shut up and say you are enjoying it.
You post like a machine almost. I think you could possibly be a bot.

You haven't responded to one single person yet.

[debater]

Switzerland is a land where crime is virtually unknown, yet most Swiss males are required by law to keep in their homes what amounts to a portable, personal machine gun.

[darin]

this topic was inactive a full year.