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

la-me-ln-thearpy-ban-20140203-001

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 let’s recap. According to this ruling, there is no right under the Constitution to carry a concealed firearm. But since the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, it would then follow that Americans have a right to carry a gun openly. Or so one would assume.

While the Ninth allows as much in their ruling, they point out that such a question hasn’t been decided by the Supreme Court. Who knows what kind of emanations and penumbras the justices might divine when pondering such a weighty question? One thing’s for sure: should the question come before the court — as the Peruta ruling would seem to make more likely — President Clinton’s eventual appointee will no doubt do some deep digging in order to deny even that freedom.

comments

  1. avatar P-Dog says:

    Well, f***, that sucks.

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I agree. The 9th Circus, combined with Heller , just legalized open carry in California.

    1. avatar Pete says:

      It’ll be interesting when people start open carrying just do push this to the courts.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The 9th declared Heller does not protect/allow/permit open carry; 9th stated SC has not ruled on open carry. No amount of “common sense” (there are only two modes of carry) will prevail in 9th. Californicate has room to ban open carry unless “good and valid reason” exists to allow (which will require a license). 9th will rule there is no predicate case, so the state can do as it pleases until the SC rules specifically regarding open carry.

        All of this is/was done to make room for a nullification of Heller and McDonald.

        Again, gun owners are in a defensive position.

        1. avatar Lwg says:

          You should go read the ruling it says concealed it does not say we can not open carry.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The ruling states that it is not clear that the second amendment preserves the right to open carry because SC has not ruled on that specific and isolated matter. So, if there is no “right to open carry”, and there is no SC decision that open carry is a constitutionally protected right, then open carry is not yet a fully developed “right”, and is subject to restriction and subsequent litigation. In the vacuum of an SC declaration that open carry is definitively an individual “right”, that right does not exist to date.

        3. avatar Danilushka Ozera says:

          “You should go read the ruling it says concealed it does not say we can not open carry.”
          Komifornia already has that covered: they outlawed open carry a few years ago.
          So…”No Carry for YOU in California and I Mean YOU!”

        4. avatar Anthony says:

          Constitution also says authority not specifically enumerated to the federal government remains with the people and the states. They do not have the authority to decide anything relevant to the 2nd amendment, else they step on SCOTUS. Since they cannot decide as a court their opinion is moot. A bunch of wanna be dictators rattling sabers they don’t posses.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          10th amendment was overturned by SC when it declared the entire constitution also applied directly to the states, leaving no room for state sovereignty over the central government. Also, the meeting at Appomattox settled the idea that the central government was subject to the states. The courts will allow certain leeway in the states so long as state action endorses and upholds federal edicts.

        6. avatar Robert Miller says:

          Actually the Ninth Amendment would be the amendment that covers the extension of the Second Amendment to the exercise of all forms of rightful liberty.

          “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

          Based upon the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments the Second and Ninth Amendments extends to the states but it should be noted based on the Tenth Amendment the enumeration of the Bill of Rights into the purview of the general government had already obligated the states to the same term of “shall not be infringed”.

          I’m curious why these cases don’t make their arguments based on the whole Constitution, instead of relying on a stand alone approach?

        7. avatar Robert Bruce says:

          Yes. Why do we keep having to fight this fight over and over again? It’s silly for me to ask the question: the powers-that-be can’t stand the fact that the people of this nation are free for one reason and one reason only: we have the ability to fight back, and we have the will to do it (actually, that’s two things…sorry). So, they are going to keep nibbling at the 2A, and brainwashing the youth, until there is no will left to fight back, and all guns are willingly handed over. That will be the day that we will have surrendered our real freedom for real chains. Why don’t people see that?

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That will be the day that we will have surrendered our real freedom for real chains. Why don’t people see that?”

          The majority of people don’t mind chains on things they don’t like, or don’t want, or don’t buy, or don’t trade, or don’t own, or don’t figure in their daily lives. They especially don’t mind chains on everyone else.

          We have a municipality close by where a bunch of like-minded leftists decided in one precinct, just about every left-wing regulation in existence should be implemented. The number of the good citizens who were cited, ticketed or arrested for violating those ordinances was amazing. They each complained that they never intended those regulations apply to themselves, but to others in the community they were trying to discourage from one activity or another.

        9. avatar Derp says:

          You’re missing something. Do you live in California? Have you been there lately? I’ve had more trouble with transporting my shotgun in my cmv in Texas than in CA just the honest truth. The second amendment does not state the difference in arms as we have today. Therefore openly carrying a firearm that does not need a special permit or license is covered….

        10. avatar Ronald M.Guillory Jr says:

          YOU SHOULD READ THE REST OF THE RULING AND UNDERSTAND THE CONSITUTION ALSO THAT IT STATES UNDER THE 2ND AMENDMENTA WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECCESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. NOTICE IT SAYS THE PEOPLE NOT THE GOVERNMENT SHALL KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WE THE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO SECURE FROM GOVERNMENT WE CAN AT ANY TIME MIGHT HAVE TO DEAL WITH A TYRANT IN OUR GOVERNMENT WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION PLEASE SIR I HAVE MINE RIGHT HERE NEXT TO ME!

      2. avatar RobbieRobski says:

        Don’t you remember the open carry demonstrations we had just a few short years ago, which led to the ban of open carry? And even when we were able to, we were so handicapped anyway because your firearm couldn’t even be loaded. California is such a joke!

    2. avatar Dyspeptic says:

      “The 9th Circus, combined with Heller , just legalized open carry in California.”

      No it didn’t. I guess some people just have to believe the glass is half full. What they did is deny that the 2nd Amendment includes a right to bear arms. This is consistent with some other Federal court rulings that have taken the bizarre position that the 2nd Amendment just means you can own a gun and store it in your home so long as it is locked away or disassembled and therefore useless for self defense.

      What the black robbed frauds of the 9th Circuit are doing here is throwing the whole issue back to the Supreme Court while giving the middle finger to the Heller and McDonald decisions. They are hoping that Clinton gets elected President and nominates like minded judicial frauds who will overturn the Heller decision. At which point our right to keep and bear will become legally non-existent, especially in god awful states like Commiefornia.

      At some point we are going to have to fight for this right, and by that I don’t mean argue or sue someone. There, I said it.

      1. avatar Lwg says:

        It wont matter the USA has 3 years left before the federal reserves call the note. The Federal reserves
        is not and has not ever been owned by America. Under the provisions of the loans to America they can call that note at anytime.

        America is on the brink of total collapse from 143 trillion dollars in debt, when you add the funded and unfunded debt America is done.

        The EU has one country holding it up and that is Germany how much more can they take before they drop.

        Our Forefathers knew that a government would rise that would not stand on the principles they stood for so they put forth the 2nd and 14th amendments.

        28 states want to leave the union at some point soon it will happen.

        1. avatar Robert Bruce says:

          I certainly hope so. I am so sick of the Feds that I could just puke. From where I sit today, George III looks a lot better than the idiots and gun-grabbers that are using the Federal Government as a front to enslave us. They need a wake-up call.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “There, I said it.”

        I can easily imagine Dyspeptic in his shop, working on guns, listening to Mark Levin…

        🙂

        (I agree with his diagnosis, the 9th punted, ‘assuming’ Clinton will be elected. If Clinton *isn’t*…)

      3. avatar BDub says:

        I believe Chip was mostly kidding, but in so doing trying to make the point that, in order to be consistent with the SC rulings, some type of carry has to be legal, and if you are claiming concealed is not protected, then you are in effect vacating any bans on open carry, as those are the two methods of carry in general.

      4. If it takes total war to restore freedom, so be it.

    3. avatar Mecha75 says:

      Yes. The SCOTUS has a history stating that concealed carry is not covered under the term “bearing arms.”

    4. avatar BDub says:

      That was my reading as well. It sounded very much like they just backed into a Contitutional Carry argument. Huzzah, nice going, 9thC.

    5. avatar LLinLa says:

      Don’t you just love the Party of Unintended Consequences!

    6. avatar Mark N. says:

      No, they did NOT legalize open carry in California; in fact they pointedly avoided that question, and narrowly framed the question they were to decide as one solely concerning whether there was a right to carry concealed firearms. The dissent exposes the fallacy of this approach, since it ignores the broader picture of the right and the ban on open carry; as it and Judge O”Scannlain in the original opinion concluded, the issue is whether there is a right to bear arms in public, and if the answer is yes, then the State has a choice as to whether to allow open or concealed carry. In short, in order to reach its conclusion, the en banc panel had to duck by refusing to consider the open carry ban.

      But with this approach come consequences:
      As Charles Nichols has argued previously in a post in this blog, the only right preserved by the Second Amendment is the right to open carry. While I personally believe that his reasoning is flawed, the fact remains that he currently has pending an appeal from the denial of his motion for preliminary injunction arising from a case asserting that the open carry ban in California is unconstitutional. Now that Peruta has been decided, there is no reason for the court of appeals to maintain the stay that has kept his case from proceeding. It will be highly entertaining to see what kind of tap dance the Court will have to do to conclude that the law is constitutionally valid. It is either that, or it will find some excuse to conclude that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, and then remand the case for trial. I have to assume the latter, as it is the only realistic way for the Ninth Circuit to avoid addressing the issue it refused to entertain in Peruta.

      But if the appellate panel accepts his argument, overturning the open carry ban, then the State of California is faced with a massive conundrum–whether to allow concealed carry on a shall issue basis, or allow open carry. (This being California, I would have to assume that the Legislature will decide to go with open UNLOADED carry as the least objectionable alternative, knowing full well that the open carriers will be continually harassed with 911 calls and police rousts, thus putting a huge disincentive to open carry. The concealed carry law will reamin unchanged.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The courts in Californication are not bound by a binary theory that one or the other means of carry must be allowed. The courts may decide that every person has the right to have firearms in their homes for personal protection (along with the right to facilitate training by transporting guns too and from training or skills maintenance at firing ranges. It would seem that the “musket above the fireplace” is defensible as fulfillment of RTKBA, with transport allowed for hunting, range time, training, unless the militia of the people is formally called-up by the mayor of a town, or the governor of a state. There is plenty of room for the SC to determine that “keep and bear” does not mean anytime, any place.

        There is no upside in Peruta, or Nichols. The best we can hope for in Nichols, or similar, is that the people will keep the right to possess firearms in the home (maybe business).

      2. First of all, the appeal of my preliminary injunction was dismissed as moot because of the final judgement of the district court which was published way back on May 1, 2014. My current appeal, stayed for over two years because of these silly Peruta v. San Diego and Richard v. Prieto concealed carry lawsuits, is an appeal of the final judgment published by the district court in my case.

        The en banc decision simplifies my appeal and not just because the district court relied entirely on the long since vacated and sharply divided three judge panel decision in Peruta v. San Diego in deciding my case.

        Thanks to this en banc decision, whomever the three judges are who are eventually assigned to my case will be bound by this en banc decision as well as the prior panel decisions on the Second Amendment.

        Upholding the ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm and striking down the bans on Unloaded Open Carry is not an option because the 9th Circuit has already held that a firearm without ammunition is useless.

        There is another insurmountable impediment to upholding the ban on openly carrying loaded firearms (PC 25850) and that is the ban applies to the curtilage of one’s home which the US Supreme Court has always held is part of one’s home.

        I have an in-home nexus that none of the plaintiffs in Peruta and Richards alleged. And so for the Loaded Open Carry ban to survive the 9th Circuit will have to conclude that not only is there no right to openly carry loaded firearms in public, there is no right to carry a loaded firearm, openly or concealed, in the curtilage of one’s home.

        Moreover, folks seem to forget that California’s 1967 ban on carrying loaded firearms in public was copied and pasted from the Illinois ban which the 7th Circuit struck down in 2012 (Moore v. Madigan). Folks also seem to forget that Judge Poser did not say that Illinois could prohibit Open Carry as per the Heller decision or that Illinois could choose either concealed carry or Open Carry as per the Heller decision, Judge Posner said that Illinois could require that arms be carried openly as per the Heller decision.

        Finally, much was made by a couple of the dissent judges in the en banc Peruta decision about Heller’s citation to the Reid case regarding the “destruction” of the Second Amendment right. Had they bothered to read the Reid decision they would have discovered that the Reid court explicitly considered the hypothetical case of Open Carry being banned and concealed carry being permitted. The Reid court said that scenario would still result in the destruction of the right to bear arms.

        For me to win, all that is necessary is for the 9th Circuit Court of appeals to conclude that I have a right under the Second Amendment to step one inch outside my door with an openly carried, loaded firearm.

        “It is the height of irony that, to accept the sheriff’s view of the law, the defendant can only possess a weapon but cannot use it under such circumstances, and that he may only carry a weapon while immured behind the doors of his home but cannot use it an inch past his threshold.” People v. Overturf, 64 Cal. App. 3d 1 – Cal: Court of Appeal (1976) dissent at 9.

        And of course if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the bans then it creates multiple SCOTUS Rule 10 splits which is something the Peruta/Richards plaintiffs do not have and not a single one of the concealed carry lawsuits which were denied cert had.

        http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org
        https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          It seems the 9th, En Banc, determined that without an SC decision specifically citing/declaring a second amendment right to carry loaded firearms (probably restricted to home and contingent lands), there likely is not right (my summary). It is this inconclusive state that a challenge to open carry restrictions/bans will fall. The 9th may even refuse the case until SC rules. My guess is 9th is holding its breath until a 5th anti-gun justice is confirmed, however long that takes. SC seems hesitant to further consider 2A cases, but that will change with the new majority who wish to drive the final nails in the ridiculous idea that the second amendment has any place in modern society.

        2. No, the 9th circuit en banc panel in the Peruta decision determined that there is absolutely no right to carry a weapon concealed in public and explicitly said that it was not deciding whether or not there is a right to openly carry a firearm in public under the Second Amendment.

          The rest of what you wrote sounded like tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A couple of decades inside the federal government will give you a detailed look at what government and the courts will do. The level of treachery would buckle the knees of the common folk.

          I hope your suit for open carry is decided soon, but don’t expect it to be a loose ruling. It will be the most restrictive the 9th thinks it can get away with (because the people on that court know they are “Lead the Nation” is liberalism. In fact, it would not be surprising that the 9th punts until the SC “clarifies” whether a person is allowed to openly carry any firearm beyond the confines of their owned home and land (and maybe even restrict transport between locations for any purpose).

          From what I have read, it seems you are looking to a positive decision that will drive a stake in the heart of controls on some forms of firearm possession. History is not exactly in your favor. But, hey, any even teeny, tiny victory for gun rights is a good thing.

        4. According to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego, I have centuries of history in my favor.

          The US Supreme Court has already defined the right to carry outside of one’s home. The Peruta en banc court was technically correct in that the Heller court did not decide that question. What the Peruta en banc court would have had to address if it had had an Open Carry case before it instead of a concealed carry case is that the question before the court in McDonald was not whether or not there is a right to possess a handgun and loaded firearm in the home. The question before the McDonald court was whether or not the Second Amendment, in its entirety, applies to the states via the 14th Amendment.

          The US Supreme Court in its McDonald decision held that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment and, fortunately for me, said that it was the Second Amendment right defined in the Heller decision which applies to the states.

          Which is, according to the Heller decision, the Nunn and Chandler citations which it said perfectly captured the meaning of the individual right to keep and bear arms:

          “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

          Also, you should stop talking about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as if it were one judge or as if it is a conspiracy of judges. The Circuit has been allocated 29 active judges and each judge, active or on senior status, has his own views.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The 9th declared plainly that the right to openly carry a firearm is unsettled, as the SC has not ruled specifically on that situation. Regardless of other citations, references, citations within citations, “not clearly determined” (or words to that effect) is all the opening other circuit courts (and lower appellate courts) need to begin blocking open carry of any firearms. Simply put, if the SC has not determined specifically that open carry of firearms is constitutionally protected, that right does not concretely exist.

          Cities and states will take advantage of the 9th ruling. There is no majority in federal courts holding that RTKBA (whatever that means) is settled law. The history of the federal courts (Heller and McDonald notwithstanding) in the last 20yrs is to find ways to prohibit firearms possession, acquisition and use. Additionally, federal courts (and state courts) have shown in the last 5yrs a propensity to ignore higher court rulings, specifically Heller and McDonald.

          3 judges, 9 judges, 13 judges, 27 judges…who cares? 9th is left of liberal on the whole. The decision to en banc Peruta was not because the judges wanted to protect all forms of carrying firearms, it was only because Harris bulldozed her way into “standing” when the municipality decided not to pursue an appeal. A leftist appealing to a majority leftist court (not jurist divining the law, but legal politicians eager to put an end to the notion that people have a right to a gun in modern society). It is comforting to believe your case will receive an honest hearing, but the deck is stacked.

        6. Aren’t you the same guy who has been attacking me for years? For years now you have been saying that there is a Second Amendment right to carry weapons concealed in public and that Open Carry can be banned.

          You’ll forgive us if we think your current opinion ain’t worth spit.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Actually, Chuck old boy, I never attacked you. Unless you consider differing viewpoints or opinions to be attacks.

          In all seriousness, I do hope you get a hearing, and that it goes to the SC, and that SC will (unlikely) settle gun rights (open and/or concealed) in favor of virtually zero restrictions. However, I do not think that outcome is a realistic hope.

          The real battle is not over which type of firearm carry is allowed (note: allowed by the servant government), but whether the constitution permits the government to place any restrictions at all on the ability of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government.

  3. avatar LarryAZ says:

    So, dividing the logic space, that must mean that the 2A must protect the Right to Carry OPENLY.

    There are no other carry modes that I’m aware of.

    Since bear == carry (right to keep and “carry”), I do not see how any [California] law can deny the rights of citizens to open carry firearms.

    1. Thanks to the 9th amendment, it doesn’t exclude concealment of a firearm either.

      1. avatar BLAMMO says:

        What about the 4th Amendment? To paraphrase, …

        It’s nobody’s shittin’ business what I have on my person.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          Or the 5th.

        2. avatar Robert Miller says:

          Or the Ninth? The idea that our unalienable rights must be specifically enumerated is absurd and counter to the limited government our society is founded upon.

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      Logic, or the law, or the constitution, as the guiding principles to the courts; like a unicorn, has been talked about as some type of mythical beast; but as a real creature? It doesn’t exist.

      It always comes down to what is the current political and societal beliefs held by the ordinary men and women in the black robes, and how they can then bend and twist the plain language of the constitution, and of common law, to fit those particular beliefs, and then call it “settled” law.

      This is why it always comes down to when all else fails, might, and those willing to use it for freedom, actually does make right,

    3. avatar Dyspeptic says:

      I don’t understand why people insist on looking at this issue logically. Logic has nothing to do with the law these days. It’s all about ideology, the personal prejudices of judges and their preferred policy outcomes. The 9th could have ruled that since concealed carry isn’t protected then open carry must be allowed (which it currently is not in Commiefornia). But they didn’t, did they? They just threw the whole thing back to the Supremes knowing that there will be no takers there. They are just stalling for time until Hillary can stuff the Supreme Court with gun hating judges who will overturn Scalia’s opinions. At that point no amount of lawsuits, public outrage, eloquent rhetoric or voting for worthless Retardpublicans will do anything to secure our rights.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo. We know what to do.

    4. avatar Mecha75 says:

      That is the argument made by Florida Carry in Norman v State of Florida. They are looking to overturn the Open Carry Ban. They just had oral arguments yesterday in front of the Florida Supreme Court. Justice Pariente actually asked if the SCOTUS ever ruled that Open Carry is what is meant by the right to bear arms. Which they haven’t explicitly said that. However they have explicitly said conceal carry is not covered. Florida Carry’s Attorney Eric Friday kept pointing to the fact that there are only 2 ways of carrying a weapon – open and concealed. one of which the SCOTUS consistently rules is NOT covered under the 2nd amendment.

      1. avatar Rich7553 says:

        Florida Carry will cite Peruta as supplemental authority in the Norman case. The state has already done so.

  4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    This is a good thing.
    The 9th circus is tied for first as the most overturned court in the land.

    1. avatar Warren says:

      The other being….??

      1. avatar Sian says:

        The 6th, probably. (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)

    2. avatar James says:

      That was when Scalia was still alive. Now the best case scenario is a miraculous Trump win and equally miraculous good appointment by him to fill the current vacancy.

      Scalia’s death and Trump’s too frequent moments of pure stupidity have turned the legal tide for the gun banners. This is just the beginning.

      1. avatar Jenny says:

        Quit being such a clueless pu55y, James

        1. avatar CrunchBite says:

          That’s not a fair (or very mature) response. James is right. Although Trump is certainly the better choice, he’s definitely not a sure bet for us gun owners.

          If you disagree, why not try to interrogate the argument instead of resorting to baseless name calling?

        2. avatar James says:

          (Trigger warning)

          Thank you Jenny. Your emotional ad hominem attack perfectly illustrates why we are going to lose. You’d rather eat you own so you can feel good about yourself than use logic to correct course.

          You want to talk clueless? Why didn’t master of free media have that media talking about Ovary Clinton’s unethical behavior at State, the illegal email server, her compromising national security, the quid pro quos at the Clinton Foundation? Why instead was the media call him racist and harping on his comments over a judge’s ethnicity for a week and a half?

          Now go back to your safe space.

      2. avatar RealityCheck says:

        Or, alternatively, the Congress decrees that the court doesn’t need anyone else on it. They change the maximum # of judges to 8. Or, they stall until another justice expires or retires, and when that happens, they set the maximum # to 7.

        There’s no Constitutional requirement that there be 9 justices. Congress has changed the number before, they can do it again. All this hyper-hand-wringing about Hillary stacking the court is just scare-mongering, unless the Democrats sweep both houses of Congress.

        1. avatar TennTexan says:

          “unless the Democrats sweep both houses of Congress”

          No need. The Republicans in Congress have already shown they don’t have the backbone to stand up to the left. They’ll play ball.

        2. avatar William Thomas says:

          Scaremongering? So the concern has nothing to do with the weak Rino’s that have taken over the Grand Old Party and gave us Sotamayor and Kaegan both red diaper doper babies who are dyed in the womb socialist marxist. No its not scaremongering I think you are the one who needs a reality check….realitycheck.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “red diaper doper babies”
          “Liberalism is a mental disorder, and it will kill us all”
          – Michael Savage

          My man !!

        4. avatar StuckinChicago says:

          Or instead of waiting, maybe there will be a conservative plot mirroring the liberal (Clinton backed?) murder of Scalia?

          Ok, that may not have actually happened. Any opinions armed intelligentsia?

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The Senate has enough Demoncrat and Republican votes to block any non-liberal judge.

        6. avatar int19h says:

          Neither party will do it, because to do so in the current ultra-partisan climate would be to open the floodgates. Basically, if one party can fudge the court alignment by removing seats, then the other party can play the same game by adding seats in the next cycle. The inevitable end result is that every time control of the Congress changes, the new ruling party will add just enough seats to make the majority on SCOTUS. So effectively it would make SCOTUS an extension of Congress, changing at the whim of the voters every 2 years.

      3. avatar malikknows says:

        Yes, it is. And gun rights folks should bear lots of blame. Politics is coalition politics and too many gun rights guys stood by while their political allies went down to defeat in California. Now it is their turn.

      4. avatar Jay says:

        Donald Trump is a lifetime member of the NRA and a concealed carry permit holder.

        1. avatar PeterW says:

          Which makes him part of “the establishment” as nobody gets CHL in NY without “connection$$$”

        2. avatar James says:

          Not many better status symbols in NYC than the reserved for the wealthy elite concealed weapon permit.

    3. avatar Mecha75 says:

      not so much for that. But for Florida. The Florida Supreme Court just heard oral arguments yesterday regarding Florida’s ban on Open Carry. Florida Carry has argued that the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that concealed carry is a permissible act and not part of the rights conferred under the 2nd Amendment. The Perulta ruling is just one more piece of evidence that Florida’s ban on Open Carry is unconstitutional.

    4. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      If Hillary wins the 9th will become the least overturned court in the land.

      The 9th is why Hawaii is a slave state. Tyranny here in the islands is propped up by these black robed c$&ts from the mainland. They will decide nothing on logic, reason, or the law. They are priests of the profane, judging us unclean heathens based on THEIR superior belief in the gods of disarmament and secularism. May they all burn in hell.

  5. avatar Keystone says:

    The fuck it doesn’t.

  6. avatar bob says:

    I’m starting to think Alan Gura picks the D.C. circuit for a reason.

    1. avatar JohnS says:

      He does.

      DC, not being a state, isn’t entangled with ‘states’ rights’. That’s why DC v Heller got a ‘clean’ 2nd Amendment ruling.

  7. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Whammy!

  8. avatar Craig says:

    Wait a minute….. “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” They state that there is no Second Amendment right to carry concealed in public. Yet there are ONLY two choices to bearing arms. Concealed and open. Why are the lawyers, politicians and judges in this country so STUPID that they consistently fail simple logic and reading comprehension? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The Constitution says we have the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS. Bearing arms MUST be allowed either openly or concealed and since they have closed the door on concealed (unless you get a mother-may-I permission slip from the government) they MUST allow open carry without infringement.

    1. avatar Boxilar says:

      They’re not stupid. Their primary goal is civil disarmament. If they have to make up mean down and black mean white to achieve that goal, it’s what they’re going to do.

    2. avatar Anon in CT says:

      They’re not stupid. They’re just evil.

    3. avatar William Thomas says:

      No need to mention Lawyers, Politicians and Judges as they are ALL licensed Lawyers of the ABA which is a satellite of the Barristers controlled by the Crown which never really left. Where do you think the ideas of surveillance and disarmament come from? They certainly are not American ideals.

      1. avatar TennTexan says:

        I’m an attorney and I’m NOT a member of the ABA–precisely because of that organization’s anti-2A stance.

        1. avatar Desert Ranger says:

          1. What kind of law do you practice?
          2. If it isn’t about defending the 2a – why the f$&k not?

    4. avatar Zippy says:

      The 2nd has become the Schrodinger’s cat of amendments.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        🙂

    5. avatar Mark N. says:

      You misunderstand. Courts typically do not decide issues that are not presented on the facts or law before them, and here they were only dealing with the constitutionality of the concealed carry law, not California’s open carry ban. (Although they could have easily reached the issue, as the dissent did, then they might not have been able to come out the way they did.) So all that this panel is saying is that this issue is not presented and they are not deciding it, until the Supremes do or another case comes along that forces them to do so. (vWhich actually may be just about to happen.)

      1. avatar JohnS says:

        Not that you could tell from the en banc opinion, but the issue was never the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry law.

        It has, from the beginning, been the application of ‘good cause’ by the San Diego Sheriff in following the state law.

        From the Feb 2014 opinion:
        “Plaintiffs challenged a County of San Diego policy which
        interpreted California’s restriction on carrying handguns in
        public. California generally prohibits the open or concealed
        carriage of a handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, in public
        locations, absent the showing of, among other things, good
        cause. Under San Diego’s policy, concern for one’s personal
        safety alone is not considered good cause.”

        Preceding that, of course, was the blindingly obvious point made by many in these comments,
        “and held that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right
        under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for
        self-defense.”
        http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/13/10-56971%20web.pdf

        1. avatar Gatorman says:

          The “Good cause,” provision was the reason FL took over the issuance of CCW permits. The chief law enforcement officer of the individual counties had their own definitions of that term (Depends on your definition of ‘is’) and even that was mostly political, meaning money. That, and the fact one needed a permit from each county in which they visited. While it’s completely objectionable that I need someone’s permission to carry for self defense, until that changes, the state permit is not unbearably expensive and keeps me out of conflict with the law enforcement money machine. I try to avoid bad places and situations but those are becoming more frequent with our societal polarization and the influx of individuals and groups of unknown purpose. God help us.

  9. avatar Gman says:

    The twisted logic of liberals is simply mind boggling.

    1. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      Logic is a binary phenomenon – it is there or it’s not. The disarmament use lies to destroy our rights. There is no logic there – only the insanity of tyranny.

  10. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    I guess the words “the right to keep to bear arms” meant the opposite in the 18th century. I am so glad that these Titans of historical intellect and knowledge bestow thier grand wisdom upon us.

    It is time for an article V convention of the states to amend the 2nd to remove the militia clause, add strict scrutiny, and affirm that it is an individual right. We don’t need NY, NJ or CA to ratify it. We would have a 3/4ths majority without them.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      Sadly, I think we may need to revisit the 2nd amendment.

      1) Eliminate the militia portion of the amendment since comma’s confuse liberals.
      2) replace the word “infringe”, which also confuse liberals, with the phrase, “will not be altered changed, modified, curtailed, or rendered ‘open for interpretation’, or ‘reasonably restricted’ by any and or all government offices, judges, or regulators, at any time or place, anywhere for all eternity”.

      Maybe that will make it more easily understood by the black robed mental deficients.

      1. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

        We don’t need to revisit the 2nd Amendent, as it’s perfectly clear to those without ulterior motives. And if you think said people would cease their attack on the second amendment if it was reworded to where even a second grader could understand it guarantees a right to keep and carry guns, I have a bridge to sell you.

        1. avatar TennTexan says:

          Exactly! It doesn’t get any more clear than “shall not be infringed,” yet the left continues to pretend that the 2A doesn’t say what it actually says.

          To see a decision like this coming out of the federal court system makes me seriously question where the line is, and what’s going to happen when it is crossed…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          As I pointed out so many times and places, “Shall not be infringed” is one of the most effective, unassailable, irrefutable sources of positive rulings regarding gun rights in this country. We should double-down on this argument in every 2A court case. Indeed, any suit complaining about restrictions of gun rights should begin and end with the plaintiff and attorney asserting, “Shall not be infringed.” Then resting their case.

        3. avatar Captain Bob says:

          Well said!

        4. avatar Robert Miller says:

          I think we need to start to attack the idea the Second Amendment allows for the regulation (restriction) of arms based upon “A well-regulated militia” by placing this within the proper context of the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 delegated power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”. This would be the most effective manner to undermine the restriction argument, by forcing an acknowledgment that Congress has failed to provide for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.

    2. avatar DaveW says:

      Remember, if the “wrong” people get any kind of control in a Constitutional Convention, we could see the 2nd disappear altogether. We need an amendment as required by the Constitution which is decided by the participation of ALL the people and not left to politicians to decide for us. Prohibition required TWO amendments, one to prohibit and one to reinstate, and alcohol isn’t even listed as an enumerated right. To get rid of guns, the government has circumvented the amendment process because they know they could never pass an amendment banning firearms. They have violated the peoples’ rights by non-compliance with the mandates of the Constitution.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Let’s assume all the wrong people get control of a constitutional convention. And all the wrong people create an entirely new constitution, with all the wrong provisions? Then what?

        The proposed amendments (an entirely new constitution would have to be an amendment to the current one) must then go to congress for distribution to the states for ratification. If we are in a situation today, where all the wrong people could get control of a constitutional convention, and all the wrong people could get an entirely new constitution ratified by all the wrong people, then we are already doomed and dead. But wait….if there were sufficient wrong people to destroy the current constitution, and get all the wrong amendments ratified, why hasn’t it happened?

        While I agree that we are in an irreversible slide into ignominy, the “wrong people” are not yet strong enough to finish things. So a constitutional convention in the near future (next 5 years?) would pose no greater threat of becoming rogue, than “all the wrong people” can go rogue today, and succeed.

        1. avatar DaveW says:

          Because so many “right people” are not looking at “unforeseen consequences”. Instead, they are looking at positive is the only possible outcome of a CC.

          I’m not saying the “wrong people” would scrap the entire Constitution, but they could infringe to the point of eliminating specific areas. For example, change the 2A to say that only military and law enforcement would be permitted to “keep and bear”.

          My only purpose in stating what I have is that of a warning. We had a saying in the military. “Be careful of the changes you desire; things could always get worse.” Another was, “Ask for the most, expect the least, and settle for whatever you get.” (ask for air cover, arty, and more troops; expect that you will get one observer aircraft armed with rockets; and settle for three A1Es, an OV-10, and 10 replacements.)

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I am pointing out that if the risk of warping the constitution exists in a convention of the states, that risk is extant, today. Yet, nothing has happened. Probably because the same process that would thwart a rogue constitutional convention would need to be followed to amend individual elements. That is, ratification by 3/4s of the states.

          Even the original constitutional convention changed nothing. The outcome was a series of amendments to the Articles of Confederation so detailed and complete as to result in the proposal to establish a completely new form of government. But the day after that original constitutional convention ended, the states were still operating under the Articles of Confederation. It was not until the 13 states (actually only 12) ratified the new amendments (constitution), that the Articles were abolished.

          A new convention of the states could do anything they want, but proposed amendments must go through the existing ratification process, as described in the sections dealing with calling a convention of the states. So….

          If “the right people” could not prevent the “wrong people” from implementing “the wrong kind of amendments” after a convention, then the “right people” cannot today prevent “the wrong people” from proposing and ratifying “the wrong amendments”.
          Ergo, if that situation exists, we are dead people walking.

  11. I don’t like it. First, women don’t like to open carry. Second, The most common method of open carry is on the waist band. How does that work with a jacket?
    Bottom line: The 2nd amendment does not specify carry method. Only that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Laws about carry method is an infringement.

    1. avatar Warren says:

      Speak for yourself. I know women who open carry.

  12. avatar bob says:

    I think we all know they’re actually not that stupid. This was the only way they could come up with an excuse to deny the right and potentially pass the buck to another circuit or to SCOTUS. Totalitarian judges who are scared of the people. Disgusting.

  13. Well that is the 9th circus for you. I do mean circus not circuit.

  14. avatar Tom in Pa says:

    I’m really struggling with the moral implications of wishing for one really big earthquake…..

  15. avatar Kyle says:

    Why does the word “Infringed” get so complicated for democrats? It really is such a simple word.

    1. avatar TennTexan says:

      “Bear” has even fewer letters than “infringed,” but they can’t get that one right either…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”, and a nickel will get you….a nickel.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Democrats know exactly what the word “infringed” means and they don’t care because they have no honor.

      This is what happens when feelings overrule everything.

  16. avatar emfourty gasmask says:

    “President Clinton”

    Well if this is how defeatist gun owners are now, we might as well simply accept the fact that firearm rights are pretty much going away in the next year.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Well, if the ballot box doesn’t work, we always have the cartridge box.

      1. avatar TennTexan says:

        I don’t know where “the line” is, but I’m starting to think we can see it from here…

        1. avatar DaveW says:

          In 1775, at the suggestion of the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the British Army was dispatched across Massachusetts with the intent purpose of “confiscating the arms and munitions of the colonists in order to control them”. The troops were dispatched via land and a signal was hung in the steeple of the Old North Church. Paul Revere and others then rode across the countryside raising the alarm that the “Redcoats are coming”. The following day, the troops were confronted by a band of armed colonists and the “shot heard ’round the world’ rang out. Thus the Revolutionary War began.

          So, how about confiscation being the “line in the sand”? We already have “civil disobedience” in states like CT, NY, MA, and CA where laws have been put in place but which gun owners have yet to comply with, such as getting rid of their “high capacity” magazines, and turning in or registering so-called “assault weapons”.

          California is pushing to ban “bullet button” firearms, even though the state mandated the use of the “bullet button” in place of the standard magazine release. For those who do not know, a “bullet button” requires the nose of a bullet, nail, screwdriver, or similar tool be inserted into the center of the magazine release in order to allow it to be depressed and allow the changing of a magazine. The intent was to slow down changing magazines in order to lower the rate people could be shot en mass.

          The colonists used the method of stashing caches of arms and munitions, which is why the British Army was dispatched in 1775. When the people of occupied nations (France, Belgium, Poland, etc) were disarmed by the Germans in WW2, weapons were cached and pulled out later for use by the resistance. The Vietcong used the same concept.
          When the time comes, the resistance will need arms of any kind to fight the good fight.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We didn’t see the line in Waco, or Ruby Ridge. We didn’t see it when the EPA declared they have the power to confiscate private land in order to manage the “wetlands” and such. We didn’t see it when the Federal Reserve was created. Oh we’ve seen “the line” alright, but it is much ado about nothing. We don’t have the votes to effect change, and the time for revolution is long gone.

        3. avatar Mark N. says:

          Sorry DaveW, yo are wrong about the bullet button. It was not mandated by the state. Instead, the state sought to ban all semiauto rifles in 1898, many by name (though they could be kept if registered as “assault weapons”), and future ones by mandating that all AR style rifles had to have a fixed magazine that could be removed only with the use of a tool. When the law first passed, the Prince devise was sold, which was a magazine button with a tiny screw in the mag button itself that, when screwed completely in, prevented the use of the release entirely. A drop of superglue and it was a permanent solution. To reload, one had to pop the rear takedown pin and reload the magazine internally. The Bullet Button was a brilliant work around to the law that works exactly as you have described; and it complied with the law because manipulation of the button requires the use of a tool. The current lawmakers are on to the fact that they have been hoist by their own language, and now seek to close that “loophole” in order to return to the original intent of the law–which was to ultimately ban all semiauto AR style rifles through attrition.

        4. avatar DaveW says:

          I accept your explanation, however, I believe that if the state accepted the “bullet button”, thus allowing owners to retain their ARs, then the state, in essence, mandated it’s use when they said no ARs could be sold in California without a bullet button.

  17. avatar PeterK says:

    Welp. Since the courts haven’t decided something I guess those right don’t exist! Oh wait…

    What kind of tortured logic did they use to say that bearing arms concealed isn’t bearing arms and thus may be infringed?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Because Heller, at some length, discussed the history of bearing arms in the US, including the many states that had banned concealed carry in the 19th century. They conveniently ignored the part where all of those states allowed open carry, and some even said that the ban was constitutional as long as open carry was allowed–but that some kind of carry must be allowed. The Ninth Circuit panel punted on the open carry issue.

      1. avatar PeterK says:

        Ah, makes sense. Feels like a catch-22. Open carry is illegal, therefore concealed should be, but they decided it’s “not protected” and hint that open carry should be instead.

        That’s crap.

  18. avatar Sian says:

    “Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public”

    I’m gonna stop you right there. The Second Amendment is about saying what the government CAN NOT do. Not what the people are allowed to do.

    Other court rulings seemed to imply that some restrictions on open or concealed carry are tolerable so long as a method, one or the other, of unlicensed carry is available.

    Otherwise, it’s what we’d call “infringement.”

    1. avatar gs650g says:

      Yup it restricts government not allows anything.

    2. avatar Marc Hammond says:

      THIS, right here.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “THIS, right here.”

        We all agree. Now what ?

        The “law of the land” says the government may indeed determine the limits of any provision in the constitution.

  19. avatar A A Ron says:

    How about be just open carry and exercise our 1st Amendment Rights to Assembly and Free Speech and stage a protest, err …I mean peaceful assembly on the court house steps?

  20. I have sent a personal message to Donald Trump through Carl Higbie a close friend.

    I have offered him my support and expressed my concerns about who will be appointing any new Supreme Court Justices.

    This decision did not come as a surprise.

    1. avatar Tony Seruga says:

      Edward, what is next?

  21. avatar Alex waits says:

    How do these people even have jobs? I’m assuming they use similar thought processes to decide on other kinds of cases, And get them similarly wrong.

    Why does a region of the US where you reside, have any bearing your level of rights? Are they not supposed to be all encompassing and respected from sea to shining sea?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Alex,

      Criminals do not respect other people’s rights. This ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reminds us that the politicians, judges, and law enforcement personnel who enforce laws which deprive us of our rights are criminals. And we should deal with them the same way that we would deal with any other common criminal that does not get a government paycheck.

  22. avatar pwrserge says:

    Well, he’s a circuit split. Far be it for me to point out that the government shouldn’t get two bites at the apple in the same court.

  23. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Yeah…Okay…Are court system hasn’t gone corrupt, and 3rd world…We need a serious reboot within the USA…Certainly sounds like an infringement to me…! Another utterly false assertion of collective states rights and that states may magically “regulate ” Constitutional rightsof The People ! Of course, under threat of arrest , or force of arms!

  24. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    tyr·an·ny
    ˈtirənē/
    noun
    cruel and oppressive government or rule.
    “people who survive war and escape tyranny”
    synonyms: despotism, absolute power, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism; More
    a nation under cruel and oppressive government.
    cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.
    “she resented his rages and his tyranny”

  25. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Doesn’t matter whether the 9th is right or wrong. The ruling rules. Literally. The 9th always treats its jurisdiction as if it were/is a completely independent nation, ruled by the court. This ruling will stand for virtually ever. The SC is not required to rationalize law between jurisdictions; SC can be content to let the circuits be in disarray.

    Even if the 9th is appealed to the SC, it will not be overturned (a 4-4 split leaves the decision intact, and a new member of the court will be 5-4 in favor – gutting Heller).

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      Sadly, american’s are willing to roll over and play dead.

      We’ve been well past the “Muskets off the wall” time for decades. We’ll accept this clearly unconstitutional ruling as well.

      1. avatar William Thomas says:

        Not all of us have rolled over. Civil Disobedience is good to a point but what we all need to start practicing is NONCOMPLIANCE. Yep that is much better than “Muskets of the Wall”. Are you really prepared to start shooting your Countrymen no matter how far of the path they have been led astray|? Through NonCompliance there is no way they can through 30-100 million of us in prison because if they tried then even people like me will go and get the “Musket of the Wall”

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Do you have a count of those ready and willing to risk jail? Risk financial destruction of their families? Risk never being able to own a firearm again? Where are these people, and why have they not stormed city halls all across the land? There are enough infringements to justify a groundswell of non-compliance already. Where are the cameras showing us just how committed people are to refusing to obey infringing laws?

        2. avatar Silve says:

          “Are you really prepared to start shooting your Countrymen no matter how far of the path they have been led astray?”

          You really still consider leftists your countrymen? There is no other entity in the world that works harder to harm and oppress you than your leftist “countrymen.” I’ll answer your question with this …my Italian immigrant grandfather was not hesitant to join the US Army and shoot Mussolini’s men for what they did to Italy.

        3. avatar Captain Bob says:

          During the (first) American Revolution only 3% of the colonists actively participated. 97% of them bitched and moaned but did not risk their lives and fortunes as our Founding Fathers did.
          If there was a (Second) American Revolution and only 3% of fed-up citizens participated what level of success would they have? Personally, I believe that there are more than 3% that would join but it will take likely a good 1% to start the ball rolling and if they could keep going without being quashed, more 3% would likely join.
          BTW, I’m not advocating anything here; these are just rhetorical questions (standard disclaimer)

        4. avatar DaveW says:

          While only about 3% supported revolution in the beginning, but those numbers increased throughout the war, and they waned during the winter and at other points.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          BTW, there was already a second American Revolution, regarding the right of one part of the nation to impose, through simple legislation, how the states in another part of the nation would conduct their affairs. The matter of whether the central government or the states ruled the nation was permanently settled without any input from the federal courts.

  26. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    civ·il dis·o·be·di·ence
    noun
    noun: civil disobedience
    the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      in • sur • rec • tion
      noun
      1. an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        … and? The government that violates its own founding documents is illegitimate by definition.

        1. avatar Mecha75 says:

          and an Illegitimate government is legitimized by the fact the people it governs does nothing to stop it.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          And ?

  27. avatar tdgrafton says:

    Historically speaking: The courts have favors open carry. Canceled carry was consider to be done only when people were doing crimes…this goes back to rulings in the 1800’s. This also address current cases in such a way that concealed and open carry are banned or frustrated that you’ve infringed on the second amendment. I believe this was the point of this case.

    A lot of these judges read too narrowly in their rulings…..

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    Denounce and De-ratify the Constitution first. No one is allowed to go at it piecemeal otherwise. The justices are only there to ensure that all laws mesh with the Constitution. Not the other way around.

    Our Declaration of Independence does not start with “SINCE”, it starts with “WHEN”.

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” – http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    It’s an open and ongoing consideration.

    ALL freedoms recited in (not endowed by) the Bill of Rights are protections F R O M our government. Our government was created by us because we needed to have some chores done, and they needed to be provided for collectively, NOT COMMUNALLY. The set of people [not aliens, animals, gods, or robots] known as Government employees is made up of our stupid neighbors who needed a job. When they attempt to usurp extra-authority or attempt to “rule” us, the 2nd Amendment is there to say that we DO NOT NEED TO REQUEST (from those self-same yahoos) the right or the means to counter and interdict them. AND YES, BY NO ACROBATIC TWIST OF LOGIC, the 2nd amendment is a promise to each other that (should anyone find it necessary to “chuck” the Constitution, or start a Civil War) no one needs anyone’s permission to cry-foul and, if so inclined, to “ASSUME AMONG THE POWERS OF THE EARTH” (employ “ARMS”) and wage war on their formerly fellow citizens [up to and including every swinging d_ck]. OUR 2nd Amendment is more important than any other right you have, and hugely more important than any idiot in a black robe holding a gavel.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      14th Amendment incorporated to the states by SC decision rendered the central government sovereign, not the states, not the people. As Monica’s boyfriend’s wife recently stated, the government has “the right” to put reasonable controls on constitutionally protected freedoms.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        To “Sam I am (not from here)”
        The 14th Amendment does not Delete/Repeal the Constitution or the Bill of Rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
        Instead it is a means by which the government compelled all people to view all people (especially newly freed slaves) with the same unalienable rights as everyone else.
        “Amendment XIV

        Section 1.

        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
        . . .

        Section 3.

        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The constitution was originated to limit central government interference with the states, and “the people”. The SC decision applying all the provisions of the constitution (the application of the 14th) to the states took a document designed as a limit on the central government, and transferred control of the central government to the states. Prior to the SC decision, the central government had no legitimate power to sue states over civil rights.

          Under the original establishment of the nation, the states (with limited exceptions, like the commerce clause) were not bound by the constitution, it was the central government alone. States intentionally determined the central government (including president, congress, senate, courts) would remain subservient to the states. The 10th amendment (do I really need to go over this?) specifically stated the central government had no authority to force the sovereign states to do much of anything, including forcing the states to abide in detail by the constitutional restrictions placed on the central government.

          Once the SC dictated that the states were subject to the same restrictions as the central government, the 10th amendment was effectively amended, if not repealed. There is no viable political organization where the subordinate entity is allowed to dictate to the superior entities. Once a subordinate political element can control the formerly superior entity, the power structure is reversed, making the formerly superior entities inferior. Read the history of the first 20 years of the republic. Where do you find examples of the states willingly surrendering sovereign power to their employee, the central government?

          The condition of the republic today is one where the central government is supreme, and the states and the people are inferior in virtually every detail of public life. Example, the founders would never have allowed national parks to simply condemn and convert land within the borders of a sovereign state. Nor would they tolerate something like the EPA running roughshod over the states.

          The 14th became the tire iron with which the SC beat the states into submission. The 14th subsumed the 10th (I don’t care if you like the amendment or not), making the central government superior, the states vassals. If you think the constitution can’t be used to upend the constitution, look at the 14th and the SC ruling finished off the republic as envisioned by the founders. For good or ill.

        2. avatar DaveW says:

          Even the author of the 14th states that it’s only purpose was to cover former slaves.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Even the author of the 14th states that it’s only purpose was to cover former slaves.”

          The SC case was regarding application of the 14th amendment and, no matter the 14th’s original intent, was the lever to change the power dynamic. Once the entire constitution, and its restrictions on government was applied, by court order, to the states, the prisoner became the ruler.

          The Founders has just experienced 10yrs under the Articles of Confederation, which essentially was a loose agreement among 13 separate nations, called states. The Founders struggled mightily with fears by some states that anything that allowed more power, of any kind, to the central government would destroy state sovereignty, and the ability to control the central government. The Founders had absolutely no intention of letting the central government (including the courts) have any power not “specifically delegated” (a phrase just as plain as “shall not be infringed”. Yet, the SC determined that the states were not superior the the central government, and must be governed by the very document the states intended would keep the central government weak, hobbled and subservient to the states.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          Sounds like you’re from here Dave. 🙂

        5. avatar Robert Miller says:

          The Tenth Amendment also addresses those items prohibited to the states, of which the enumeration of the first nine amendments into the purview of the general government obligated the states to the same terms. The general government couldn’t be granted the power to infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms because the states had no authority to infringe upon them, just as they had no authority to disparage those unalienable rights not explicitly enumerated. The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t necessary to bind the states, nor is it capable of removing the obligation of the general government to be limited by the delegated powers.

          Our founding document defined the expectation of the limits of the governments of the individual states which is extended to the general government, this occurred prior to the establishment of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

  29. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Full Definition of civil war
    : a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

    See civil war defined for English-language learners

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      War among the American citizenry is not the answer.
      Civil Disobedience is.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        “Civil Disobedience is the “Answer” ” but that is just a “response”.

        Civil War on a few lib-prog-comm (D) cities and peoples, their families, their homes, their livestock, their goods, their liberal media supporters, their foreign supporters, and those limp and lame that sat quietly while the previous ran amuck, may be the “Resolution”.

    2. avatar A A Ron says:

      So…. a civil war between a group of people who are anti2A, who probably don’t own firearms themselves, that would backed by an army with firearms and that might not share the same opinion verses a group of people who are pro2A, who probably do own firearms themselves, that would be backed by an army with firearms that probably share the same opinion. Seems like a lopsided civil war.

      I’m popping some popcorn for this showdown.

      1. avatar David Markland says:

        This will not happen. Boiling the frog is how it will be done. Death by 1000 cuts. Just slowly erode freedom and the people will be too busy watching dancing with the waking Kardashians to notice .

        1. avatar A A Ron says:

          the good ole Bread and Circuses distractions.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        I would greatly enjoy the public executions of the leaders of the Demokkkratic insurgency. I’d see if I could get them to go Romanian on their asses. (Quite literally.)

  30. avatar Joe R. says:

    Denounce and De-ratify the Constitution first. No one is allowed to go at it piecemeal otherwise. The justices are only there to ensure that all laws mesh with the Constitution. Not the other way around.

    Our Declaration of Independence does not start with “SINCE”, it starts with “WHEN”.

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” – http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
    It is an open and ongoing consideration.
    ALL freedoms recited in (not endowed by) the Bill of Rights are protections F R O M our government. Our government was created by us because we needed to have some chores done, and they needed to be provided for collectively, NOT COMMUNALLY. The set of people [not aliens, animals, gods, or robots] known as Government employees is made up of our stupid neighbors who needed a job. When they attempt to usurp extra-authority or attempt to “rule” us, the 2nd Amendment is there to say that we DO NOT NEED TO REQUEST (from those self-same yahoos) the right or the means to counter and interdict them. AND YES, BY NO ACROBATIC TWIST OF LOGIC, the 2nd amendment is a promise to each other that (should anyone find it necessary to “chuck” the Constitution, or start a Civil War) no one needs anyone’s permission to cry-foul and, if so inclined, to “ASSUME AMONG THE POWERS OF THE EARTH” (employ “ARMS”) and wage war on their formerly fellow citizens [up to and including every swinging d_ck]. OUR 2nd Amendment is more important than any other right you have, and hugely more important than any idiot in a black robe holding a gavel.

  31. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    While you and I may disagree with the Court there is an honest Constitutional logic to this decision. At the time the Constitution was written the verb “to bear” meant to display or openly carry. We also know that in an era where there was no doubt what the Second Amendment meant there were restrictions on concealed carry so this ruling can be justified. However, many laws prohibiting concealed carry were passed before the 14th Amendment. At that time the Bill of Rights only applied to Federal government and the States could infringe to their hearts content subject only to limits placed by their own Constitutions.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      So, what is the process or mechanism by which citizens under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circus (namely, California) can avail themselves of the right to bear (carry or display openly) firearms, such that the prohibition against carrying concealed is not an unconstitutional infringement of that right?

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        Legislation or a SCOTUS decision.

        You could have had Scott Walker, Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio or Rand Paul but you chose Trump iinstead.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Legislation or a SCOTUS decision.

          You could have had Scott Walker, Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio or Rand Paul but you chose Trump iinstead.

          Complete non sequitur.

          I asked how citizens living in the 9th circuit can avail themselves, right now, today, of their right to bear arms.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The 9th said concealed carry is not a right, and open carry has not been declared an individual right by the SC. “No right” and “not a right” do not add up to a “right.” Californicators essentially have no right to bear arms, and no non-judicial means to address the situation.

        3. avatar Wilson says:

          “I asked how citizens living in the 9th circuit can avail themselves, right now, today, of their right to bear arms.”

          They simply ignore the law as the state ignores the Constitution. Of course said citizens will need to learn to ignore their cellmate and the other less pleasant parts of life in San Quentin or whatever other crapbox their government decides to lock them up in.

        4. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          I misinterpreted your question as asking for broad remedies. What can a person do now? You can open carry, get arrested and go back to Federal court in the appeal process. That is only way you are going to get standing.

        5. avatar Mecha75 says:

          With this decision, they now have standing. they do not need to get arrested in order to earn standing. All they need is to be denied a carry permit as it would be a denial of their only legal means to exercise their 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

      2. avatar CarlosT says:

        From what I understand, it completely depends on where you live. There are counties where getting a permit is fairly routine and counties where it’s another privilege the powerful hand out to their friends.

        Every time anyone says there’s no slippery slope, I look at California and I know they’re a fool or a liar.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Yes, sometimes one must be careful about what one wishes.

      If the 9th causes the SC to rule that only open carry is protected, then states can make instant felons of how many millions of CCW holders?

      1. avatar Kyle says:

        3 felonies a day.

        It was a book that was written a few years back that says your average american commits 3 felonies a day already and never realizes it.

        I guess we can make it 4.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          What’s the record?

      2. avatar FreeSlave says:

        Sam I Am,

        A couple of questions (of which you may not be able to answer definitively, but your humble speculation is still welcome).

        #1. What happens to the CCW people whose permits are being processed now?

        #2. What happens to the CCW holders in California given this ruling?

        1. avatar tdiinva (now in Wisconsin} says:

          Nothing happens. The court did not invalidate the California may issue statute. They upheld it. If you have permit you can carry. If you don’t, you are in violation of the law.

        2. avatar FreeSlave says:

          Thanks for your reply tdiinva.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The 9th did not ban concealed carry, they merely rejected the notion that people in the circuit have a constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm. The states in the circuit may continue to issue permits, or simply stop. The states in the circuit may, via mere legislation, make concealed carry of a firearm illegal (there is not constitutional right).

          Also, the 9th also declared there is no 2A right of the people to open carry firearms because the SC has not specifically ruled that open carry is a constitutional right. Thus, the states in the 9th circuit may ban/outlaw all firearm carry within their borders. I expect “carry” to be defined as “transport”, so as to make owners keep their guns in their homes, and shut down firearm sales because people must transport a newly purchased gun from dealer, to home.

          The ruling is the wedge in the log.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Hi,

          From an earlier reply to another:
          The 9th did not ban concealed carry, they merely rejected the notion that people in the circuit have a constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm. The states in the circuit may continue to issue permits, or simply stop. The states in the circuit may, via mere legislation, make concealed carry of a firearm illegal (there is not constitutional right).

          Also, the 9th also declared there is no 2A right of the people to open carry firearms because the SC has not specifically ruled that open carry is a constitutional right. Thus, the states in the 9th circuit may ban/outlaw all firearm carry within their borders. I expect “carry” to be defined as “transport”, so as to make owners keep their guns in their homes, and shut down firearm sales because people must transport a newly purchased gun from dealer, to home.

          The ruling is the wedge in the log.

        5. avatar Mad Max says:

          If you have a permit, you can keep your permit?

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A permit is a permit, granted by some issuing authority. This decision does not invalidate any permit, but opens the door wide for ending permits, and recalling those issued.

        7. avatar DaveW says:

          Glad that my CCW is federally issued under the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, and covers all 50 states as well as territories. That includes states which ban concealed carry. There are some minor compliances required; like no gun zones, etc.

      3. avatar Mecha75 says:

        You are wrong. Conceal Carry is a permission (akin to getting a drivers license). States can continue to issue permits for Conceal Carry, even if the SCOTUS rules that the 2A only covers Open Carry.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yes, states could continue to issue concealed carry permits, but they could also declare concealed firearms illegal immediately. And likely the will.

    3. avatar Hawk_TX says:

      At the time the Constitution was written “to bear” meant to convey or carry not to display or openly carry. You can confirm this definition by consulting any dictionary. Here are some definitions showing the continuity of the definition over time.

      Here is the definition for to bear from an 1768 dictionary: ” To convey or carry”.
      https://books.google.com/books?id=bXsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP150#v=onepage&q=bear&f=false

      Here is a definition from an 1828 dictionary: To carry; to convey; to support and remove from place to place; as, “they bear him upon the shoulder;”, “the eagle beareth them on her wings.”
      https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/bear

      Or you could consult the current Merriam-Webster website which defines to “bear arms” as 1: to carry or possess arms 2: to serve as a soldier.
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear

      These definitions make it clear that to bear does not mean to display or openly carry. But instead it simply means “to carry or convey” which can be done either openly or concealed.

    4. avatar Robert Miller says:

      Whether or not the specific states believed it, the Bill of Rights also applied to them. The Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The enumeration of the Bill of Rights into the purview of the general government served as a means of prohibiting it by the States and outside of the First Amendment, none of the remaining amendments define the object as being limited to Congress. Besides that, our founding document obligated the state governments to provide for the protection of our unalienable rights …

  32. avatar peirsonb says:

    The Schroedinger’s cat method of judicial activism….

  33. avatar Shire-man says:

    It’s garbage like this that makes the faux outrage of over Trumps vocal declaration of mistrusting a judge paired with the medias deluge of “how could anyone not trust a judge to be perfect, pure, non-political and impartial?”

    Either they’re straight up lying to my face or so stupid and insulated they haven’t glanced out the little window of their padded safe rooms once in their lives.

    Every interaction with any human being or system set in place by human beings is clouded with prejudice and personal belief. That’s reality and it doesn’t care what costume, robe, desk or position you have on. A judge is just a bigot like any other but with the power to jam his will down multiple throats at once.

    I have to laugh at these reporters who ask the politicos “do you think filling Scalias seat is being politicized?” Well, jeepers I dunno. Lemme ponder that one. I wasn’t born yesterday and I am aware of the existence of other human beings with differing views from my own so…….maybe?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Supreme Court Justicette Sotomayor admitted yesterday that background and ethnicity play a significant role in deciding how to apply the law. “A wise latina”.

  34. avatar Wilson says:

    I find this hardly surprising.

    Gun grabbers have, for a long time, relied on their ability to pass a series of laws that amount to a ban but without ever explicitly banning things and for a long time they’ve gotten away with it.

    “Look, no one is trying to ban you from carrying a gun, you just can’t OC it because it scares people, you have to get a permit and CC your gun. This is a reasonable restriction and it’s common sense” sounds good to a lot of people.

    Of course when this is pared with “may issue” CCW licenses that are very nearly impossible for your average citizen to obtain it becomes a de facto ban on carrying a gun unless you’re in a special class.

    Mark my words it’s this kind of thing that HRC is talking about. She wants to set up a system of rules that make it impossible to legally own things she doesn’t like and then try to hide behind the fact that none of the rules by itself is an outright ban on something.

  35. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    And how does this impact places other than Commiefornia? Sorry Chip-I usually agree with you but tdiinva makes a compelling point. Hurtling toward open rebellion/apocalypse…

    1. avatar TennTexan says:

      The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is only binding on the residents of the states that make up the Ninth Circuit.
      Alaska
      Arizona
      California
      Hawaii
      Idaho
      Montana
      Nevada
      Oregon
      Washington

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        It’s a Circuit Court, one of the Circuit Courts’ systems’ purpose was to alleviate the burden on the Supreme Court and to spread the possible input from extra adjudication to areas in which they were brought (i.e., have a more local venue for redress).

        This ruling will likely be taken to offset other previous pro-2A circuit and SCOTUS, and will definitely be relied upon as precedent.

        1. avatar Mecha75 says:

          This ruling is not a surprise. not because it was the 9th circuit, but because the SCOTUS has consistently ruled that conceal carry is not protected under the 2nd Amendment. The 9th would have been at odds with that ruling if they ruled any other way. the issue I have is that they intentionally added that ludicrous bit about being unclear if open carry is protected. Well any person with real common sense would look at the 2nd amendment’s provision about bearing arms and come to the conclusion that if one of the only two ways to carry an arm isn’t covered, then the other must be what is meant by bearing arms. For me personally, the method of carry is of my choosing and not that of any damnable government.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Yes, the decision is currently for the 9th circuit. But it is precedent, and will cited by other circuit courts in their rulings. And there may even be more splits among the circuits. The SC will one day (when they have the 5-4 lib majority) take up establishing a definitive, permanent ruling that the second amendment is not an individual right (concealed or open carry) because several circuit courts said so, and the government has a compelling interest in keeping people safe.

      3. avatar Mad Max says:

        Your State may protect the right to carry concealed, constitutionally or by “shall issue” laws. This ruling doesn’t change that.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          States in the 9th circuit may, if they choose, allow concealed carry. But most probably allow it only to escape expensive federal law suits. This decision, which other circuits will adopt as fast as possible, removes the threat of years of legal battle over constitutional right to concealed carry. Lacking any incentive to continue issuing permits, they can simply stop.

  36. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    “Bear” may be concealed or open.

    To allow only one of the options, whether concealed or open, would be infringing the right to bear.

    But when you’re a gun grabber, you don’t want clear, simple logic.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      “Bear” is open. The 2nd does not recite that the right of the people to keep and CONCEAL Arms, shall not be infringed.

      1. avatar Matt says:

        This is just like all the other arguments used against us; the founders clearly meant muskets, they couldn’t have foreseen mgs, etc. If the 2nd applies to things not seen in the founders days, I see no reason for not protecting concealing arms either.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          I did not mean to preclude the other with my comment. The 2nd is a stfu or let’s go kind of thing. It could be a bright sunny day, or it could be the end of the world. I flip the coin for you if I think you’re contemplating too hard either way, and I expect nothing but the same from you. That’s been how we all get along.

      2. avatar Some Body says:

        Bear simply means to carry – it does not specify how.

      3. avatar Mecha75 says:

        wrong, To bear just means to carry. the manner of bearing is not explicitly detailed in the 2nd Amendment. The issue we have now is the one of culture. Most of those SCOTUS rulings happened because society at the time considered those who carried concealed, did so for nefarious reasons.

      4. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        “Bear” does not imply openly.

        From Merriam-Webster:

        “to be equipped or furnished with (something)”

        Specifically with regard to “bear arms” they give the example: “to carry or possess arms”

        1. avatar Joe Nieters says:

          …and even if bear meant to openly present, it is the “right” to keep and bear…not the “obligation”.

  37. avatar Renov8 says:

    Political hacks on a good day…….bottom dwelling scum suckers on a bad day.

    “its not those in power that enforce the rules, its those with the means of enforcing them…..we the people.”

  38. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Then I guess we’ll all have to become Chipotle Ninjas now.

  39. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    This court is another example of why we have to fight Hillary tooth and nail! Some of these justices were appointed by Nixon and Carter and they won’t last much longer, do you want Hillary appointing their replacements?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      If the election were held to day, Hillary would win. If the election were held in November, Hillary would win. If the election were held Monday after the second Wednesday in December, Hillary would win. It is only that last date that matters, and Hillary only needs about 40 additional votes to win.

      1. avatar DaveW says:

        Unless we can somehow get charges preferred against her. It is definitely a long shot, but we are in a horse race, and it would not be the first time the long shot has come through. Bernie hasn’t quit yet and many of his supporters may not vote for Killary. We hve already seen Dems switch and vote Repub this time around, along with independents. We really need Reagan’s “Silent Majority”.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You are counting on the popular vote. The Electoral College is all that matters, and that is where Hillary (or whichever Demoncrat) has the huge advantage right now. Trump cannot win Califonicate or New Jerk. He would need a Reagan 49 state majority (even then, electors of the EC could vote for the Demoncrat)

  40. avatar Jim Prince says:

    You’re assuming HiLIARy is going to win.

    1. avatar A A Ron says:

      She still has plenty of opportunity to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      No, I am saying if we sit on our collective asses like the #NeverTrump people would have us do then this country is in a heap of trouble. For those of you who don’t like Trump, remember there are only going to be two choices, one or the other will win and the Hildabeast will do her best to remake this country into Venezuela.

  41. avatar Cole says:

    How are none of these judges who blatantly ignore the constitution while swearing an oath and being paid to protect impeached? Also how did we get so many high up courts completely run by liberals?

  42. avatar cenonce says:

    I just read the majority opinion, and while it did just what Scalia did in Heller and what actually Scalia instructed courts to do in terms of historical analysis of constitutional rights, that analysis is a mess. If you really look at the historical context of the amendment’s protections and apply them, you see several problems with the 9th’s reasoning in their analysis of the historical cases cited. Here are several examples:

    In the pre-colonial MA case cited, it says people cannot “go armed Offensively in fear and afray of Their Majesties Leige People.” Well, there is clearly a requirement that one go armed with an intent to commit unlawful acts (“Offensively”). That says nothing about going armed purely for defensive purposes, which fits perfectly into the protections afforded by the Second Amendment as held in Heller (“central to” the right to keep and bear arms is “the inherent right of self-defense”. See Heller at 628.)

    Then there is State v. Mitchell, the 1831 Indiana case cited, which says it is not unconstitutional to prohibit “all persons, except travelers, from wearing or carrying concealed.” Well, isn’t anyone who leaves their property a traveler? When I left my farm in 1831 Indiana to go into the general store in town, am I not a traveler? Seems to me that is a clear indication that a traveler carries concealed “defensively” while a brigand or other thug carries “offensively.”

    State v. Buzzard (Ark 1842) is similar… A person carrying concealed, “unless upon a journey,” is guilty of a misdemeanor. Well, what the hell is a journey, but anything outside of one’s home? A journey clearly implicates a lawful purpose, that is, I’m not going out to commit a crime with my concealed weapon. They just aren’t getting that.

    Not much different in State v. Reid (Ala. 1840) where it was not unconstitutional to prohibit concealed carry in such a manner “as is calculated to exert unhappy influence upon moral feelings of the wearer by making him less regardful of the personal security of others.” In other words, it prohibited carrying concealed “offensive weapons,” the method of use by robbers and thieves, not defensive weapons, the method of use by travelers and journeymen.

    There are a handful of other issues with the decision, but it seems to me the 9th’s big “reveal” that SCOTUS said in Robertson v. Bowie in 1897 that the 2A does not protect Concealed Carry very clearly implicates “offensive CC” based on historical precedent. This is what the 9th has misread or read narrowly to make “may issue” a “constitutional” concept.

    So my take is that the Second Amendment not only clearly historically protects Open Carry (See Nunn v. State (GA 1846), State v. Chandler (LA 1850), Bliss v. Commonwealth (KY 1822), all cited by 9th in Peruta), but also “defensive” Concealed Carry.

  43. avatar Goon says:

    People, the state of New Jersey uses “Justifiable Need” California and other states use “Good Cause” if this stands you can expect all your 2a rights to be stripped from you as state by state adopts these restrictions. NJ has 8.9 million people with less than 2,000 concealed weapons permits issued. Good cause and Justifiable need can not be met and is put into law on pourpose to eliminate your right. The state will claim they have and honor CCW laws but in effect the state won’t issue permits and will strip you of your rights.

  44. avatar Erik says:

    The Ted Cruz solution that the second amendment does not ban reasonable gun control. His amicus brief for Heller was a waste of toilet paper.

  45. avatar Libertarian says:

    No Scalia and hillary is what i called supergau ……

  46. avatar MoveableDO says:

    What the heck does “bear arms” mean, then, if not carrying outside of the home? As if Alexander Hamilton believed that our Creator endowed us with the unalienable right to carry a musket around our living room!!

  47. avatar Resister says:

    The time has come for total civil disobedience on the issue of the 2A. I don’t care if you say I can’t carry one, judge. You are a traitor who is guilty of treason. I will do it anyways, and no one will know. The state is the enemy of freedom. TRUMP 2016!!!

    This country is going to devolve into civil war within 6 months, regardless of who wins the election.

    1. avatar Silve says:

      I sure hope so. It’s about time.

  48. avatar BART LOVETT says:

    THE DECISION WAS RELEASED NOW BECAUE ANY APPEAL TO THE SCOTUS IS A VIRTIUAL TIE AND THE DECISION GOES BACK TO THE LOWER COURT AND STANDS AS LAW

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      It’s going to take some serious cartwheels to get this case appealed, granted cert, heard, and ruled on before Trump is sworn into office and the pack the court with a dozen conservatives. (Don’t forget, we may not be able to remove existing justices, but we can increase the number with an act of Congress.)

      1. avatar Mecha75 says:

        The US Senate has removed lower court judges before, even without any crime being committed.

        https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_judges

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        First, Trump has an insurmountable disadvantage in the electoral college, with his stock getting lower daily.

        Second, there are enough Demoncrat and Repugnant votes to prevent a conservative judge from being confirmed.

  49. avatar JDS says:

    So I can’t carry concealed, I can’t carry open, so I guess you pull your piece behind you in your little red wagon?
    If the courts are going to ignore the constitution then we as citizens need to apply the same logic to the 16th amendment. It doesnt mean what it says and therefore paying taxes is only required if you apply for a permit to do so.

    1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      Yes. Of course. But at the end of the day, the only way you would get away with THAT would be to exercise your right to bear arms.?

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The federal courts, including SC, determine which provisions of the constitution and amendments will be upheld and how. SC determined long ago that the income tax was too intertwined in society and government to allow it to be overturned.

  50. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    So in this case, if the ruling is upheld, it would mean that the states could restrict concealed carry in any way they wish (so basically no change to what the states do or don’t do now) and open carry restrictions by the states would need to be challenged independently. Ultimately, the Supremes could clarify whether a right to open carry exists or not.

    The risk to concealed carry now is that Hillary could ram a bill through Congress based on this ruling to ban concealed carry nationwide, since this ruling, if upheld, means there is now no right to carry concealed.

    Then, a case could get to the Supreme Court to overturn Heller and all guns could be outlawed and confiscated. After all, if a court can read the Second Amendment and conclude that there is no right to “bear” arms then obviously the right to “keep” arms could similarly be ruled non-existent.

    So the stage for the 2nd American Civil War is being set.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So the stage for the 2nd American Civil War is being set.”

      Nah. Civil War would get in the way of the Super Bowl, Final Four, March Madness, and Daytona 500.

    2. avatar Glenn says:

      “The risk to concealed carry now is that Hillary could ram a bill through Congress based on this ruling to ban concealed carry nationwide, since this ruling, if upheld, means there is now no right to carry concealed.”

      The risk of this happening is close to zero for various reasons. How would Congress word such a bill to tie it to the power to tax or interstate commerce? I think US v. Lopez covers this.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        See U.S. v. Heart of Atlanta Motel.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States

        Essentially, SC ruled that since toothpicks used by the restaurant in the motel were transported via interstate commerce, Congress could regulate private businesses. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited refusal of service based on racial discrimination. Motel was propagating discrimination by stating publicly they (Motel) had the right to refuse service to anyone, thus refusing the Civil Rights Act as operative.

        If Congress can regulate the interstate movement of guns, parts, ammunition, via the commerce clause, the executive branch can enforce that regulation through any number of agencies. Thus, since the government always has a compelling interest in providing for the safety of products, safety of law enforcement, protection of people from themselves, BATF, EPA, OSHA, ICC, DOJ, can all be used to restrict the flow of firearms, as well as the manner and place where firearms are allowed.

        In addition, since the 9th ruled there is no constitutional right to concealed carry, and that there is no SC ruling identifying the right to open carry, the taxing of guns, dealers and manufacturers out of business is permitted. Whereas there are certain restrictions on government’s ability to place taxes on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.

        1. avatar Glenn says:

          I understand that Congress can legislate based on its commerce clause or tax powers. But what part of concealed carry vs open carry is related to interstate commerce? How do you use the power to tax to prohibit concealed carry? What is the commerce that allows Congress to say you have to carry your gun on your hip instead of under your shirt? IWB holsters? I don’t see it.

          What you are describing is the type of police power the Supremes said Congress does not have.

  51. avatar Kyle (in Upstate New York) says:

    So why was this case even brought before the 9th in the first place? Did it not occur to the plaintiffs that they would likely lose?

    1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

      The 9th Circuit (called the 9th Circus by those paying attention) is the most overturned court in the nation. They previously ruled just last year -in that same case – in the opposite direction – by a subset of judges. The leftists then convinced the entire court to rule on the case which is a rare move.

      Tyranny and clear illogic know no restrictions in the 9th Circus, regardless of the issue at hand.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Plaintiffs won the original appeal to the 3-judge panel. Calif AG took over the case from the local government and pushed for en banc. State of Californication was not party to the original suit (if I remember correctly).

  52. avatar Geoff says:

    I don’t think that Court realizes they just legalized OPEN CARRY as the Law of The Land.
    If they ruled concealed carry is not legal, then open carry must be.
    “The right of The People to keep and BEAR (carry) ARMS shall not be infringed)
    This should invalidate all the States (5 of them) laws that still ban open carry.
    Florida and South Carolina come to mind.

    1. avatar Mecha75 says:

      they have not. which is why they added the bit about the SCOTUS has never ruled that open carry is protected under the 2A. Common Sense (the real stuff, not the liberal progressive terminology) suggests that there are only 2 methods of carrying an arm – concealed and open. So while not explicitly ruling open carry is covered under the 2A, they have explicitly ruled that concealed is NOT covered. Implying that open carry must be. but the 9th circuit tried to twist that logic by making the claim that is is unclear if is covered as the SCOTUS never ruled on it.

      1. avatar Geoff says:

        Can’t expect anything else from an anti-gun liberal Democrat majority activist Court, can we?
        But with 45 States allowing Open Cary with or without a permit it sort of puts those other 5 States in a bind, doesn’t it? Unless some one in each State sues to overturn the law banning open carry.
        It has been tried here in SC for the past 2 years, but there are 5 RINOs in the State Senate Judiciary Committee that won’t let out of committee to the full Senate. (10 Dems, 5 Repub and 5 RINO).
        Sometimes the RINOs do vote for pro-gun legislation if it has no effect on anything.

        1. avatar Mecha75 says:

          Or the rinos kill it like they did in florida earlier this year.

      2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        “Infringe” does not mean “ban,” it means “encroach,” so if there are, as you say, only two means of carrying, open and concealed, eliminating one of them does indeed encroach — infringe — on your right to bear arms, as it has an effect on that right, limiting the ways in which you exercise it.

        I’d really love to chuck all the ridiculous precedent aside and simply rule on what the second amendment actually says.

  53. avatar JohnnyL says:

    Since the rulings, the cases have been widely cited and have been the impetus to roll back overly strict may-issue permitting practices in a number of areas outside of California, but were set aside and reheard by an 11-judge panel formed for an en banc review last year.

    The panel consisted of only two of the original three-judge panel that found for Peruta and Richards, Chief Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas, an appointee of President Clinton who dissented in the initial ruling, and Consuelo María Callahan, an appointment of President George W. Bush who ruled in favor of Mr. Peruta.

    The other nine judges are largely a mix of appointments by Democratic Presidents, with the ghosts of Clintons past appearing heavily on the panel:

    Judge Harry Pregerson, a 1979 appointment by President Carter
    Judge Barry G. Silverman, a 1998 appointment by President Clinton
    Judge Susan Pia Graber, a 1998 appointment by President Clinton
    Judge M. Margaret McKeown, a 1998 appointment by President Clinton
    Judge William A. Fletcher, a 1998 appointment by President Clinton
    Judge Richard Anthony Paez, a 2000 appointment by President Clinton
    Judge Carlos Tiburcio Bea, a 2003 appointment by President George W. Bush
    Judge Norman Randy Smith, a 2007 appointment by President George W. Bush
    Judge John Byron Owens, a 2014 appointment by President Obama.

    In the end, in an 89-page ruling handed down Thursday, the panel went 7-4 with the earlier District Court rulings and set aside the 2014 gun rights victories.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      How many of the Bush appointees on the en banc voted against?

  54. avatar Ross says:

    Bottom line for me is very simple, I could care less what any court has to say about the Second Amendment and the carrying of concealed arms, I’ll carry regardless.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Yes, yes. By all means, carry on – carry concealed. But when you need to use your gun in self-defense in a state (in the 9th circuit, so far) that refuses concealed carry permits, you have no legal or constitutional ground to stand on. You may be justified in shooting in self-defense, you may live through the encounter, but you face felony charges, and no grounds for appeal based on “rights”. What are the implications of that?

      1. The the police and the prosecutors become the enemy.

  55. avatar Mikial says:

    Just more Liberal BS and double-speak.

    Another great reason to never live in California . . . as if we needed any more.

  56. avatar Silver says:

    I’m far past caring what tyrannical, evil people in black robes say. I’ll do what I want, as an American with freedom does.

  57. avatar Tracy says:

    Come and try to take it 9th court. How ironic that they come out with this when so many illegals are assaulting law abiding citizens at Trump rallys. What a crock! ” From my cold dead hands “.

  58. avatar Tony says:

    What exactly about “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…” is so difficult to understand? This is not America anymore. We live in a real totalitarian police state. It is now too late to wake up. Your rights have been revoked by the Fuhrer.

  59. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    So my understanding is that at some point the courts ruled that since concealed carry was an option, open carry could be banned. Then some places essentially banned concealed carry. Now the courts have ruled that concealed carry isn’t a right and can be banned. All this convoluted, circular (un)reasoning makes my head hurt. Does the term “Catch 22” still mean anything?

    1. avatar JDS says:

      That is exactly what they did in FL. Open carry was not regulated. Then as one of the first states to permit concealed carry they banned open carry, period. There are very few exceptions, hunting, fishing, camping, to and from a range is it.
      So here in Florida if you want to carry (legally) you must ask for permission, pay a large tax, prove you took a class, (more $$$$) and wait a couple months for a permit. I would love to see the same requirements to vote or at least have some judge explain to me why that’s unconstitutional while the permit to carry isn’t.
      I am one of a large percentage of people who absolutely refuse to pay to play.

  60. avatar Let it begin says:

    So why not start the revolution now? Here with all of us it begins. Let’s all meet at the courthouse in two weeks. I’ll be there. Any that wish to remain on the sidelines or in the background do so scoped and watching our six. What say all of you. I will drive halfway across the nation to stand beside all of you. Armed and ready. We will demand an absolute end to all infringement immeadiatly. No more, no less.

  61. avatar Let it begin says:

    200 of us is enough to get shit done.

  62. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    If the gun owners in California were to start empty holster demonstrations then I would think better of them. But they have not.
    Lazy gun owners will not keep their guns.

    The black panther party for self defense was correct.
    They came for the black guns first. And no one complained.
    Now they are coming for your guns.
    Who is left to protect your gun civil rights now????
    I was born and raised in California. You did not need Jim crow laws to deny civil rights to California citizens.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      So, you accept the premise that the .gov has the right to restrict your carry and usage of firearms? If you believe that this is just about CA you’re very much mistaken.

      What CA is proving to the hard line freedom grabbers is that the POTG will run, not fight. That we are willing to give up huge portions of our nation to tyranny.

      Wait until all the illegals are granted the right to vote. Then all states become CA.

  63. avatar Let it begin says:

    And so it ends. With a wimper and angry complaints in the digital ether.

  64. avatar Right to Arm Bears says:

    Tyranny on the move, America is no longer free when activist judges change the constitutional foundations we rely on to make this a free country. I know this, I’m going to be a criminal now because I can no longer “bear arms.” Molon Labe, asshats.

    1. avatar Mecha75 says:

      Thats a little overboard. The 9th only passed judgement based on precedent set bu the SCOTUS. Albeit that precident matched their gun grabbing desires and did not take into consideration the change of culture. During most of those cases, someone conceal carrying did so for ilegal reasons. Open carry was allowed just about everywhere.

  65. avatar DaveR says:

    All I have to say is F the framers for writing such a terribly worded amendment. Sure, we all pretend that the language is unambiguous, but in truth it could have been worded a whole lot more clearly…

    1. avatar JedEYE says:

      They wrote it in the language of their time as well as made ASSumptions that citizens rights
      were common sense.

      Can not blame them that the US took a turn for the stupid.

      There is not a government on Earth that has not fallen and been reborn. The US will be
      no exception. History shows us this if you follow history that is.

      1. avatar Joe Nieters says:

        All legislation is tyranny, and unless restricted it will eventually exceed the citizens willingness or ability to comply.

  66. avatar David Z says:

    The ignorance and fear that is spewing forth in these vile comments only confirms that for a relatively small group of small minded people just dig their heals in and hear/read/believe what they want to believe. I want ONE person to post a unrefutable quote that anyone left of the extreme right said, or proposed, or even a confidential quote that anyone wants to confiscate guns. The utter fear of that is unfounded. All the civilized people want is regulations for safety that an airplane, car, chemical plant, oil rig has to adhere to to make a dent into public safety. No amount of car regulations will cure all deaths, but they have proven effective in greatly reducing death. No amount of regulation will cure all gun violence, but it would be a step. I find the hypocrisy of so many on the right fringe who, with missionary zeal, profess the sanctity of human life. Would spend so much time and effort to block a women’s right to rule her own body. To be so cavalier about trying to save human lives through ANY kind of system to save these lives. The logic astounds me

    1. No matter how many regulations are imposed on car manufacturers, you can still drive a car into a crowed of people. Infringement on our rights do nothing to impede murder.
      The tyrants won’t use cars to enslave the public. The will use small arms. The people have the right to have more firepower than the agents of the state. That has already been prevented by unconstitutional laws.

  67. avatar Joe Nieters says:

    How about an article in the “Facts About Guns” section that maintains a list of folks/quotes that express the desire to eliminate civilian ownership of arms?

  68. avatar Joe Nieters says:

    While we have to argue cases as presented in the context of today, all of this arguing over method of carry…even in the 1600’s…is to be arguing over a difference without a distinction. Any difference in the level of dangerousness between open and concealed carry is insignificant. And, arguing that concealed carry is the method of cowards of ill-intent violates the spirit of due process and smells badly of prior restraint. In many ways, concealed carry is simply made common today because of changes in technology that have provided us with effective handguns. The Founders anticipated advances of technology and while some at the time found concealed carry to be objectionable, the spirit of the 2nd Amendment…of not infringing…is apathetic to the method of carry.

  69. avatar Geoff says:

    And some wonder why it is referred to as “The Left Coast”.

  70. avatar Kevin says:

    Government communistic appointed judges have been being appointed in all facets all of our justice system if you think our government is corrupt what do you think is happening to the legal system read the full 2nd Amendment and then look at their decision then you will see that they are right about the concealed carry permit law butt they are not right at all about the Second Amendment the concealed carry permit law completely violates the Second Amendment therefore the concealed carry permit system is nullified void

  71. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

    The socialist uppity elitists who are on California’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals can be described in five words:
    deceitful, crooked, immoral, treasonous, and socialist! This “LBJ/KGB” and corrupt “Earl Warren Supreme
    Court” type ruling constitutes “class warfare” against the common people of America! And this includes
    many honest gun owners. My question: are these petty Bolshevik tyrants protected by armed security
    24/7 and possibly at tax payer’s expense? I don’t know but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. All who
    violated their sworn oath of office, including the public trust, rightly deserved to have their asses impeached
    and removed from the high bench!

  72. A few points.

    – As an initial matter, the historical analysis approach is the wrong approach, under current Supreme Court precedent. If this approach had been used in Obergefell v. Hodges, the bans on same-sex marriage would have stood. Judge Callahan, in fact, cited Obergefell with approval in her dissent. (I disagree with Obergefell and its approach, but the Court was bound by it.)

    – The court only addressed the facial challenge to the county’s interpretation of good cause. However, due to an intervening change in law since the district courts issued their judgments, the appellants made, for the first time, an as-applied challenge in the context of California’s ban on open carry. The Court did not even imply that the plaintiffs were procedurally barred from making the as-applied challenge. However, the Court reached a disposition of the judgment without addressing the as-applied challenge. (Judge N.R. Smith, in his dissent, would have vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court to decide the as-applied challenge).

    – finally, the court was wrong when it held that answering the Second Amendment question necessarily answers the equal protection question. These are independent issues. That a state may generally ban concealed carry does not necessarily mean that a state can ban concealed carry solely by young black males. In Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 (1967), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that states that neither the state nor its subdivisions “shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.”, because it established a right to discrimination. Allowing sheriffs unfettered discretion as to what constitutes good cause likewise, under Reitman, establishes the power to discriminate.

  73. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    So when is the date when these yahoos will be disbarred for failure to uphold the Constitution?

    I keep seeing blatantly unconstituional laws being passed and no one in the justice system seems to be putting any penalty or punishment for this behavior.

  74. avatar cisco kid says:

    It is not the politicians that pass laws that have the final say rather it is the Dictatorial Power of the Supreme Court that has been for years anti-Second Amendment. Yesterday the California Supreme Court declared no one has the right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense because they could be a danger to the “ruling elite”. The Court made no bones about it and due to the fact that most jurisdictions outlaw “open carry” this effectively trashes the Second Amendment once and for all despite the prior ruling by Judge Anthony Scalia that said the Second Amendment does not just apply to “the ruling elite”. The Court completely ignored this prior ruling as if it had never existed.

    The ATF has been eliminating small dealers and even large ones for years. In my area many large dealers have been shut down without a peep out of the rabidly anti-gun news media. If any other business had been shut down by the government for no legitimate reason the news media would have been howling from the roof tops. The Media, the Federal Government, the Courts and the spineless State Governments who often rely on Government hand outs and money are in a way helpless to protest despite some election year pandering about ignoring Federal anti-gun laws.

    People in power want absolute power over the proletariat, it has been that way since the dawn of civilization. For a brief time in history America was an aberration of freedom, something that is not normal in the World and normalcy is soon to be complete once again in the World, no exceptions.

  75. avatar David Z says:

    Sam I Am is Dalr Gribble

  76. Some folks around the internet are commenting that I must be celebrating.

    Why? Because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with what I have been saying for the last six years?

    Heeelllll yes!

    https://youtu.be/2oKR9MYYdBM

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email