Court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public

[g8rb8]

.....from the National Review):

Ninth Circuit Leading the Pack for "Most Reversed"

...........

Imagine if more than half of your work was rejected?

 

[Practical]

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: U.S. Supreme Court again rejects most 9th Circuit decisions - latimes

The reason is the Supreme Court had a 5 to 4 conservative majority.

IF the Supreme court is 5 to 4 liberal WHAT would the number be.

I AM willing to bet 50% or less.

The issue the high court has with the ninth circuit is that it is heavily democratic and it does NOT believe in following precedent at all.

 

[gen3guy]

This does not preclude your state and local governments from staying out of your way when it comes to your right to carry. It's a state's rights issue anyway. Engage your local governments. Forget about those judges in the ivory tower.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Wrong? Yes, from a certain perspective it's wrong. But if what I said is wrong, why do we have so many gun laws?

It's true that government has a history of dreaming up perspectives that violate Constitutionally protected rights. That in no way makes those violations any less of violations.

Why are there still gun laws that violate Constitutionally protected rights? Right minded gun owners are working on that!

 

[patrickd]

Ninth Circus, most overturned circus court in the land. Go figure.
Still, it's a dangerous precedent. But then...concealed means concealed, right?
Think about it...if you can't carry concealed, and you have a right to "keep and BEAR arms", you must be able to carry openly. Take that, San Francisco twits!

Except California has already banned open carry.. So this ruling. while unconstitutional, effectively bans the bearing of all arms in CA.. Like previously stated, one left wing appointment to the Supreme Court and this will be everywhere.

 

[Rastoff]

As of right now it is illegal in CA to carry openly...

This is not correct. It is legal to carry openly in certain places and certain circumstances.

Why are there still gun laws that violate Constitutionally protected rights? Right minded gun owners are working on that!

I hope you are right.

 

[Rastoff]

Well, if the difference was as close as you claim, you might have a point. It is your logic that is faulty, however, or more properly, your facts (summer 2014 article from the National Review)

No, my logic is sound even if the numbers are high.

This goes far beyond the numbers. Even if the 9th had a 99% reversal rate, it's irrelevant. It's ludicrous to think, "Meh, they have a high reversal rate so this highly contentious topic will definitely be reversed." No, not a wise position to take at all.

 

[Handgun Hunter]

Again - you are making assumptions with out facts.

Just like Gay rights can't be FORCED down the throat of all states?

or the 1994 Assault Weapons BAN bill which was deemed constitutional?

Or like the Federal government withholding funds from states that don't comply with any one of hundreds of mandates like the now Transgender bathroom issue in schools?

Also you claim that VIOLENT crime is lower in states with SHALL ISSUE can be confirmed or dispproved with a google search.

If you look at violent crime rates Maryland tops a Wall Street Journal Analysis but the NEXT 9 highest rates are GUN FRIENDLY states.

Population size and makeup probably have more to do with violent crime rates.

I cannot make heads or tails of this. You seem to be saying things I never posted. I have posted the federal government has REPEATEDLY ignored the Constitution and presidents in the past have REPEATEDLY ignored both the Constitution and the SCOTUS, FDR even threatening to destroy the Court if they didn't get out of his way! What I have posted is there is NO protection under the Constitution for ANYTHING. The federal government has been a feral government from the start and is to this day.

As for violent crime stats, Detroit has a murder rate of 43.5/100,000, while most counties have murder rates of 3/100,000, and that's the same murder rate of Europe! In fact, many US counties have murder rates WAAAAAY under Europe's. But none of that has a thing to do with the Constitution or the SCOTUS. They don't care if lax gun laws reduce crime. They just want to disarm the people. The FACT all wealth redistribution (75% of the federal budget) is 100% unconstitutional doesn't bother them, so why should gun restrictions bother them? Most gun owners faced with the choice of getting free stuff that was robbed from taxpayers or keeping their gun rights will dump their gun rights in a second. Who cares that our Founders warned to never allow the mixing of charity and state. Madison, "Charity is no duty of government." Most people just want their free stuff. They actually fear freedom if it means they have to work for a living and save for old age.

 

[ladder13]

Most gun owners faced with the choice of getting free stuff that was robbed from taxpayers or keeping their gun rights will dump their gun rights in a second.

You may be right. I've always said there are gun owners and 2A proponents, not to be confused.

 

[swsig]

An interesting phrase was used by AP reporter Larry Neumeister in an article about this case published today. Here is a quote:

"...Thursday's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a law requiring gun applicants to show good reason beyond mere safety...."

"Mere" safety??? I guess that means personal safety is not important unless you are under direct threat. Apparently unpredictable threats, like assaults and muggings, aren't important. That's like your health insurance company saying they will only cover you if you are the victim of a known health threat, and if you have a "mere" surprise heart attack, you'll have to pay the medical bills yourself. Since the 9th Circuit Court believes that safety is only a "mere" issue, I hope the Supremes slap them down big time.

Here's the link to the AP article:

News from The Associated Press

 

[ladder13]

Here's something for the sleepy heads.


Destruction of 2nd Amendment

 

[Muss Muggins]

No, my logic is sound even if the numbers are high.

This goes far beyond the numbers. Even if the 9th had a 99% reversal rate, it's irrelevant. It's ludicrous to think, "Meh, they have a high reversal rate so this highly contentious topic will definitely be reversed." No, not a wise position to take at all.

Duly noted . . .

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Gentlemen, we don't discuss racial issues. Banned topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Flattop5]

About the Concealed Carry Ruling in CA.

(Apologies if this has already been posted)

It amounts to a virtual ban on carry in CA.

Concealed carry, California and the 9th Circuit





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

 

[OKFC05]

http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...-no-right-carry-concealed-weapons-public.html

 

[snowman.45]

No, it changes nothing here in California. The discretion to determine what is good cause to issue a CCW still resides with the Sheriff or Chief of Police. Here in my part of the State, most of the Sheriffs still issue for "self defense" only, regardless of the ruling. The 9th Circuit did not establish what constitutes "good cause". Now, all of the big liberal counties on the coast to the north and south can still refuse to issue a CCW without good cause, just like before the ruling.

 

[Rastoff]

(Apologies if this has already been posted)

Seriously? You didn't see the giant thread on this very subject right above this one? No brownie points for an apology if you don't take 10 seconds to look for other threads first.

It amounts to a virtual ban on carry in CA.

No, it only affirms what they've already been doing here. The biggest part you missed is that this ruling is applicable to more than just CA because the 9th district covers many states.

 

[ladder13]

Here in NC we have House Bill 1148 that will come up for a vote in November. This bill will allow constitutional carry and I believe it's likely to pass. Just one more step forward for us so called "backwards" folks here.

The second amendment clearly states "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." Had they meant only militia members could be armed they wouldn't have used the term people. Now, even though they didn't have the same types of firearms in that day there were still firearms that could be concealed, especially with the clothing of that time period. Don't you think that as wise as the founding fathers were they would have covered all the bases if they truly intended for the "people" to be unarmed?

That Bill is a small step in the right direction, I think. The first page talks about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then the following 19 pages list infringements.

Also, that Jim Crow era PPP major infringement system needs to be gone, asap. Looks like it remains.
Constitutional Carry and the Sheriffs still issue PPP's? Am I reading that wrong?

 

[keith44spl]

My God Boys,

We're fixin to transcend the law of the land, into the law of the jungle.

It's one's own conscience that will rule the day....everyone for himself.

(The High Courts has ruled that the police have no duty to protect any
one individual, but only the public at large.)

I guess........we all have to hire a licensed protective detail.

Or, jest do what we have to do, to survive the reckoning the is coming.


.


.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The first page talks about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then the following 19 pages list infringements.

This is at the core of the court decision being discussed.

The 2A specifically and in no uncertain terms forbids government infringing upon the right to keep and bear (carry) arms. Yet, government outlawing something as fundamental and universal as carrying is ruled by the court not an infringement.

While we will always have the right to keep and bear arms, the Constitutional mechanism for protecting that right from government infringement has been effectively ruled meaningless. An outrage to say the least.