Court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public

Status
Not open for further replies.

StakeOut

US Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
3,091
Reaction score
4,953
Location
NW of Austin Texas
A federal appeals court said today people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.

Court: No right to carry concealed weapons in public | The Big Story
 
Register to hide this ad
California, just don't worry about that appeals court, they are way left wing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Only in Kalifornia. Boy am I glad I don't live there. BUT, it is a great place to visit.
 
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!
 
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!
I think that's already the law in California but you have to carry unloaded.

Sent from my SM-T817V using Tapatalk
 
If this was an issue where the political left wing cares about there will be millions of them on the streets protesting, burning city halls getting media coverage for 24/7 and get something done about it.

But when it comes to pro-gun people they bow their heads down and continue to walk the line in silence while CA legislature chips away their rights bite by bite...

They came up with the state approved gun roster BS and purchasing rights for the most common guns on the markets disappeared for law abiding CA residents.

Then they came up with a great idea called the magazine limits and implemented that into law.

They are trying to implement permits and restricting purchase of ammo for legal gun owners which I'm sure soon they will achieve to make it into law with some BS reasoning.

Now they are trying to restrict the Concealed Carry...

I hope they succeed!

Because before they kick our doors, handcuff every gun owner and seize our guns here in CA, nobody will ever react in a major way other than complaining here and there.

I am sick and tired!
 
Isn't the ruling applicable to all jurisdictions within the 9th district? Any law scholars out there?

Ninth Circuit Districts
1. Alaska
2. Arizona
3. Central District of California
4. Eastern District of California
5. Northern District of California
6. Southern District of California
7. Guam
8. Hawaii
9. Idaho
10. Montana
11. Nevada
12. Northern Mariana Islands
13. Oregon
14. Eastern District of Washington
15. Western District of Washington
 
It's the 9th Circuit. Nothing to see here. Please move along . . .

Most of you are really ignorant.

This ruling applies to not only California, but Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana Oregon and Washington states.

It is a terrible precedent.

You guys just DON'T understand what constitutional law means in reality.

Bluntly, if this is upheld in the supreme court IF LEGISLATURES don't allow carry outside the home. YOU will only have a 2nd amendment right in your home.

That is it.

Scalia WARNED us that the Supreme court WOULD rule against Assault weapon ownership and if we are unlucky against handgun carry.

If you wanted to see the writing on the wall this is it.

DONATE money and get out and organize. This election is the tipping point.
 
Last edited:
I think that's already the law in California but you have to carry unloaded.


Gov Jerry Brown stopped that about a year ago
 
It does not matter. If Hillary is elected the private ownership of handguns will be illegal in five years (except for liberal democrats) so the ability to carry one legally will be a moot point anyway.


Any unlawful proclamation Hillary makes will still be an unlawful proclamation. We are not bound to obey that kind of nonsense.

Any paper she signs like that should be stuffed in her mouth and make her eat it.

Vote for Trump!!
 
Most of you are really ignorant.

This ruling applies to not only California, but Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana Oregon and Washington states.

It is a terrible precedent.

You guys just DON'T understand what constitutional law means in reality.

Bluntly, if this is upheld in the supreme court IF LEGISLATURES don't allow carry outside the home. YOU will only have a 2nd amendment right in your home.

That is it.

Scalia WARNED us that the Supreme court WOULD rule against Assault weapon ownership and if we are unlucky against handgun carry.

If you wanted to see the writing on the wall this is it.

DONATE money and get out and organize. This election is the tipping point.

Let's watch the name calling, please. I know what federal circuit precedent means. I also know this: The Ninth Circuit is hands down, without question or contest the most consistently overturned on appeal circuit in the land.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top