Posted on 02/13/2014 2:27:31 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Via Gabe Malor, who’s already found the tastiest chestnuts in the opinion. The novelty here isn’t the ruling itself but the court issuing it. It’s the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the west coast and typically leans left thanks to liberal all-stars like Stephen Reinhardt. (He wasn’t part of the panel that heard this one, thankfully.) With today’s ruling, the Ninth joins the Seventh in holding that the Second Amendment, just as it says, includes a right to “bear” arms. States can regulate that right but they can’t ban it altogether. Three other federal appellate courts have ruled the other way, all but guaranteeing that SCOTUS will end up deciding this sooner rather than later. Memo to the Court’s conservatives: Grant cert ASAP, please, before Obama gets another appointment.
The particular statute at issue here was San Diego’s law banning concealed carry. The only way to get a permit there is to show a “unique risk of harm.” Wanting to carry a gun for self-defense without showing a special need isn’t good enough. The Supreme Court’s Heller ruling six years ago already guaranteed the right to possess a gun at home, so the question today was whether limiting carry to one’s own household is a permissible state regulation of the right to bear arms or an impermissible outright prohibition. Given the text of the Amendment, says the Ninth Circuit, the answer is obvious:
If, as the Supremes found in Heller, the Second Amendment is ultimately a right of self-defense then it’s goofy to think that the right can be limited to one’s own home. If anything, the ability to defend yourself is more urgent when you’re not protected by four walls. A little more from the majority’s conclusion:
You can ban open carry or you can ban concealed carry but you can’t ban carry entirely without completely depriving people of their right to “bear.”
Here’s the opinion. A history lesson on America’s long jurisprudential tradition of defending the right to carry begins on page 23; brush up for the next time someone on the left insists that these activist conservative courts have gone rogue in defending gun rights. Big question now: Will this ruling survive? It was heard by a three-judge panel, as is custom for appellate cases. But the entire Ninth Circuit can request an “en banc” hearing of 11 judges, a majority of whom might be liberal, to reconsider it. Probably doesn’t matter either way. This issue is headed to the Supreme Court no matter what the Ninth does.
Exit question: Wendy “Open Carry” Davis must be thrilled at the news, no?
What planet are these people on?
The courts have routinely declared in language that is quite clear that the police have no duty whatsoever to any particular individual. The same has been ruled explicitly from the ninth circus as well if I recall correctly. You have no right to police protection, unless, of course, you're a judge, apparently.
I know that. We’re working on it.
Open Carry is Coming to Texas
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3119929/posts
Texas Mall that Banned Guns over Open Carry Losing Business
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3111651/posts
Thanks for the ping. It took me awhile to write this because I fell out of my chair after reading the article.
FAUX NEWS ALERT...9TH CIRCUIT JUDGES KIDNAPPED, REPLACED WITH ACTUAL JURISTS
Meanwhile, everyone who wants to should open carry in California, without any permit.
This is huge...
And from the 9th Circus Court, no less... showing once again that every once in a while, even the dumbest ass liberal gets something right...
Yes we are. people get the wrong impression of Texas’ gun laws though. Like someone said further up-thread, the situation in Texas really isn’t that great as far as the 2nd amendment is concerned. Too many democrats who run as republicans to get elected.
That doesn't mean I will obey the law. Screw them.
Let's cut the PC crap. These ILLEGALS do not have ANY rights under our Constitution. PERIOD!
i know, huh?!! :)
Thanks for p[osting the link to the actual decision. There are actually more even compelling quotes within it than those mentioned in the article.
I suspect the reason they did this is because Holder wants to “ask” the Supremes for an opinion, but they don’t do that, there must be a case for them to consider.
So there are several other lower court decisions saying that a state has the right to issue permits, have tests, charge money for a citizen to have a particular right. And now the Ninth has a contradictory ruling, so there is the SCOTUS case!
Holder would not “ask for an opinion” if he didn’t know the answer down to two decimals.
It was remanded back to the District Court. Pretty sure they are going to try to stall or appeal.
No, only 3 of the judges were involved. If the full Big Top had participated it probably would have been the opposite result, and subsequently reversed.
“Was pretty common in the 50s. We’d see long guns and pistols in holsters being carried and worn by high school kids leaving school or walking down a road on their way to a friendly ranch or a nearby canyon. This was in Monterey, California.”
It’s interesting that you mention Monterey County. I was visiting with friends who live outside Salinas yesterday. Since I had read that the Monterey County Sheriff says that he will issue CCW permits, I asked if that were true. It is. Our friend has four employees all of whom have MCSO issued CCW permits. There are 58 counties in CA, most of them (unlike San Diego) will issue CCW to legal residents. This Ninth Circuit ruling is going to be cause for major consternation in SF,LA, Oakland and a few other locales here. As is the case in most places, the $hit LEO’s are in the big population centers.
It is another way to bump the thread. Semens posts craptire all the time because he lacks good writing skills. So he’s a target whenever the real world is so ironic that it begs the question of whether it was intended as satire.
Of course they will. In the long run I think it’ll be for naught as I think they’ll be forced to issue permits on a shall issue basis OR allow for open carry.
Heh heh heh. I’d love to watch Gov Moonbeam sign that bill into law.
Bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.