Posted on 06/09/2016 8:54:06 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Ninth Circuit Court has upheld the ruling of the lower court in the Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego case and affirmed the Second Amendment does not include a right to conceal a firearm. The Peruta case challenged the legality of denying permits to conceal and carry a firearm unless the applicant for a permit has "good reason" to do so. A three-judge panel initially ruled that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department did not have the right to deny the permit. The case was subsequently heard by the entire Ninth Circuit Court and their decision was released today.
Here is a summary of the ruling:
The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
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.
The en banc court granted the motion to intervene by the State of California, which sought intervention after the San Diego Sheriff declined to petition for rehearing en banc following the panel’s decision. The en banc court held that under the circumstances presented here, California’s motion to intervene was timely.
Concurring, Judge Graber, joined by Chief Judge Thomas and Judge McKeown, wrote separately only to state that, even if the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional.
Dissenting, Judge Callahan, joined by Judge Silverman as to all parts except section IV, by Judge Bea, and by Judge N.R. Smith as to all parts except section II.B, stated that in the context of present-day California law, the defendant counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Thus, plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights have been violated.
Dissenting, Judge Silverman, joined by Judge Bea, would hold that the challenged laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment because they do not survive any form of heightened scrutiny analysis.
Dissenting, Judge N.R. Smith stated that he joined the dissent of Judge Callahan but wrote separately only to express his opinion that the appropriate remedy is to remand this case to the district courts to allow them to initially determine and apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.
Mea culpa.
Regarding my previous post, in my haste to make post I overlooked that this is a state law, not a federal issue.
It’s ultimately up to California voters whether they want to conceal carry or not.
Citizens: Ninth Court, you’re fired!
Your replacements will be picked randomly from the phone book - the phone book from the reddest part of Texas.
This gun issue keeps coming back to me.
Yes, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of a state gun control law. But the referenced article indicates the gun rights of Americans, not just Californians.
So are federal judges attempting to legislate this gun control law from the bench for all Americans, the feds not having the constitutional authority to make such a law imo?
Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines as well.
Open carry is clearly constitutional but many chose CCW to avoid, among other things, unduly alarming the citizenry.
There have been a number of incidents around the country, to include CA, where the right to open carry has been disputed by LEOs as a form of “disorderly conduct.”
If you deny CCW, it seems that you are, in effect, mandating open carry if a person chooses to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
If the sheriff or local pols or police then/continue to infringe on open carry... Hello lawsuit???
The Ninth Circuit sh*ts the bed again.
No surprise.
It’ll be overturned at the USSC.
IOW, if it is not in the Constitution, the states and you have it and the federal government does not have it as confirmed by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
So basically the 9th. Circus can go pound sand, however, based on that then, the states can ban CCW’s?
I'm in the same boat, although I do have a permit which is good for another five months. I applied during a two week period during which my sheriff recognized the original Peruta decision before it was officially appealed.
I have no idea what I will face when I apply for renewal. But I am certainly too old to take a beating and too tired to run.
The Constitution creates and limits the central government to only those powers delegated by the Constitution. Outside of actual constitutional limitations against the states, which are few, the state are sovereign, as confirmed by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is not only the right but the duty of states to reject and nullify unconstitutional federal acts which by definition are acts of tyranny.
All of that to say, yes, states can legally ban unconstitutional CCW’s and every other unconstitutional federal act. It is the feds who are acting illegally. The states have the moral and legal high ground. But to do it right, the states must give notice and explain why the federal act is unconstitutional - in most cases, not too difficult.
Here’s the rub - what it always comes down to - money and economic dependency. The underlying issue with the states is becoming economically independent of the feds. Most state governors don’t want to go there unfortunately but its way past time. Our country was founded on the idea of freedom and INDEPENDENCE and the states need to get back to that. Again the states have the legal and moral high ground of the Constitution against illegal and unconstitutional federal acts.
Depending on the fed’s is the state’s downfall. If the fed says jump the state asks how high?
Bingo.
The states are stupid. The feds are bankrupt. Any state could become more financially healthy than the feds almost immediately especially if they stick to the rules of small, limited government and free market economics.
Whatever state did that would draw millions who, given the chance, will always vote with their feet for freedom over tyranny.
I think most if not all states constitutions mandate they have a balanced budget. I guess part of that budget includes federal funds.
That is a sad excuse for acquiescing to tyranny.
bkmk
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.