Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ninth Circuit Court: No Second Amendment Right to Conceal a Firearm
PJ Media ^ | June 9, 2016 | Liz Sheld

Posted on 06/09/2016 8:54:06 AM PDT by jazusamo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: jazusamo

More ammo to hit liberal Hitlery with! GO TRUMP GO!


21 posted on 06/09/2016 9:08:08 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Okay, so I cannot carry CONCEALED, but does that mean I can or cannot carry OPEN. Seems the logic of this is that right to conceal can be regulated—which is debateable—then what of right to open carry?


22 posted on 06/09/2016 9:11:44 AM PDT by Reno89519 (Like herpes, Cruz can always flare up again. Treat with Trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

That would be my take as well. Open carry cannot be regulated (or is generally okay), but concealed may be limited. Court opens up can of worms and raises more questions than answers.


23 posted on 06/09/2016 9:12:54 AM PDT by Reno89519 (Like herpes, Cruz can always flare up again. Treat with Trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
The most glaring error in the Ninth Circus decision is the notion that the Court must await a Supreme Court decision regarding open carry before making a judgement in their own court.

All of these judges took an oath to uphold the Constitution, without any reference at all in the oath to the Supreme Court. They are certainly bound by the Supreme Court, but the power they exercise is to decide cases before them according to the Constitution.

The clue in all this is the fact that the Supreme Court itself never claims to have arbitrary power to decide matters before it. They are constrained to follow the law as constrained by the Constitution.

The Ninth Circus is similarly constrained and has a duty to decide matters consistent with the Constitution and upon which the Supreme Court has been silent.

Many have ridiculed Nichols for his open-carry case before the Ninth Circuit. I could never understand that and invite those reading this post to update me on the status of Nichols' case. I think Nichols should have the right to completely bypass the Ninth Circuit based on their claims in Peruta that they must await a Supreme Court decision on open-carry.

24 posted on 06/09/2016 9:14:15 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

You unquestionably have the right to bear arms. Conditions not specified, therefore should not be restricted by law.

FU9CC


25 posted on 06/09/2016 9:14:19 AM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

To everyone: Elections have consequences.


26 posted on 06/09/2016 9:14:22 AM PDT by HOYA97 (twitter @hoya97)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

NO, this is NOT a state rights issue!!! The constitution says it shall not be infringed. That is very clear. Otherwise, each state will do as they are and limit our rights. Why should my constitutional rights be less or gone if I step into California from Nevada, or visit DC?


27 posted on 06/09/2016 9:14:55 AM PDT by Reno89519 (Like herpes, Cruz can always flare up again. Treat with Trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Bump!


28 posted on 06/09/2016 9:17:46 AM PDT by jazusamo (Have YOU Donated to Free Republic? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

” no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

Right, and there is no 2nd Amendment right to prohibit members of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public.

Goes both ways


29 posted on 06/09/2016 9:18:13 AM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

There is not one word in the Constitution about “concealed” or “unconcealed”...In other words, either one is permissible under the Constitution....


30 posted on 06/09/2016 9:18:27 AM PDT by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
And if the election doesn’t go right (and maybe even if it does), this will result in a 4 - 4 decision in SCOTUS, as currently comprised. Disaster in the making.

Exactly right.

The 2dA does not confer any right and ruling that a right can be denied because it isn't found in the 2d is plainly incorrect.

What the 2d does do is expressly and clearly prohibit the type of government behavior this court has just displayed.

All of which, as you indicate, the leftists among us will be happy to ignore.

31 posted on 06/09/2016 9:20:03 AM PDT by frog in a pot (Cesar Chavez: "La Raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it…”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519
Reno89519 said: "The constitution says it shall not be infringed."

Unfortunately for your position, it has been long established that the Bill of Rights was intended as a constraint on the U.S. government which was established by the Constitution being adopted.

It is the Fourteenth Amendment which has been interpreted to allow many provisions of the Bill of Rights to be applied against the States. The Supreme Court has only piece-meal applied various clauses of the Bill of Rights to the States and only in the 2010 McDonald decision did it apply the Second Amendment to the States.

While I agree that concealed-carry is protected by the Second Amendment, there is substantial evidence that supports the notion of excluding it.

From a practical viewpoint, it won't matter. If open-carry is protected, the nervous-nelly liberals will insist that people be allowed to conceal.

32 posted on 06/09/2016 9:20:48 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
The communists left still have control of America little by little. Starts with places like the 9th Circuit Court and local cities. America is a dictatorship by being controlled by things like this.
33 posted on 06/09/2016 9:25:03 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Just curious... and serious question.

How is it that the 2nd Amendment can fall under and be impacted and legislated against via the 10th Amendment (state’s rights)??

I’m (unfortunately) in NJ and the 10th Amendment is what is giving the lawmakers in this state and others the ability to legislate my gun rights away.

Has anyone ever used this argument in a valid challenge, in either state or federal courts??


34 posted on 06/09/2016 9:25:04 AM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012 (q15.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

If Hillary gets elected you can kiss your rights goodbye. There wont be a 2nd Amendment friendly SCOTUS for decades.


35 posted on 06/09/2016 9:27:33 AM PDT by PJammers (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJammers

There is no such thing as “kissing my second amendment rights goodbye”.


36 posted on 06/09/2016 9:28:47 AM PDT by The Toll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

I agree. Cannot have both. Concealed carry might get strings attached—fine, maybe, and within limits—but what does this say about open carry? 2nd Amendment is not specific about both. We allow rules on one, hard to argue rules on 2nd. And who makes rules when constitution says “shall not be infringed”? It does not say feds, states, counties, or cities have exception.


37 posted on 06/09/2016 9:29:56 AM PDT by Reno89519 (Like herpes, Cruz can always flare up again. Treat with Trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: castlegreyskull

Historically, open carry was presumed a right, and concealed carry considered presumptive evidence of criminal intent.


38 posted on 06/09/2016 9:31:31 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ("Get the he11 out of my way!" - John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ObozoMustGo2012; William Tell

Maybe William Tell can answer your question at post 34.


39 posted on 06/09/2016 9:33:52 AM PDT by jazusamo (Have YOU Donated to Free Republic? https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“because the way I see it, the government doesn’t have the legal authority to prohibit you from carrying concealed.”

No standing. The government, nor the LEO was harmed.

Plus that pesky Second amendment...

5.56mm


40 posted on 06/09/2016 9:35:55 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson