Posted on 05/17/2011 5:39:17 PM PDT by marktwain
This morning’s Seattle Times – the newspaper that significantly overlooked one of the biggest local stories of 2010, that being the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation’s landmark Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago – reports that a federal judge in California has ruled there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun in public.
Plaintiffs in the case will appeal that ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
The Associated Press report from Sacramento, CA has been picked up by a considerable number of newspapers and is also being discussed today on various gun rights forums. Among them is the Open Carry forum, in which one correspondent notes that if concealed carry is out as an option for keeping and bearing arms, that leaves only one option.
(T)he Second Amendment ‘does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public.’—Federal Judge Morrison England Jr.
In his Monday ruling, U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr., a 2002 George W. Bush appointee, wrote that the Second Amendment “does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public.”
Technically, the judge is correct. The Second Amendment does not “create” anything, as any objective constitutional scholar would attest. Nor does the amendment “grant” a right.
The amendment was written to affirm and protect a right that already existed; that is, the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not invent that, nor did its author, James Madison, after whom SAF’s headquarters building in Bellevue is named.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
If my CCL license were voided by judicial action like the 9th is doing in CA, then open carry would be an option.
I would wager that most politicians would rather have people concealed carry than open carry. Most liberals and politicians are frightened at the sight or thought of a firearm.
To have thousands of people openly carrying would make them (wrongly) feel so threatened.
Most I know would rather adopt a “don't see and pretend it isn't there” policy when it comes to firearms.
Notice who appointed this gun grabbing jerk, “W”.
“W,” he gave us much more than Obama!
Morrison C. England Jr.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Morrison Cohen England Jr. (born 1954) is a United States federal judge.
Born in St. Louis, Missouri, England received a B.A. from the University of the Pacific in 1977 and a J.D. from University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in 1983. U.S. Army Reserve, 1988–present. He was in private practice in California from 1983 to 1996. He was a judge on the Sacramento Superior Court for the State of California from 1996 to 2002.
England was a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. England was nominated by President George W. Bush on March 21, 2002, to a seat vacated by Lawrence K. Karlton. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 1, 2002, and received his commission on August 2, 2002.
SO a Kalifornia based judge IGNORED the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings???? And the NEWS part of the story is......
The problem is that California seems bent on banning both open carry and concealed carry. In any case, I would not think that the "may issue" law would stand, as it leaves your rights open to discretion and abuse by the powers that be. He upheld "may issue" as well.
Common denominator is that many police agencies are unionized, in fact some actually belong to the Teamsters.
So, it’s a case of being A) a Democrat, union member and B) job security.
Why?
Most states with conceal carry laws have lower crime rates than states where it is prohibited.
Less crime = less union jobs for GED educated police officers.
Anti-2nd Amendment = more crime and job security.
Learn More About The Teamster Legal Defense Fund
Through the Teamsters Law Enforcement League, police, sheriff’s deputies and others who are engaged in safeguarding the public know they have the support of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-law-enforcement-league
Walden, N.Y., Police Officers Vote to Join Union
http://www.teamster.org/content/walden-ny-police-officers-vote-join-union
On that question, there is precedent swinging both ways, at the time. Nunn v. State affirmed a power of the state to ban concealment, Bliss vs. The Commonwealth goes the other way and holds that states may not ban concealed carry.
-- The problem is that California seems bent on banning both open carry and concealed carry. --
They have an easy out, even if it is only temporary (probably buys a decade, given the hostility of the courts to the RKBA). Regulate both on a may issue basis, and see what happens.
-- I would not think that the "may issue" law would stand, as it leaves your rights open to discretion and abuse by the powers that be. --
The argument would be that this is no different from enforcing any other law (say speeding) which is open to discretion and abuse.
I think the ban on felons in possession is a modern development. Of course, felons in jail were disarmed, but upon release their RKBA was unaffected.
Do you have a primary cite for the proposition that stripping (ex) felons of the RKBA is a longstanding practice? I don't believe Scalia's assertions about the gravamen of gun cases, the primary cites too often diverge from what he says they say.
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.