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.
More ammo to hit liberal Hitlery with! GO TRUMP GO!
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?
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.
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.
You unquestionably have the right to bear arms. Conditions not specified, therefore should not be restricted by law.
FU9CC
To everyone: Elections have consequences.
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?
Bump!
” 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
There is not one word in the Constitution about “concealed” or “unconcealed”...In other words, either one is permissible under the Constitution....
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.
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.
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??
If Hillary gets elected you can kiss your rights goodbye. There wont be a 2nd Amendment friendly SCOTUS for decades.
There is no such thing as “kissing my second amendment rights goodbye”.
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.
Historically, open carry was presumed a right, and concealed carry considered presumptive evidence of criminal intent.
Maybe William Tell can answer your question at post 34.
“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
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.