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.
I have never seen someone with a gun on their belt, other than a police officer or security guard.
If it’s on your person, you are “bearing arms”, concealed, or not. That IS Constitutional!
So, what about this ruling could be applied to other constitutional rights? How about invented rights?
A state law requiring the gaining of permission with ‘good reason’ from the local sheriff before an abortion can be obtained? That seems to be acceptable under this logic.
Wonder if there is a jurisdiction within the 9th circuit which would like to create such a law and then cite this ruling as the justification for it? Wouldn't that make for some magnificent fireworks.
"CONGRESS shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech."
The Constitution and the first ten amendments are pointed AGAINST the central government.
It is up to the people of each state to locally rule their states accordingly, but the first ten amendments are aimed directly at the feds and only the feds.
That’s the “bear” part of RKBA that the 9th has declared essentially unconstitutional. Consider how this will all work out when the USSC has a 6-3 Communist majority. It won’t be 5-4 when a new Communist is appointed because Roberts will go wholly over to the Left.
Just a coincidence that this ruling came out *after* Scalia died.
It has been hanging in 9th circuit for over a year after hearing oral arguments.
Scalia dies... and they make a ruling.
Not allowing concealed is an infringement of the RKBA which “shall not be infringed.” But then, so is a permit if needed to carry concealed.
Wooo Hoooo!
This is the lefts plan. To let this go before an 8 Justice SCOTUS and have a 4 vs 4 ruling, in which case the 9ths ruling stands.
So, a state can say no free speech, no guns, no protection against search, etc.? Thus, the Bill of Rights regards the Congress only and each state can do whatever they please?
Oh, really? Well let’s review the 2nd:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The 2nd doesn’t address how or where you bear arms so show me where concealed is illegal. If someone wants to keep and bear arms on his head, in his man purse or up his backside he can because it clearly states he can keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. The 9th Circus is doing the infringing.
Other places vary... hiking in Alaska, everyone. Other cities, virtually never.
As you read the First amendment, the first ten amendments are pointed at CONGRESS (the central government). Generally, the body of the Constitution creates and LIMITS the central government. There are a few state limitations in the body of the Constitution but NOT in the first ten amendments.
Outside the Constitution, states are sovereign. States are constitutionally required to have a REPUBLICAN (representative) form of government. Art IV, Sec 4. Beyond that, it is up to YOU and your fellow state citizens to ensure the state is run properly by the representatives YOU elect - OR by DIRECT propositions and initiatives to change state law.
Local government. That is what individual and political freedom is all about. And oh, BTW, it is not the states but the feds who threaten your Life, Liberty, and Free Pursuits.
Perhaps an historical summary, as I understand it, is in order.
Prior to Marbury v. Madison, it was unclear just how the federal government would be constrained within the limits of the Constitution. This decision from the early 1800s established that the Supreme Court has the last word on what the Constitution means; including specifically whether any action or inaction of the government is legally enforceable.
The Bill of Rights was understood for almost half of our history to be a check on federal government only, with little or no restriction on state action.
After the Civil War (the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery), the Fourteenth Amendment was passed which guaranteed citizenship for everyone born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. It also guarantees to such persons "due process" of law (and some other things that have basically been ignored).
"Due process" has been taken to include the protection of rights many of which were enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court invented a process called "incorporation" which has allowed it to dictate that certain clauses of the Bill of Rights protect people from action by the States.
The 2008 Heller decision established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep arms in one's home for purposes of self-defense and that the federal government may not infringe that right.
The 2010 McDonald decision further established, using the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the Heller decision also applies to the states.
This means that, at least since 2010, the state of New Jersey has been acting in opposition to the McDonald decision. Your day is coming as is mine; but it is coming very slowly. The death of Scalia will delay the coming of that day.
I don’t have time to pursue this discussion now but I disagree. As a practical matter, we’ve always expected our states and local governments to follow the Constitution. I understand the fine point you are making but I think this is academic.
As I point out in another posting, this was true up until the Fourteenth Amendment and the invention by the Supreme Court of "incorporation".
The so-called “incorporation doctrine” has been tried and found wanting - it is a counterfeit doctrine, as Judge Bork said, and must be rejected as utterly unconstitutional.
Despite their best efforts, our Founders erred in their wording of the Second Amendment. Setting aside the confusion caused by the "Militia clause", the Founders inadvertantly referred to a pre-existing "right to keep and bear arms".
This opened up the possibility of intrepeting what the extent of that pre-existing right might be.
Better would have been if the Founders had simply said, "The people shall be free to arm themselves without interference by anyone." This would eliminate any discussion of where, when, why, how, etc.
She wants Austrailian like confiscations.
She wants gun makers sued for manufacturing a dangerous weapon.
She wants unaffordable taxation on guns and ammo.
She will require registration and personal insurance for gun owners, as well as riders on home insurance policies.
Your medical premiums will be increased if you have a firearm in the house. Especially if you have children.
You will be forced to maintain your firearms per regulations described by The BATFE. You will require an inspection stamp from the agency to prove compliance.
They will require all firearms have smart gun technology.
See where this goes? They don’t have to fire a shot.
“I have never seen someone with a gun on their belt, other than a police officer or security guard.”
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.