Posted on 06/10/2016 4:33:18 PM PDT by richardb72
Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 7-4 decision that Americans don’t have a right to carry concealed handguns for protection. Since California bans people from openly carrying guns, their decision amounted to prohibiting people from carrying guns at all (whether openly or concealed).
It is clear that a judge’s political affiliation determines whether he thinks that people have a right to defend themselves. Democratic judges are now moving to overturn recent Supreme Court decisions that struck down bans on guns.
Last year, about 0.24 percent of adult Californians had a concealed handgun permit. In the rest of the U.S., the rate was 24 times higher, for a rate of 5.8 percent.
In many parts of California, it is essentially impossible to get a permit. In San Francisco County, just four people (0.0005 percent of the adult population), got a permit in 2015. That is an improvement over 2012, when just two permits were granted — one of which was to the sheriff’s personal attorney.
Los Angeles has a slightly higher rate of 0.007 percent. But all of the permits went to judges, reserve deputies, and very wealthy donors to the Los Angeles Sheriff's campaign fund. Clearly, this isn’t the same thing as letting civilians defend themselves.
Police are probably the single most important factor in stopping crime. But police understand the simple fact that they virtually always arrive on a scene after the crime has already occurred. Police strongly support permitted concealed handguns not only for this reason but also because they know how important it is for their own safety. . . .
The majority in the 9th Circuit's ruling on Thursday made a sorry attempt to cite two economics papers, which they claim, show . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Only out of my cold dead hand.
Keep and BEAR ARMS, THERE IS YOUR CARRY.
George III ruled the same way. And tben what happened?
Lucille by Little Richard!
People still think Scalia died by accident - like Breitbart and that Jorno from Rolling Stone
The Ninth is a complete misrepresentation of a judiciary.
The Second Amendment places no limitations, restrictions, or prescriptions on the bearing of arms.
These “learned” left-coast jurists can go piss up a rope.
btrl
Bttt.
Concealed means concealed.
Screw ‘em
Yup
President Trump needs to work on getting the loony 9th split up soon after he’s sworn in.
And Tom Clancy, whose next book was apparently about a foreign born foreign agent being installed as President.
I would add Joan Rivers,
Her comments about Moochel.
Now it goes to the supreme court? I have lots of issues with Trump but I’m not about to let the SCOTUS get filled up by Hillary.
“President Trump needs to work on getting the loony 9th split up soon after he’s sworn in.”
Let me fix it for you:
President Trump needs to arrest the loony 9th and charge them with sedition.
Forget if you like or support Trump or not. This election is about preventing Clinton from appointing 2-3 SCOTUS justices over the next 4 years.
>The Second Amendment places no limitations, restrictions, or prescriptions on the bearing of arms.
SLIGHT correction. Yes, it does: upon those artificial entities w/out inalienable Rights....namely, GOVT.
Shall NOT be infringed. One cannot REGULATE that which CANNOT be infringed. Regulate != mean what (Left) thinks it means; else, it would negate itself.
Oh come on. Everybody knows it’s in the Constitution It’s right after the part about redistribution of wealth and before the part about abortion.
Seeeesch.
Don’t they teach anything in school any more?
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.