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 ...
.... That's the beauty of being an activist judge .... You don't have to worry about facts or the constitution .... You just have to follow your marching orders.
“It is clear that a judge’s political affiliation determines whether he thinks that people have a right to defend themselves.”
Cause and effect may be reversed. Perhaps the way that he thinks about people having a right to defend themselves provided guidance in determining the judge’s political affiliation.
Utterly demented, PC-motivated, Leftist decision.
It certainly will not stand on appeal.
Revolution now.
No FReepin' way! His book Sum of all Fears nailed the terrorist attack as coming from jihadis, but with the movie release just after 9/11 they changed the storyline to be Ruskies. Clancy knew things.
From FR's own Nachum's Obama's Dead Pool
list:
Tom Clancy Dies at 66; actual list of cause of death on his autopsy, cause of death unknown.; Ex-CIA Agent Claims Obama Killed Breitbart and Clancy- Dr. Garrow states President Obama had Tom Clancy killed as well and noted that it takes 5 days for plant toxins and most poisons to break down and leave no traces in the human body. Amazingly enough, or coincidentally, the doctors did not perform an autopsy on Tom Clancy’s body for 5 days. (story also linked here ) ; Did Tom Clancy, who died in October... predict Russia's move on Ukraine in his book "Command Authority?
Ninth Circuit Court decided this? Shouldn’t be any surprise I guess. Aren’t they the ones that have had more decisions overturned than any other Circuit Court?
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.