Posted on 06/09/2016 11:02:03 AM PDT by CedarDave
Edited on 06/09/2016 11:42:22 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home. By a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a California law that requires gun owners to show a good reason before they can get a license to carry a concealed handgun. The protection of the Second Amendment  whatever the scope of that protection may be  simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The court declined to say whether the Constitution protects openly carrying a gun in public. It said that question was not at issue in the case.
But still, the court did not rule that concealed carry is illegal, only that it is not required. Correct?
Fairyland......
According to historian Saul Cornell, states passed some of the first gun control laws, beginning with Kentucky's law to "curb the practice of carrying concealed weapons in 1813." There was opposition and, as a result, the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment began and grew in direct response to these early gun control laws, in keeping with this new "pervasive spirit of individualism." As noted by Cornell, "Ironically, the first gun control movement helped give birth to the first self-conscious gun rights ideology built around a constitutional right of individual self-defense.
In a sane world, onerous discretionary gun permits would be for felons on probation. The rest of us have the full rights and responsibilities of the 2A.
The way the 2nd amendment works (or should work), the right to keep and bear arms automatically allows concealed carry (subject to certain common-sense checks, not a felon or insane for example). What California did, and the Federal court concurred in, is that you have to prove you have a need to carry and the decision is completely up to the local sheriff. It's as if the you were arrested for a crime and instead of the presumption of innocence, you were already presumed guilty until you prove your innocence. The court has turned the 2nd amendment on its head.
Not with the current 4-4 Supreme court (if no agreement, the 9th appeals court decision stands) and certainly not if Hillary is elected and appoints one or more new justices. The Heller decision that affirmed the individual right of citizens to keep and bear arms was a 5-4 decision and a Obama/Hillary court court easily ignore precedent overturn it.
Will mean nothing in Washington State, which also has open carry.
http://q13fox.com/2016/06/09/court-people-have-no-right-to-carry-concealed-weapons-in-public/
The Ninth Circuit strikes again...
I wish Justice Scalia were around to set them right.
I read that Arizona wants to get out of the Ninth Circuit.
You'd better believe it.
Aim small, miss small...
Well, they coach it all in legalize thinking we are too stupid to realize they just made it up.
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.