Posted on 06/09/2016 1:35:31 PM PDT by Innovative
A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that there is no Second Amendment protection for concealed weapons -- allowing states to prohibit or restrict the public from carrying concealed firearms.
The en banc opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could set up a new showdown on gun rights at the Supreme Court.
At issue was California's law on concealed weapons, which requires citizens to prove they have "good cause" to carry concealed firearms to get a license.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I live in Maine. We have Constitutional Carry; no permit necessary to carry a concealed weapon on your person or in your vehicle.
The same law last year that gave us Constitutional Carry also made switch blades legal as well.
We also have Open Carry.
I agree with the final dissent (by Judge Smith - there were several dissenting opinions) that the case should have been sent back to the trial court for a full trial on the issue. The problem with resolving it now is that the California legislature did not not formally enact a ban on open carry until after the San Diego federal district court in this case had issued its ruling. That means there still isn't a final trial court ruling on the concealed vs. open carry issue, and that is necessary for a final appellate ruling.
I.e., the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals predictably found another way to delay a final US Supreme Court ruling on a Constitutional right to concealed carry.
Dred Scott vs Sanford.
What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased,
singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
So ruled John Taney. No mention of concealed weapons.
keep and bear....nothing re: (non)concealed. Choice of the owner on HOW to utilize their Right(s). Let alone one that shall not be infringed.
Great books!!
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.