Guns

Federal Appeals Court: 'No Second Amendment Right for Members of the General Public to Carry Concealed Firearms in Public'

9th Circuit upholds gun control scheme.

|

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Second Amendment protects the right to armed self-defense. Does that right extend outside the home? Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public? In a divided opinion issued today, an 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit answered the second of those questions in the negative. "We conclude," the 9th Circuit held in Peruta v. San Diego, "that 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."

If the case name Peruta v. San Diego sounds familiar that's because the 9th Circuit has ruled on this matter once before. In February 2014 a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit struck down San Diego's requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued to those gun owners who can convince local authorities that they have a "good cause" for carrying guns in public. What exactly counts as a "good cause," you may wonder? According to San Diego officials, "one's personal safety is not considered good cause." That dubious standard led the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit to overrule the requirement. "In California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table," the court said.

The local sheriff who lost the case at that stage decided not to appeal. But the state of California petitioned for the right to intervene and file an appeal of its own. That petition was initially denied but then granted by the 9th Circuit. Today's judgment is the result of the state's late entry into the case.

To put it mildly, gun control enthusiasts in the California government got all they wanted and more. Not only did the 9th Circuit overturn its previous decision and affirm the "good cause" requirement, it handed gun rights advocates a sweeping defeat. "Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public," the 9th Circuit majority declared today, "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" (emphasis added).

Writing in dissent, Judge Callahan, joined by three other 9th Circuit judges, blasted the majority for transforming the Second Amendment into a "second class" right. "In the context of present-day California law," Callahan observed, "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. While states may choose between different manners of bearing arms for self-defense, the right must be accommodated."

The 9th Circuit's decision today in Peruta v. San Diego is available here.

NEXT: U.K.'s Mass Surveillance Bill Slightly Less Awful Than What Could Have Been

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public,” the 9th Circuit majority declared today, “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” (emphasis added).

    There’s exactly as much right to carry concealed weapons as there is a right to abortion. Exactly as much.

    1. So…only during the first trimester?

    2. Works for me.

      So how about openly carrying firearms in public? Do I remember correctly that you can’t do that in CA either if the gun is loaded?

      1. Exactly. Open carry it is, then.

        1. Not a fan of open carry vs concealed carry. I’d rather the bad guys not know who to try to take out first.

          1. In this day and age, concealed makes sense. Though I’m not entirely sure open carry would make you more of a target to most bad guys. They seem to mostly like to avoid the possibility of armed people fighting back.

            But the original intent argument can be made that the constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to carry concealed. I believe that many places forbade concealed carry back then, but open carry was perfectly normal and acceptable.

            1. There is an argument that open carry protects the carrier, whereas concealed carry protects everyone.

              1. And I am very much in favor of concealed carry with no permit requirement.

            2. Your second paragraph is essentially the majority’s contention. Basically, a right to bear arms does not imply a right to do so concealed. And there’s a huge body of law to support that. Of course, it’s all pre-Heller….

              The dissent argues that, combined with CA’s law prohibiting open carry, the prohibition against concealed carry represents a total ban on the right to bear arms. Generally, state law preempts county law (the concealed carry law was a San Diego County law) and thus the county law prohibiting concealed carry would have to go in the face of CA’s ban of open carry.

              It seems pretty clear that the combination of CA and San Diego County laws are a violation of 2nd Amendment protections. That’s the problem. It gives anti-2nd judges an excuse to rule in favor of government restrictions at either level and say they don’t have to concern themselves with the other level.

              1. I agree completely. I’m just saying the argument that the constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to concealed carry in public isn’t complete bullshit.

                1. I agree with you completely. There is no 2nd Amendment right to concealed carry. But there has to be some right to carry to satisfy the “bear” part of the 2nd Amendment. And the majority just ignored that.

                  Remember that the lawyers bringing these cases forward are very smart and very patient. I expect a simultaneous certiorari petition to SCOTUS and a lawsuit naming both SD County and CA as defendants on the open carry law. Should happen soon. Then the 9th Circuit has to address the real issue.

                  1. Maybe John is right and agreeing while continuing to argue is a new thing.

                  2. Yes, and then if the SC denies cert as it has already done – when Scalia was alive – the similar NJ ban then the 2A applies only in the home.

                    1. I store my arms in my home. I only beat them outside of the home.

                    2. Bear …. God damn spell checker.

              2. Well, Heller also doesn’t mention concealed carry; it affirms a right to keep and bear arms in the home, only. (Because that was the question before it, and the Court doesn’t answer questions not before it.)

                The Right to Keep and Bear Arms does not, indeed, specify “concealed carry”.

                Which is why the previous decision in Peruta (an appeals court, I believe) said “you can’t ban both concealed and open carry at once”, because otherwise you’re infringing on bearing arms, which – post Heller – is actually not allowed.

                (In other words, “yep, you’re both correct here”.)

                1. Haha. Yep. I read the opinion, concurrence, and dissent quickly. And that’s what it all boils down to. The majority does not want to make broad new law (establishing a right to carry outside the home). The dissent argues that some form of carry is mandated by Heller (in spirit, if not letter). Sadly, I think the majority is right here. And unfortunately one of the original Heller cast is now dead.

              3. Basically, a right to bear arms does not imply a right to do so concealed.

                A right to freedom of speech doesn’t imply a right to speak freely over the Internet. Or maybe it does, unless the Constitution specifically said otherwise. I thought we were opposed to this ‘The Constitution doesn’t specifically say you have the right to do X, so you don’t.’ logic?

      2. Don’t know the details in CA, but in a lot of places it’s de facto illegal. Here in Washington, open carry is perfectly legal, but if someone complains– anyone– that can be interpreted as ‘causing public alarm’ and you can be forcibly removed by cops.

        In Seattle if you attempted to open carry, there’s a decent chance you’ll be killed by a cop and an almost certain chance you’ll be arrested, stopped or harassed. So open carry is a no-go, despite it’s black-letter legal status.

        1. Open carry was allowed in CA until 2011. It is no longer allowed.

      3. Honest question, not a goad: If I legally purchase a gun, and have it in my car in the process of taking it home, in its box or whatever packaging it came in, making no stops along the way, is that “open” or “concealed”.

        I understand the game is rigged, but I’m trying to figure out where the edges are.

        1. Most states have explicit laws about transport of firearms. In states where you have conceal carry, if you don’t have a license, you MUST carry the firearm in a closed or locked box, unloaded, with ammunition in a separate container.

          1. In KY you can carry a gun in a container or compartment that is part of the original equipment of the car. No CCW required. Loaded or unloaded.

            1. Yeah, in FL there are multiple valid reasons for ‘transporting’ a firearm. Like bringing it home after purchase, going to or from any sort of shooting activity, etc.

              The only requirement is that the gun not be on your person and be ‘securely encased.’ This could mean the glove box, or even in a holster on the seat right next to you – so long as the holster had some sort of snap or fastener holding it closed.

              Practically speaking it means that pretty much anyone can carry a pistol just about anywhere other than on their body. For that you will need a valid CCW, and in Florida the weapon must be concealed.

        2. I would think it would depend on your state’s definitions regarding “concealed”, “access”, “travel”, etc. State penal codes tend to define terms euphemisms so you get the idea of what they will let you get by with.

          If you are wanting a good “rule of thumb”, I would offer up keeping it in a locked/lockable container (i.e trunk) until you get home*.

          *I hate even offering that up, because it shouldn’t be the case.

          1. And if you’re in a particularly anti-gun area (like the Bay Area), I’d keep the locked case inside of a nondescript black bag that doesn’t scream “I have a gun”. I’m sure some left coaster will gladly call the cops at the hint of a firearm.

        3. In California, they’re working on setting the edge at ‘legally purchase’.

        4. It probably varies by state. Where I am you aren’t supposed to have a loaded gun in a vehicle if you don’t have a carry permit. But if it is unloaded and out of reach or effectively inoperable, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t count as concealed carry.
          If you traveled a few miles south to Mass. you’d be fucked if you didn’t have a license and you were caught with a gun in the car.

          1. If you traveled a few miles south to Mass. you’d be fucked if you didn’t have a Massachusetts license and you were caught with a gun in the car.

        5. If it’s in a box or case, stored separately from the ammunition, then you’re transporting it in accordance with pretty much every firearm regulation out there (I think, who knows what insanity resides in gun-grabber districts).

        6. In Pennsylvania, transporting a gun in a car normally requires a license to carry, which also grants the ability to carry concealed. There are exceptions, however, one of which is transporting a gun directly from a gun store to your house, and vice versa.

        7. OK. I’m just trying to figure out, since apparently Heller does admit of a right to protect one’s self and family at home, how you get the thing there legally.

        8. If it’s not on your person or easily accessible it’s not “carried”, in every jurisdiction I’m familiar with (note that this is not dispositive for the entire country*!).

          If it’s in a locked container, I believe it’s not “carried” in any State*.

          (Also true everywhere or almost everywhere* if it’s in a trunk or otherwise not accessible to you in any way.)

          * In a sane world I wouldn’t need an asterisk, but gun laws are insanely counter-intuitive some places, so check your local laws before depending on that.

          1. (See above re. Penn., etc.

            “Why, you need a license to carry to go to a gun range, because reasons!”)

          2. In a sane world, there would be a recognition of a rather basic right to defend one’s self, family and home. In an even more sane world, such right would extend to property also. Note that I say “defend”, thinking of the NAP.

            This ain’t that world, I know. The people republic of MA is definitely not that world.

      4. No, you can’t carry openly AT ALL. So carry outside the home is dead in CA, unless you are in your car – and then it has to be unloaded and the ammo stored separately.

    3. Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.

      Don’t like guns? Don’t get one.

      1. Just life how the left is soooo against guns because they kill people, but soooo for abortion because it umm ahh kills people…

  2. Actually, it still amazes me (though it shouldn’t) that as a matter of Consitutional law, “an emanation of a penumbra” trumps “shall not be infringed”.

    1. And somehow the second amendment doesn’t cast any penumbras or produce any emanations.

  3. I’m just hearing one of those long, sliding trombone sounds in my head

    1. I’m starting a petition to make that the new national anthem.

      1. You can always count on the 9th circuit to issue the least liberty minded opinions…

  4. “We conclude that 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.”

    “Members of the general public”? As opposed to designated elite that “need” protection — whatever that may be?

    1. It’s the same thing in NJ. It’s called “justifiable need”. You can get kidnapped, transported in a car trunk across state lines by an organized gang, and even that doesn’t qualify for “justifiable need”.

      The SCOTUS was supposed to hear a case regarding NJ “justifiable need” a couple of years ago, after Heller and such, and it declined to hear the case. So although this kind of issue was brought to the SCOTUS, there’s a good chance they’ll not hear the case coming from CA.

      We are all fucked. Imagine if Hillary gets elected? Guaranteed gun registration and confiscation.

      1. When I lived in CO they had the same rule. I believe it has changed since then. The only person I knew with a permit was a business owner who made large deposits at night, and even then they had a difficult time getting the permit. They had to do some serious ass kissing at the police department, and it was made very clear that the permit hinged upon their continual ass kissing. By ass kissing I mean cops would come into the restaurant, order whatever they wanted, and were not expected to pay or tip.

        1. That’s what “good cause” means – paying off the right people, or having the right friends.

          1. Incidentally, all of those people carry guns….

      2. “Guaranteed gun registration and confiscation.”

        On confiscation…..I doubt you could convince 10% of LEOs to act on any “confiscation” and the Unions will squash even that.

        On registration…..If it didn’t work in Connecticut, its not gonna work in the 42 states that lean more conservative

        1. Yeah, registration is not going to happen. Some states might try, but good fucking luck with that.

      3. I live in New Jersey. By definition, I have a “justifiable need”.

  5. Fuck California. Fuck California in the ass.

    Wait, it might like that.

    1. California seems to like it. A lot. Repeatedly.

    2. I eagerly await the coming of Arizona Bay.

      1. Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
        Fuck all his clones.
        Fuck all these gun-toting
        Hip gangster wannabes.

        Learn to swim.

        Fuck retro anything.
        Fuck your tattoos.
        Fuck all you junkies and
        Fuck your short memory.

        Learn to swim.

        Fuck smiley glad-hands
        With hidden agendas.
        Fuck these dysfunctional,
        Insecure actresses.

        1. +1 Wanna watch it all go down

          1. Flush it all away

          2. Flush it all away

          3. I know what I’m going to listen to when I get home. Since I posted that lyric, I have the drums from that song playing in my head.

          1. Now I like him even more.

    3. What you want to do is cut a new hole in CA and then fuck that.

  6. Boy, I sure can’t wait until Hillary! gets to put a few justices on the Supreme Court to start cranking out rulings like this one.

    Start practicing that kneeling, peasants.

    1. If Hillary died in a fire, I would only be upset because I wouldn’t be there to taunt her as she struggled and burnt to death.

      I would definitely bring marshmallows for that one.

      1. Like you, I would be so happy I’d even refrain from drinking any beer while watching just so I wouldn’t accidentally have to take a piss and put out any of the fire.

    2. I sure can’t wait until Hillary! gets to put a few justices on the Supreme Court to start cranking out rulings like this one.

      YOU CANT BE SURE TRUMP WONT DO THE SAME SO SHUT UP

      /seriously some people say this

      1. Are we talking about pro-gun Trump or anti-gun Trump? I can hardly keep up with all of the changes in position.

        1. which ones specifically?
          http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel…..ontrol.htm

  7. Because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public

    The Supreme Court already ruled that the main purpose of the second amendment is self-defense, and as such rules that prevented their use for such are unconstitutional. If you can’t carry your weapon, you can’t use it anymore than if it’s disassembled in a lock box.

    But you can argue until you are blue in the face. These hacks aren’t acting in good faith, and just throwing shit at the wall until a left leaning Supreme Court lets it stick overturning Heller and McDonald. Just like DC. They will simply tweak their laws slightly and force citizens to litigate for their rights endlessly until that goal is accomplished.

    1. But you can argue until you are blue in the face. These hacks aren’t acting in good faith

      Bingo. The Left doesn’t argue, it rationalizes its power. It makes shit up. Particularly when it comes to the law. “Living Constitution” means “we make shit up as we please, and you’ll take it and like it”. You can follow the rules. But they won’t.

      Rule of Law is just not an option.

      One way cease fire is surrender.
      One way rule of law is subjection.

      Fight back *in kind*, or submit. Pick one.

  8. “The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the Second Amendment protects the right to armed self-defense. Does that right extend outside the home? Does it cover the right to carry concealed firearms in public?”

    Does the First Amendment protect our rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in public?

    Or are we only allowed to exercise those rights in the home?

    1. It seems we’re only allowed to exercise those rights when there’s no one else around who might be offended.

    2. If you’re a Christian you can only worship in a church with locked doors and boarded-up windows. Until the local ninnies complain about the cross on the roof casting a ghastly shadow over their separation of church and (police) state.

    3. Neither the text of the 2nd Amendment or the very long history (albeit, all pre-Heller) of gun restrictions under British and U.S. common law establish a right to concealed carry. It’s pretty obvious that there is a definite right to carry of some type. But the majority didn’t answer that question here, and punked out on just answering the concealed carry question. It’s not a terrible opinion. And I say that as a gun owner and a strong supporter of gun rights.

      1. Neither the text of the 2nd Amendment or the very long history (albeit, all pre-Heller) of gun restrictions under British and U.S. common law establish a right to concealed carry.

        I’m going to need a list of laws outlawing concealed carry, or cases saying that carry concealed is unlawful regardless of statute, before I can go along with this statement.

        Do you have a link to something that might support this?

        1. Read the majority opinion or any of the law review articles by very pro-gun legal scholars (Eugene Volokh and David Kopel) they cite.

      2. You’re right.

        Heller established as dicta that people must be allowed to bear arms for defensive purposes.

        (Technically decided only for home bearing of arms, because that was the issue under question, but the logic cannot be separated from allowing some form of carry out of the home, either.)

        It did not specify that they must be allowed to carry specifically concealed.

        1. Is this only dicta? Was it in a concurrence or something? My memory of the case is fading.

          1. Dicta, the law challenged pertained only to guns in the home.

      3. You realize the Bill of Rights is a restriction on the government and not a restriction on the people, right? Saying, “Well, it’s not expressly said in this text” is not a defense for taking rights away.

        Just because something isn’t expressly spelled out in the amendment doesn’t mean it’s not a right. Our rights are given to us by nature and/or a creator, not by man.

        Our founders understood this, which is why they put these restrictions on the government. It drives me crazy when people use those same restrictions to show supposed restrictions on the people.

        1. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say you can wear a blue shirt. Therefore, the law against blue shirts is constitutional, because there’s so many other colors of shirts you could wear for “expression.”

          That’s literally the same argument as saying the Second Amendment doesn’t allow for concealed carry, therefor concealed carry is illegal.

          1. Yeah, people seem to conflate “constitution” and “law”, without understanding the extremely simple concept behind the two.

            The people create a government by writing a constitution that explicitly names the things that government is allowed to do. One of those things is creating and enforcing laws within a pre-defined scope, which explicitly lays out what the people are not allowed to do.

            It’s odd that most people just don’t intuitively grasp this and what it implies.

    4. The left is entirely on board for restricting freedom of religion in the public square and heading that way for free speech.

    5. Or are we only allowed to exercise those rights in the home?

      According to those who want to reverse Citizen’s United, yes. 100% yes.

  9. Is there any difference between this:

    “We conclude that 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.”

    and this:

    “We conclude that the right to bear arms does not mean that citizens may bear arms that are not clearly visible, and that prohibiting a citizen from bearing arms that are not clearly visible is not an infringement on the right to bear arms.”

    And is there any doubt that four of the current Justices would agree whole-heartedly with this savage butchery of the English language and the Constitution?

    1. The right to keep and bear arms is … well, it’s a right to keep (have) and bear (carry with you) arms.

      It is not incompatible with, logically, a prohibition on carrying those arms in certain ways, so long as the remaining ways are sufficiently broad and available to not count as being infringing.

      (I agree that the best spirit of the Second Amendment ought to demand concealed carry, as well as the repeal of the GCA and NFA, but nobody’s asking me, and we ain’t getting those last two, not that way.

      But the letter of the law, and arguably practice at the time of enactment, suggests no clear, obvious requirement that the carry mandate allow concealment.)

  10. OT: Obama has officially endorsed Clinton.

    As if there were any doubt, there will be no indictment. Fuck the FBI and whether or not they find anything.

    1. Obama claims he isn’t following or interfering with the investigation. So, by endorsing her, he either is fine with the idea someone running for office who is being indicted on felony charges, or he’s full of shit on the first. Shame no one in our great media will ask him this.

    2. From AoS:

      Sean Davis asked a question on Twitter: Obama is Loretta Lynch’s boss. Loretta Lynch makes the decision whether or not to follow the FBI’s urging of an indictment against Hillary. But her boss just endorsed the target of the FBI’s investigation for President.

      In what world is this woman not beset by a fatal conflict of interest?

      1. Special prosecutors are for Republicans.

      2. If only it were a fatal conflict of interest.

    3. I believe if the FBI recommendations will leak out no matter what decision Loretta makes.

      But having said that, if any high ranking Republican or your average citizen had done what she has done then they would be in jail.

  11. The judges did their job, which is to defer to the legislature. Constitution shmonstitution.

    1. The real problem that needs to be stamped out, is that a vocal minority are allowed to hold an opinion that terrorizes the majority and that’s not ok!

    2. They actually did do their job. Like it or not, no court in the land has ever established a right to concealed carry (and over the 200+ history of the U.S. and under the British common law before that, it was always the exact opposite). To say that there is a right to concealed carry would be an enormous declaration of new law which would be subject to SCOTUS review. Appeals courts generally don’t like to make new law and risk getting slapped down by SCOTUS.

      1. Like it or not, no court in the land has ever established a right to concealed carry

        They don’t need to. Its in the Constitution.

      2. Oops. Clicked too soon.

        To say that there is a right to concealed carry would be an enormous declaration of new law

        The Second Amendment is over 200 years old. That’s not “new law”.

        1. Tell me where, in the 2nd, it talks about concealed carry.

          1. There is a very, very long line of legislation and court decisions (from up to 500 years before the USC and in the 200 years since) which almost universally declares there is no right to concealed carry. There have been a couple exceptions in narrow majorities in some states, but all of those decisions were overturned by amendments to the state constitutions. Very few courts have ever parsed the 2nd to conclude that there is a right to concealed carry because such words do not appear. And remember, common law carries a lot of weight in our court system.

          2. The same place in the constitution where it only talks about open carry.

            1. Sigh. The Constitution, and even the entire set of all laws enacted by the all legislatures, don’t nearly comprise all of our legal doctrine. We resolve questions of contracts and so many other things based on millennium-long principles of common law. Hell, SCOTUS only has the power of judicial review because of stuff that’s outside of the Constitution and legislated acts. These considerations are why even the most originalist of originalists care about questions of legislative intent when asking about constitutionality. Because most of our law isn’t in what’s been written and enacted by a lawmaking body. And anyone who disagrees with this notion will end up bashing their head against hundreds, if not thousands, of years of legal scholarship. Which is fine. Legal theorizing is great.

              1. James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

                1. Legal philosophizing aside, there’s also the part of the 2nd that you don’t mention, about militias. Just as the left pays too much attention to this, the right pays too little. What does it refer to? An emergency reserve of fighters/peacekeepers that may be called upon in times of emergency (insurrection, invasion, etc). See Article I, Section 8, Clause 15. In order to execute those purposes, they’d need to be armed. The prefacing clause in the 2nd has to be read in light of this (or at least, can be). And de facto soldiers carrying out lawful purposes don’t need to carry concealed. Again, context, legislative history, and the common law all matter just as much as the “plain meaning”.

                  1. The Dick Act of 1903 (?) clarifies “militia”.

                    Also, Constitutional rights, as has been pointed out before, are restrictions on the government, not the people.

                    Where in the First Amendment does it say that computer code is free speech? It doesn’t. But since it is created from the mind as an original work it is considered speech and is protected by the First Amendment. Rights are broadly interpreted in favor of the individual citizen, not the other way around.

                    In the late 1700s, pistols were not all that common, and were usually not used in military combat. So bearing an arm would be in plain sight. However, now that pistols are common, the court is compelled–in the same way it interpreted computer code as being protected by the First Amendment–to consider concealed carry as permissible under the Second Amendment’s “bear” clause.

                    Just because it’s not in there doesn’t mean it isn’t covered, and there is vastly more rulings that justify and compel the court for a broad interpretation in favor of the citizen over the government.

              2. Sigh. The Constitution, and even the entire set of all laws enacted by the all legislatures, don’t nearly comprise all of our legal doctrine.

                Then your first mistake was to demand an exact reference to the constitutional protection of conceal carry.

                It’s a fun parlour game, to be sure, but when people say “I don’t see any place in the constitution where it says [fill in the exact wording you’re arguing about]” they kind of open themselves up to obvious criticism.

                The framers more than likely didn’t mention the various ways and modes for the Transport of Armes more than likely because “keep and bear” seemed to be all that was required to be clear on the topic.

                I am bearing armes, yes it may be inside my coat, it may peek out from time to time, it might be black in color, or steel, or chromed, with pearl handles or without.

                I have a right to keep and bear arms. Anything which limits that right is an infringement.

          3. Tell me where in the First Amendment it allows you to speak in public outside of the home.

            Therefore, speaking outside the home is not a protected right.

          4. You’ve got it backward. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government, not the People. It doesn’t have to talk about concealed carry.

            1. Exactly this. I say it could be argued that the 9th amendment guarantees the mode of transport for arms which we keep and bear.

  12. Concealed carry laws are stupid, because the point of it being concealed is that other people can’t see it. It’s completely unenforceable. In order for concealed carry laws to have any effect on anything, we would have to enforce stop & frisk laws. I’m sure that would go over well with the anti-gun crowd, right?

    1. Until you use your weapon in a public place. At which point it becomes pretty obvious that you were breaking a concealed carry law.

    2. It’s completely unenforceable.

      It’s entirely enforceable. What do you think stop-and-frisk was, chopped liver?

    3. ‘m sure that would go over well with the anti-gun crowd, right?

      I answered too quickly, and yes, it would go fine with the anti-gun crowd.

    4. Concealed carry laws are stupid, because the point of it being concealed is that other people can’t see it.

      1. Not exactly. The definition of “concealed,” and the standard that used to apply* in Texas, is that the gun was concealed if “the average person” didn’t notice it. I’ve been teaching concealed carry for 20 years, so I’m not “average.” I’ve spotted many “concealed” handguns, either because they were printing through clothing or because the people had “tells” that showed me they were carrying. I presume most cops can spot the same things.

      2. The original “no concealed carry” laws, passed during reconstruction, weren’t about keeping most people from carrying, they were about keeping black people from carrying.

      * We can now open-carry as well as concealed carry.

      1. I presume most cops can spot the same things.

        Given the number of unarmed people the cops have shot, I’d argue not. So much not.

  13. “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” (emphasis added).

    That is exactly the same thing as “shall not be infringed”.

  14. “Libertarian moment.”

    1. Heh. Think Nick has enough urine to imbibe to cover this one?

    2. To be fair, it is the Ninth Circuit. The only “Libertarian Moment” you might get is on marijuana.

      1. I was sad to see Kozinski was not a member of this en banc review. For some reason, en banc in the 9th means “less than half of the judges”.

  15. That’s fine – they’re wrong, but that’s fine. There’s a right to carry and that right extends to carrying as I choose.

    But if you’re going to restrict the right to concealed carry then you simply can not put restrictions on the right to open carry. None. No licensing, no permissions. Open carry for all adults and permits for concealed is a *compromise* I could live with (for now – fight to remove CC restrictions later).

    1. Interestingly, that is the current scheme in PA. You are required to get a License to Carry if you want to carry concealed, but open carry can be done with out any license, permit, or any other paperwork of any kind.

    2. Sadly, SCOTUS has never established a right to carry outside the home. I agreed that it’s implicit in the text of the 2nd, but the courts have never said so. Not sure if this will get resolved favorably, given the change in SCOTUS lineup since Heller.

      1. How is the right to carry outside the home only implied by the statement that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”?

        That’s pretty fucking explicit, to me.

        1. I agree. SCOTUS hasn’t. Keep and bear arms outside the home all you’d like. It likely won’t end well. I thought you were a lawyer? Isn’t this sort of back and forth on what should be an easily resolved issue pretty familiar to you? Or am I confusing you with another commenter?

          1. Keep and bear arms outside the home all you’d like. It likely won’t end well.

            I do, daily.

            1. In San Diego County, I mean. If you’re lucky enough to live somewhere this isn’t an issue, well, it’s not an issue. 🙂

    3. But, open carry is de facto illegal in many jurisdictions, regardless of what’s on the books. “Disturbing the peace” or whatnot.

      1. That is true – but the people in those jurisdictions need to get together and get their police under control.

  16. Libertarian Moment.

    1. You can say that again.

  17. It’s pathetic that these tinpot dictators actually serve as a great example for supporting Trump in November. (Johnson won’t win and even if Trump sucks on SC picks, we already know the type of person who Clinton will appoint.)

    1. if Trump sucks on SC picks, we already know the type of person who Clinton will appoint.

      The principle can be generalized.

      Whatever you might *worry* that Trump might do, you are *sure* that Clinton will do it.

      1. Eh. I’m pretty sure that Clinton wouldn’t throw a temper tantrum with nuclear weapons as fucking commander in chief! I can’t say the same thing about Trump. Seriously, do the only remotely ethical thing and vote Johnson.

        1. So you think the Trump Troll is more likely than Hildog the war boner queen to do something stupid wrt foreign policy. She has a history and Trump has some months of trolling the DC establishment without actually laying out any specific positions.

          There is plenty not to like about the troll, your and Dalmia’s making up shit makes one question your intelligence.

  18. Skimmed the opinion and found this subheading in the dissent:

    “Given California’s Choice to Prohibit Open Carry, the Counties’ Policies of Not Allowing for Concealed Carry for Self-Defense are Unconstitutional”

    So there’s a state law against open-carry, and the counties won’t issue concealed-carry licenses for self-defense.

    In other words, California arbitrarily denies certain citizens in certain counties their right to bear arms for self-defense.

    Back in the day, in order to deny people their right to self-defense, the government had to pretend that the people in question were not citizens, or at least not *full* citizens.

    This is the rationale under which certain states disarmed their free black population – that even if free, a black person was not a citizen.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision cited the right to bear arms as a reason blacks were *not* citizens, because if they were, they would be able “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

    1. Good to know that the anti-gun zealots think like racists, segregationists, and slave owners.

    2. Then there was the Civil War, and the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed the citizenship of former slaves and said that the “privileges and immunities” of U.S. citizenship were federally-enforceable rights.

      One of Congress’s Enforcement Acts (popularly called the Ku Klux Klan Act) provided penalties for those who violated people’s constitutional rights. Some white people – who had been deputized by one of the sheriff’s candidates in a disputed Louisiana election – massacred black supporters of the opposing candidate (the Colfax massacre). These whites were convicted under the federal statute for violating, among other things, the black victims’ right to bear arms.

      The Supreme Court overturned the convictions, saying that the right to bear arms was *not* a privilege or immunity of U. S. citizenship.

      So Taney got the last laugh…

      or did he? Stay tuned…

    3. So, in certain counties, “bearing” arms is completely illegal, but the right to bear arms is not infringed.

      Ladies and gentlemen, your judicial system at work.

      1. This is why we no longer have a republic. There are defacto no criminal penalties for state agents murdering citizens. Castle Rock v. Gonzales says that state agents have not duty to protect themselves.
        Yeah, you can’t use the law of non-contradiction because the learned black dressed top man hasn’t “found” it.

        Open carry is unwise, though it is legal per 2A (the 2a you know, the one that restricts the govt… not me). Sooner or later this is going to be a millineal or a pants shitting soccor mom and call the state agents.

        And now you have this case which leaves to jurisdictions who want to push it the ability to negate 2A. If you can’t Conceal carry, and you can’t open carry, then you don’t have a 2A.

        You can’t protect yourself, and the state doesn’t have to protect you. That is fucking insane.

        Jesus, the constitution has disappeared. And what do lawyers do while rome is burning. Parse dicta……./facepalm.

        1. Excuse me, I fucked up in that second sentence… castle rock stand for the state has no duty to protect you from violence.

          I don’t know what we have here. Hillary has blatently, openly violated the law and still gets a nomination. This nation is sick. The institutions are sick. And the people are sick.

  19. Save us Scalia’s ghost…you’re our only hope!

    1. For this issue, if Hillary wins, there is no hope, and if Trump wins, there is hope.

    2. I still can’t believe he would be so stupid and careless to allow himself to be murdered so easily.

  20. Lol at California. I quite literally do not care what happens there.

    1. If only what happened in CA, stayed in CA.

      But that ain’t the way it works.

  21. Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.

    Don’t like guns? Don’t get one.

  22. I was afraid of that.

    The 3 judge panel had said the state couldn’t prohibit concealed carry because it also prohibited open carry.

    So, the state had to allow one or the other.

    Now, in CA, there is no right to carry period, except maybe in your car and then the firearm must be unloaded and the ammo stored separately.

    If appealed to the SC and the SC declines cert then the 2A is dead.

    And remember even when Scalia was alive he couldn’t get the court to accept cert on NJ ban on carrying (no open carry, no concealed carry without a permit) as well as an “assault weapon ban” and a “high cap mag” ban.

    It appears that there were only 5 votes for the right to keep a gun in your home, and not even 4 for the right to carry outside the home.

    Big trouble here folks.

    A Civil War may be necessary to save the country from tyranny.

  23. the only way back now is to challenge the open carry law.

    will the 9th find a way to allow that prohibition?

    probably.

    1. That would take some people with balls to open carry. We know what will happen if they do. People are going to die. This pussified nations and the courts will back the cops. But yeah, surving litigants/defendents of open carry would put the potato back in the 9th circuit.

  24. CA only ‘allows’ unloaded open carry which is absurd. If they placed that restriction on cops, people would say that it impairs our ability to defend ourselves and others… And they would be right… The general public is NO different

    So especially without REAL open carry, if there is no right to concealed carry – the 2nd amendment is vitiated

    Keep and BEAR – which means ‘carry’ – arms

    The 9th is the most overturned appeals court … For good reason… But God only knows what the ‘new revised’ SCOTUS will do

    This could have been a POSITIVE with our last SCOTUS since they could address issues not addressed in Heller or MacDonald… But now??????

    Scary times

    WA for the win… Legal MJ, expansive privacy rights, no income tax, no permit open carry, shall issue concealed carry

  25. If I wear a Trump shirt in San Jose… will that allow me to qualify to receive permission from my masters to carry a firearm to defend myself?

    1. No, I’m pretty sure that would put you on the fast track for rejection.

      If you promised to threaten anyone wearing a Trump shirt, on the other hand…

  26. Bad news on the cusp of a liberal supreme court 🙁

  27. The Second Amendment hangs by a thread at the Supreme Court. All the liberals on the court voted against both Heller and McDonald, leaving them with bare 5-4 majorities. With Scalia’s passing, the Second Amendment is now reduced to four supporters.

    The best way to nullify the Second Amendment is to allow President Obama or Hillary Clinton to nominate more anti-gun judges. And we have to watch out for dishonest Obama nominees like Sonia Sotomayor. When confirmed she said that the Heller decision was “settled law”. After confirmation she voted with the McDonald dissent to overrule Heller. She lied and cannot be trusted, and Obama and Clinton can be trusted to nominate judges who will nullify the Second Amendment.

    That’s what the debate comes down to. If you do not want to see the Second Amendment nullified, you know what you have to do.

  28. Why no mention of my California Open Carry lawsuit?

    http://blog.californiarighttoc…..age_id=739

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.