Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
State News & Gun News => NRA & National Gun News => Topic started by: Hawkeye on June 09, 2016, 06:19:57 PM
-
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."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/9th-circuit-court-appeals-says-no-right-concealed-gun-carry-n589041 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/9th-circuit-court-appeals-says-no-right-concealed-gun-carry-n589041)
-
Shouldn't matter how you carry it, it is your right to do so love how our courts love to twist up the law to meet their own agendas.
-
Here is additional info on the subject:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/06/09/federal-appeals-court-second-amendment-doesnt-guarantee-right-to-concealed-carry/
-
Would you expect anything less from the 9th circus ct.??? However, the balance in the Supreme Court has shifted considerably, we should be worried!!
-
They all need to be fired. I love how they just decided to interpirt the constitution how they wanted it to be. Always wanted to see Cali untill I started carrying and learned of their stance on guns.
-
No chance of those judges being fired, but hopefully their ruling will be overturned as usual. As I understand it, we here in Delaware are not bound by their ruling as we are not in the 9th circus...I mean circuit . I will be going out as usual conceal carrying like always. Hope this doesn't interfere with current applications here in DECCW land.
-
This may end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. One more reason Hillary can not be allowed to win.
-
This may end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. One more reason Hillary can not be allowed to win.
Bingo!
-
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."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/9th-circuit-court-appeals-says-no-right-concealed-gun-carry-n589041 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/9th-circuit-court-appeals-says-no-right-concealed-gun-carry-n589041)
You should fix this thread's title/subject line: CA9 said no right to concealed carry, not no right to carry at all.
This ruling by CA9 covers more than just California:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg/620px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg.png)
-
Just an update on Peruta. I'll skip the details.
Our side has until Jan 12th to ask SCOTUS for cert. Trump gets sworn in on the 20th. SCOTUS is still 1 justice short. Even w/a new, pro-RKBA justice, SCOTUS may deny Peruta cert, just like they've done w/all the other Carry cases when Scalia was alive. We need to replace an anti justice w/a pro before they'll grant cert to a Carry case. Ginsberg and Kennedy are, IMO, the most likely to go first. Kennedy was on our side in Heller and MacDonald, but we think he switched against Carry (and probably Roberts too). Fortunately, there are several more Carry cases (OC and CC) working their way up the fed cts around the nation so that when we do have a pro-RKBA majority, we'll have cases ready for them to hear. But unless an anti retires or dies very soon, Peruta will probably be denied cert.
In the mean time, Nat'l Recip should keep the antis on their heels....
-
Today the NRA & CRPA (NRA's CA state affiliate) filed a cert. request with SCOTUS.
NRA and CRPA Petition United States Supreme Court to Hear Peruta v. County of San Diego
On Thursday, January 12, NRA and CRPA attorneys submitted a petition to the United States Supreme Court to review the NRA and CRPA supported case of Peruta v. San Diego. The case made history in 2014 when a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit held that the San Diego County Sheriff’s restrictive “good cause” policy for the issuance of a concealed carry license violates the Second Amendment. But shortly after that decision, the Ninth Circuit took the rare step of deciding to rehear the case by an 11-judge “en banc” panel who overturned the 3-judge panel opinion last June. The Petition explains it all. Give it a read!
But now the tides have changed. As a result of the NRA’s efforts in the November election, there has never been a greater opportunity to protect the right to keep and bear arms in California and throughout the United States. And with President-elect Donald Trump set to nominate at least one if not several pro-gun judges to the Supreme Court, NRA and CRPA are working hard to make “shall-issue” a reality in California. In addition, several new NRA/CRPA lawsuits will soon be launched against Proposition 63 and the seven new “Gunmageddon” anti-gun bills signed into law this past year.
It takes great resources to fight for our rights in the courts. So please make a generous tax-deductible donation to the CRPA Foundation to help finance the Peruta case and soon to be filed lawsuits. And consider joining the CRPA, the NRA’s official state association, if you aren’t already a member. NRA and CRPA are working closely together to do great things in California.
Your tax-deductible donation to the CRPA Foundation will help us win these battles!
Please stand with the NRA and CRPA as we work to capitalize on the tremendous victory in the presidential election and preserve our right to keep and bear arms for generations to come!
To learn more about the CRPA Foundation, visit the website.
You can also learn more about the Peruta case by watching this video, and by reading this article from NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom.
There are various links, incl to the cert. petition, embedded in the original at:
http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=10f1b2be1fbee7acd9ac7bb79&id=fa2a508070&e=7f0381ea75
-
We in Delaware are not covered by the 9th Circuit Court. That is west-coast territory.
-
I believe a national reciprocity law would over-rule this judgement.
-
It would have to go to the SCOTUS. That is why it is so important for Trump to get a Conservative Pro-2nd Amendment Judge appointed and confirmed on the SCOTUS.
-
We in Delaware are not covered by the 9th Circuit Court. That is west-coast territory.
::)
(1) Um, yeah, that's why this thread is in: "NRA & National Gun News: Gun news from the NRA & around the US"
(2) Even still, while the decision of the CA9 en banc panel may not be controlling authority over you, you can be sure it will influence judges with authority over you. If carry comes up in litigation in CA3 or DE state courts, the CA9 en banc decision will be addressed by those judges in their opinion.
(3) Besides all of that, if Peruta is granted cert. by SCOTUS (which was requested yesterday), they DO have authority over DE.
-
"(2) Even still, while the decision of the CA9 en banc panel may not be controlling authority over you, you can be sure it will influence judges with authority over you. If carry comes up in litigation in CA3 or DE state courts, the CA9 en banc decision will be addressed by those judges in their opinion."
That is exactly right. Lawyers and judges use case law and decisions from all around the country, so it is very important to all of us how these decisions turn out. I personally think if the question of right to carry being a constitutionally protected right goes to the US Supreme Court, we will lose! Even in a Trump administration. Just my opinion, but remember DC Vs Heller the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to have a gun in the home. The decision concluded that the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited and it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
-
It would have to go to the SCOTUS. That is why it is so important for Trump to get a Conservative Pro-2nd Amendment Judge appointed and confirmed on the SCOTUS.
If this does not happen we could be in for some very tough times.
-
CA9 Jurisdiction:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000135
Delaware falls under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Court of Appeals.
-
Once again, SCOTUS refuses to defend the 2nd A rights of ALL Americans by choosing not to question a lower court's anti ruling. The good news is that Trump's first SCOTUS appointee, Gorsuch, is clearly on our side (along with Thomas and Alieto). But until at least 1 of the 4 Dem appointees (Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor) is replaced we're unlikely to get positive 2nd A rulings from SCOTUS. (Of the big quote below, only the first two paragraphs are by Eugene Volokh. The rest is the dissent which is in the public domain.)
Supreme Court refuses to hear right-to-carry-guns case, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch say there is such a right
By Eugene Volokh June 26
Federal appellate courts and state high courts are split on whether the Second Amendment secures a right for law-abiding adults to carry guns outside the home, and not just possess them in the home. Several federal appellate courts have generally held that states may, if they want to, sharply limit such carrying (e.g., by giving licenses only to people that the police view as unusually vulnerable to attack). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court, though, have held that the Second Amendment does generally entitle law-abiding adults to carry guns in most public places, though the government may require licensing and training, and regulate how guns are carried. The Florida Supreme Court has stated the same, and some other courts have opined on the matter as well.
The Supreme Court, however, has refused to resolve the issue, and Monday it has done so again, by denying review in Peruta v. California. Most of the justices didn’t explain their decision, which is not a judgment on the merits of the question. (Lower court decisions going both ways still stand in their respective jurisdictions.) But Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, argued that the Supreme Court should have heard the case, and also that it should have recognized a right to carry:
Had the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion.
As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. … “To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court[.]” …
The relevant history appears to support this understanding. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner. For example, in Nunn v. State (Ga. 1846) — a decision the Heller Court discussed extensively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the right — the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban on concealed carry. Other cases similarly suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is not. See, e.g., State v. Reid (Ala. 1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
Finally, the Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that “self-defense” is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.” This purpose is not limited only to the home, even though the need for self-defense may be “most acute” there. “Self-defense has to take place wherever the person happens to be,” and in some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a public place than in his own house. …
For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.
More at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/26/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-right-to-carry-guns-case-justices-thomas-and-gorsuch-say-there-is-such-a-right/