Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
April 20, 2019, 06:18:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: No Constitutional Right to Carry - 9th Circuit Court  (Read 7825 times)
Posts: 74

« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2017, 05:40:09 AM »

"(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. 
Life Member
Posts: 901

« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2017, 06:25:22 PM »

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.

NRA Member
Combat Veteran
Southeastern Sussex County
Life Member
Posts: 2411

Made in America

« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2017, 10:05:13 AM »

CA9 Jurisdiction:

Delaware falls under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Court of Appeals.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 10:10:43 AM by SturmRugerSR9 » Logged


I reserve the right to not be perfect.


DECCW Permit Holder
Former PA (non-resident) Permit Holder
NRA Member
USAF Vietnam Era Veteran
Kent County
I cling to my GOD and my Gun
Sr. Member
Posts: 135

« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2017, 09:12:24 AM »

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:
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 09:19:26 AM by Paladin4CA » Logged

NRA Benefactor Member
NRA-ILA supporter
Pages: 1 [2]
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!