Jump to content


Photo

Ninth Circuit Ruling on Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

#1 ming

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 09

Posted 09 June 2016 - 09:58 AM

Just saw this re: Peruta

 

http://www.thetrutha...firearm-public/


Edited by ming, 09 June 2016 - 10:02 AM.

NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol and PPITH Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
ISRA Member
Registered Illinois Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor


#2 mic6010

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,184 posts
  • Joined: 04-January 14

Posted 09 June 2016 - 10:01 AM

So they say the 2nd MAY let you carry an openly exposed firearm, but not a concealed one ? That's the most ridiculous distinction I have ever heard of in my life.

 

Surly if the intent was to allow people to carry arms in public it doesn't matter if an article of clothing covers it  or not in order to exercise that right.

 

But as a wise man once said, freedom is only secure in the hands of the people. The courts are not and have never been intended to protect our freedoms. They are just as bad as the politicians.


"Living in Chicago, it used to be, 'don't go out at night,' or 'be more careful at night'. Now it's turned into a place where it doesn't matter if it's day or night."  - John Hendricks.


#3 FieldGL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 911 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 16

Posted 09 June 2016 - 10:16 AM

Well then. 



#4 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,687 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 09 June 2016 - 10:32 AM

This case was decided on before they began the briefing for the en banc proceeding. Chief Judge Thomas rigged this. The most telling sentence in this opinion is: "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." They obviously pre-judged the case. The en banc panel was stacked as per usual. The fix was in before en banc was "officially" granted. Thing is that they should only have been ruling on Kamala's petition to intervene. Not the ENTIRE panel ruling. That was the scope of review, until the liberals decided to expand it and review de novo the entire district court ruling, and reverse the panel (Judge O'Scannlain conducted an exhaustive historical analysis, this en banc panel conducted the equivalent of a survey of Brady Bunch buddies). Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#5 Patriots & Tyrants

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 11

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:13 AM

This creates a circuit split doesn't it? That should trigger the SCOTUS to review this. I don't know if that is a good or a bad thing though. 



#6 djmarkla

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:13 AM

This is not good. If this ruling is challenged at the Supreme Court level it will be a tie at best and that would let the lower court ruling stand.

#7 djmarkla

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:30 AM

All of that education and they still can't read the English language

#8 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,396 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:25 AM

The CA9 states the open carry question has not been answered by SCOTUS. But in the absence of such implicit open carry opinion by SCOTUS, Heller and McDonald both would require a strict scrutiny examination. With concealed carry removed by CA9 as a protected right, open would be the only option available to exercise the right. 


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#9 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,396 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:27 AM

This is not good. If this ruling is challenged at the Supreme Court level it will be a tie at best and that would let the lower court ruling stand.

 

Which one? there is a split!


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#10 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,862 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:35 AM

So how does this matter to us? How will it screw us over? California is already screwed, seems like they're just more screwed now.


I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#11 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,362 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:48 AM

Here's an article from the Yale Law Journal which gives some historical precedent regarding the Supreme Court and their rulings on concealed vs open carry.

 

A bit lengthy, but worth the read... and the title of the article should give you a clue about the precedent.

 

Open Carry for All: Heller and our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment


** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#12 djmarkla

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 11:44 AM

Heller was decided by one vote and we now have one less justice.

#13 FieldGL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 911 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 16

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:19 PM

So how does this matter to us? How will it screw us over? California is already screwed, seems like they're just more screwed now.

 

In debates, I believe I've heard people reference California and NY, as a model state for gun laws. 



#14 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Members
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:46 PM

This basically means you had better well vote from Trump  no matter how much you don't like him, because if Hillary wins we are completely screwed on 2nd amendment cases for the foreseeable future.

 

.


Edited by vezpa, 09 June 2016 - 01:17 PM.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those

who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

                                                    

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                    - Thomas Jefferson


#15 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,862 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:52 PM

This basically means you had better well vote from Trump  no matter how much you don't like him because if Hillary wins we are completely screwed on 2nd amendment cases for the foreseeable future.

 

.

 

The notion here makes me sick. 


I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#16 yyyz

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:48 PM

Not trying to be political, but...

 

Now more than ever, we need to do everything possible to make sure that Hilary is NOT the next president. SCOTUS will probably not accept/rule on the case until there is a ninth judge appointed. The next president will appoint a minimum of one justice and possibly as many as 3 or 4.

 

Trump may not be your favorite as a candidate, but his stance on the 2nd amendment is strong and his possible appointments are accepted conservatives. 


Gfw

 

The Constitution is the Constitution. Our rights are not granted through it, they are protected by it.


#17 gLockedandLoaded

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,693 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:55 PM

It really seems like this all part of a setup to eventually nullify Heller/McDonald.

#18 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 12:58 PM

​You may openly carry the flintlock pistol of your choice.



#19 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,479 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 09 June 2016 - 01:31 PM

​You may openly carry the nerf pistol of your choice.


FIFY

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#20 FieldGL

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 911 posts
  • Joined: 25-January 16

Posted 09 June 2016 - 01:30 PM

Anyone know how the total of CC in California? 



#21 Pappy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined: 26-March 12

Posted 09 June 2016 - 01:31 PM

Not trying to be political, but...

 

Now more than ever, we need to do everything possible to make sure that Hilary is NOT the next president. SCOTUS will probably not accept/rule on the case until there is a ninth judge appointed. The next president will appoint a minimum of one justice and possibly as many as 3 or 4.

 

Trump may not be your favorite as a candidate, but his stance on the 2nd amendment is strong and his possible appointments are accepted conservatives. 

Agreed,... we may not be voting for the President of our choice but we will be voting for the Supreme Court Justices come November and that may be more important.



#22 Neumann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 703 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 01:32 PM

Interesting that the court would cite an edict by Edward I of England (1296). Now there was a leader who put interests of the common folk first l)



#23 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,224 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 01:54 PM

Heller was decided by one vote and we now have one less justice.

And we have gun owners who think Hillary should get to appoint the next round of justices.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#24 POAT54

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,465 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:08 PM

​You may openly carry the flintlock pistol of your choice.

Yes, but may not be loaded, you can have your powder and ball in a separate case.


“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


#25 Windermere

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined: 19-July 15

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:15 PM

Here we go. Just read about it. These libs are relentless.

#26 Awan

    Migrated out of Illinois

  • Members
  • 1,266 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:31 PM

This is the start of their final battle. They want this to go to the SCOTUS, where Hillary's picks will decide your rights, or lack thereof.


catwalk_zps7beb705d.gif

Another active supporter of The Walmart Thread. <- click here to view.

An Indiana resident with a life-time carry permit!

Boomer Sooner


#27 protean

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:31 PM

This basically means you had better well vote from Trump  no matter how much you don't like him, because if Hillary wins we are completely screwed on 2nd amendment cases for the foreseeable future.

 

.

You took the words right out of my mouth!!!  We all have to vote for Trump in November if you care about your 2A.  Now more than ever the time has come to all vote as 1 body.


Illinois Carry Supporting Member
NRA Endowment-Life Member

ISRA Member


 


#28 vern

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 07

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:38 PM

Not trying to be political, but...
 
Now more than ever, we need to do everything possible to make sure that Hilary is NOT the next president. SCOTUS will probably not accept/rule on the case until there is a ninth judge appointed. The next president will appoint a minimum of one justice and possibly as many as 3 or 4.
 
Trump may not be your favorite as a candidate, but his stance on the 2nd amendment is strong and his possible appointments are accepted conservatives.

you got that right

#29 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,103 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:48 PM

From the court opinion summary: 

 

The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.

 

 

Prima facie, I'd have to agree with this.  There is no "Second Amendment right" to keep and bear arms.  This is a pre-existing right, one that isn't established by the Second Amendment.

 

The Second Amendment merely says that the government can't infringe on this pre-existing right.


Edited by kwc, 09 June 2016 - 02:51 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#30 Rebel1CSA

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 16

Posted 09 June 2016 - 02:55 PM

Remember "united we stand divided we fall". If we do not vote for Trump and let the liberal media convince us on the lies and slander we all lose and another anti gun nut  will continue to ruin this country.  Anyone thinking who cares its just California  this will be the start of other states trying the same seeing how Cali got away with it.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users