Jump to content

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


ming

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...