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

[ming]

Just saw this re: Peruta

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-ninth-circuit-rules-2a-doesnt-protect-right-carry-concealed-firearm-public/

[mic6010]

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.

[FieldGL]

Well then.

[skinnyb82]

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

 

 

[djmarkla]

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.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

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.

[lockman]

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.

[lockman]

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!

[djmarkla]

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

[solareclipse2]

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.

[djmarkla]

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

[Glock23]

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

[FieldGL]

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.

[vezpa]

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.

 

.

[yyyz]

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.

[solareclipse2]

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.

[gLockedandLoaded]

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

[Plinkermostly]

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

[FieldGL]

Anyone know how the total of CC in California?

[Pappy]

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.

[DD123]

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

 

FIFY

[Neumann]

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)

[chislinger]

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.

[POAT54]

​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.

[Windermere]

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

[Awan]

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.

[protean]

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.

[vern]

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

[kwc]

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.

[Rebel1CSA]

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.