Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ninth Circuit Rules 2A Doesn’t Protect a Right to Carry a Concealed Firearm In Public

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ninth Circuit Rules 2A Doesn’t Protect a Right to Carry a Concealed Firearm In Public

    BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Rules 2A Doesn’t Protect a Right to Carry a Concealed Firearm In Public


    The Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision of Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to carry a concealed in public. This in effect ratifies jurisdictions’ use of “may issue” permitting, requiring individuals to show good cause to obtain a concealed carry license.
    The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment.

    Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.
    So let’s recap. According to this ruling, there is no right under the Constitution to carry a concealed firearm. But since the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, it would then follow that Americans have a right to carry a gun openly. Or so one would assume.

    While the Ninth allows as much in their ruling, they point out that such a question hasn’t been decided by the Supreme Court. Who knows what kind of emanations and penumbras the justices might divine when pondering such a weighty question? One thing’s for sure: swould the question come before the court — as the Perutaruling would seem to make more likely — President Clinton’s eventual appointee will no doubt do some deep digging in order to deny even that freedom.
    Pat ------> NRA Endowment Member

    #2
    And still some people will split the vote and not vote Trump.....
    All aboard the Trump train............................................. ....

    Comment


    • Southshorerob
      Southshorerob commented
      Editing a comment
      Lurker ....lol

    • LazyLab
      LazyLab commented
      Editing a comment
      Fuckin Traitors!

    #3

    amendment-II.jpeg

    "…. to keep and bear arms….." Bear arms means being outside your home or business with a firearm. It does not require that they be concealed, nor does it stipulate that they be either concealed or open.

    And what part of "shall not be infringed" are they not understanding?
    Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

    Comment


    • wdeister08
      wdeister08 commented
      Editing a comment
      My argument and one which even the beloved Conservative force, Antonin Scalia believed in was that the 2A like any other right is not unlimited. It requires limits, anyone who believes ordinary citizens shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons believes in limits on the 2A, at which point you're simply talking about degrees and the interest of public safety.

    • ChiefSailer
      ChiefSailer commented
      Editing a comment
      Go spout that liberal bullshit on LIF. Shall not be infringed means just that. Freedom isn't free!

    • Aquabach
      Aquabach commented
      Editing a comment
      wdeister. You're argument is ridiculous.
      Arms are personal weapons. You need to educate yourself on what 2A actually is.
      Here's a little help, nuclear weapons, ( you're ridiculous example) are not arms in the sense of 2A.
      Scalia, expressly pointed that out several times.
      Also, Scalia's limitations were for extremely limited reasons like frightening, intimidation etc.

      Using Scalia as your answer to why concealed carry can be denied is incorrect at best. Total bullshit at worst

    #4
    If you don't have the right to carry concealed, either you have the right to open carry or you have no rights at all.

    This ruling is total BULLSHIT!!!!!
    Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

    Comment


      #5
      How come civil disobedience works so well for liberal clap-trap and they are given every consideration to the point of bending laws to accommodate them?
      If you don't vote for Trump, you voted for Hillary. Plain and simple.
      Give peace a chance, I'll cover you in case that doesn't work out.

      LIBERALISM should be classified as a MENTAL DISORDER!

      Comment


        #6
        Concealed means concealed.

        Comment


          #7
          Yep, all written by the special folk who have security details protecting them whenever they so choose, just like the almighty Supreme Court, Oblamer (oops, sorry, his is 24/7 365), Hillary the beast, Cuomo the dictator, etc., etc.

          I'm sure the 51-year old cancer victim in Queens who was almost raped the other day would cheer this decision. what crap

          Comment


            #8
            Wait, isn't this in direct violation of some established law...I mean, you have the Constitution, but hasn't the Supreme Court ruled you DO have a right to carry?
            “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." - Benjamin Franklin

            Comment


              #9
              Originally posted by Barnslayer View Post
              [ATTACH=CONFIG]n31359[/ATTACH]

              "…. to keep and bear arms….." Bear arms means being outside your home or business with a firearm. It does not require that they be concealed, nor does it stipulate that they be either concealed or open.

              And what part of "shall not be infringed" are they not understanding?
              Well regulated refers to the militia portion, of which everyone was a part of. By well-regulated they meant a coordinated militia (it was used in the colloquial sense), instead of a hodgepodge gathering, not "regulated" in the sense we use it today.

              Unfortunately, they didn't think fucktards would get stuck on the term "militia"...again, because every male was already part of the town militia.


              And these fucking imbeciles in the 9th circuit need to be tried for treason. They're notoriously anti-constitution, especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment. They can appeal this bullshit, right?
              Last edited by sheeple; 06-09-2016, 07:11 PM.
              “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." - Benjamin Franklin

              Comment


              • wdeister08
                wdeister08 commented
                Editing a comment
                Every man in that militia also had to report for training and proper usage of their weapons.

              • sheeple
                sheeple commented
                Editing a comment
                They gathered and practiced, as the militia was the only defense for the various towns.

              • Aquabach
                Aquabach commented
                Editing a comment
                Weidmeister, keep doubling down on ignorance. You could run for office

                Penn & Teller explained it much better than I could.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

              #10
              Originally posted by sheeple View Post

              Well regulated refers to the militia portion, of which everyone was a part of. By well-regulated they meant a coordinated militia (it was used in the colloquial sense), instead of a hodgepodge gathering, not "regulated" in the sense we use it today.

              Unfortunately, they didn't think fucktards would get stuck on the term "militia"...again, because every male was already part of the town militia.

              And…. the Amendment does not stipulate that only adults are to bear arms. Some of our most honored war heroes learned the basics as children while hunting for food.
              Now everyone expects the military to cram all that into weeks or months of training. Nothing wrong with making sure you're doing it right, but imagine if every recruit showed up unable to read his training manuals?
              Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

              Comment


                #11

                wdeister08 commented
                06-09-2016, 06:42 PM
                The words "well regulated" are also in there.

                Yes AND you have to understand the meaning and apply it using the historical context of that time . "Well-regulated" was in common use for about 100 yeas before and after 1789. During that time period the phrase meant being in a state of proper working order ,.If something was working as expected or correctly it was said to be well-regulated. It DID NOT stand for controlled or highly restricted.

                Comment


                  #12
                  Originally posted by FMJ View Post
                  And still some people will split the vote and not vote Trump.....
                  Thank you
                  let's make america great again

                  Comment


                    #13
                    The second amendment will b fixed by Hillary . If you give a shit about it vote trump
                    let's make america great again

                    Comment


                      #14
                      "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person". This was the original text of the Second Amendment as proposed by James Madison. Too bad that the wording wasn't left in order as he wrote it as the individual right came before the militia's right to be well armed.

                      Comment


                        #15
                        For those who are concerned over CCW violence. Why don't the crime stats jive with this?

                        Rtc.gif
                        Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X