9th Circuit: no 2nd Amendment right to concealed carry outside the home

[ivwshane]

Title mirrored the title on the linked article.



So by this standard the title of this thread should be changed also, but for some strange reason it hasn't been.

Trump Caught Ilegally Firing Another Veteran In Failed Airline Venture

Is that a mod call out?

 

[glenn1]

Is that a mod call out?

Yes. And I get infracted for it so be it, go ahead and ban me permanently.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yes. And I get infracted for it so be it, go ahead and ban me permanently.

Come on mods!!!!!!!

 

[buckshot24]

Come on mods!!!!!!!

Is this a mod call out?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

*I'll be more careful this time*

Some where someone's mental and furious physical masterbation over the thought of walking around with GZ's gun has been interrupted

 

[openwheel]

my CCW interview is August. Finger crossed this doesn't affect me.

 

[glenn1]

Consistency in adjusting titles to be more "scrupulously accurate" and infractions for this vs mod call out. I'm looking forward to seeing how this resolves.

YGPM

Fern
Super Moderator

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes. And I get infracted for it so be it, go ahead and ban me permanently.

When you create an alt take Eskimospy now unused forum name.

 

[waggy]

Consistency in adjusting titles to be more "scrupulously accurate" and infractions for this vs mod call out. I'm looking forward to seeing how this resolves.

YGPM

Fern
Super Moderator

lol i think you just got a hint on it..

 

[K1052]

Presumably specified Constitutional Rights are not for the States to amend, alter, or infringe. This becomes hotly contested as more line items are thrown in under generic terms.

When it comes to bearing arms without infringement during travel and/or out in general public... I'm not versed enough to know the court history behind that. But this definitely places the issue front and center during an election year.

None of the relevant decisions I'm aware of established an unrestricted right to concealed or open carry that overrides state law. Even in Heller the court explicitly provided that some restrictions are necessary even though it did not enumerate all the possibilities of what those might be.

 

[Jhhnn]

So... the ninth circuit ruling leaves California law unchanged which must mean that the gun grabbers are on their way, right?

 

[row]

"9th Circuit: no 2nd Amendment right to concealed carry outside the home"

says one of the most over overruled courts in America lol

 

[Jhhnn]

"9th Circuit: no 2nd Amendment right to concealed carry outside the home"

says one of the most over overruled courts in America lol

Which explains why there are a lot of people in prison or formerly in prison for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. It's not like that started yesterday, either. Bans on concealed weapons go back 200 years-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#History

Notice the graphic. Tell me why gun owners are paranoid even when they've been winning for 30 years.

 

[ivwshane]

Just a point of fact, it's still legal to conceal carry in California so long as you are approved of the permit.

I'm sure the small government, states rights crowd, will be all for this ruling.

 

[bozack]

Just a point of fact, it's still legal to conceal carry in California so long as you are approved of the permit.

I'm sure the small government, states rights crowd, will be all for this ruling.

its a bit ridiculous though, you can't open carry, and now you effectively cannot concealed carry unless you have some type of dire need to do so, and that is assessed by effectively a single lieutenant or chief....so do they still give out restricted licences? and what happens then....you stop at the gas station to get gas while on the way to the range and bam you're breaking the law?.

I live in a similar state from a regulation perspective...here some towns are impossible to get unrestricted concealed carry...so you have to get a restricted license and you have to plan accordingly because at that point if its not at your house or you're not at the range its up to the discretion of the officer as to whether or not you're breaking the law by having it in your car.

 

[bozack]

Title mirrored the title on the linked article.



So by this standard the title of this thread should be changed also, but for some strange reason it hasn't been.

Trump Caught Ilegally Firing Another Veteran In Failed Airline Venture

that's an anti trump post so of course it will be allowed here without any checking, duh.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

its a bit ridiculous though, you can't open carry, and now you effectively cannot concealed carry unless you have some type of dire need to do so, and that is assessed by effectively a single lieutenant or chief....so do they still give out restricted licences? and what happens then....you stop at the gas station to get gas while on the way to the range and bam you're breaking the law?.

I live in a similar state from a regulation perspective...here some towns are impossible to get unrestricted concealed carry...so you have to get a restricted license and you have to plan accordingly because at that point if its not at your house or you're not at the range its up to the discretion of the officer as to whether or not you're breaking the law by having it in your car.

I believe the idea is get gas before going to the range and/or keep your guns locked up for the drive.
I know guys in more open states won't agree but some of the densely populated areas this is a good thing.

 

[bozack]

I believe the idea is get gas before going to the range and/or keep your guns locked up for the drive.
I know guys in more open states won't agree but some of the densely populated areas this is a good thing.

here guns have to be locked up or holstered for the drive regardless, however if you have restricted even with it locked up if you stop anywhere, and I mean anywhere then its up to the interpretation of the officer as to whether or not your en route to the range or your house.

I think it is a ridiculous ruling, if you pass all of the requirements why would you need to have been physically assaulted or have a stalker to also be provided with a concealed carry permit (one of the reasons why folks can get them here).

I'd much rather have folks who pass the requirements concealed carry vs open carry as the latter is as someone said above only going to get unwanted attention.

 

[glenn1]

None of the relevant decisions I'm aware of established an unrestricted right to concealed or open carry that overrides state law. Even in Heller the court explicitly provided that some restrictions are necessary even though it did not enumerate all the possibilities of what those might be.

California prohibits open carry, so if they restrict concealed carry as well then how would someone go about exercising their right to keep and bear arms? Might as well say they've allowed the banning of weapons being carried outside generally since if you can't concealed carry and you can't open carry, you can't carry period so trying to spin it as 'this only deals with concealed carry" is both accurate and misleading at the same time given the whole context.

This is akin to the people in pro-life states who pass TRAP laws under the guise that abortion is still legal, you just can't get one due to all the restrictions so it might as well be illegal. Which is fine if you want to support the rights of both states to take those steps, but you can't support them in one and oppose them in the other.

 

[Art&Science]

Of course the Constitution doesn't "grant the right"... the Constitution protects certain rights which you have JUST FOR BEING HUMAN. The Constitution does not grant rights, the government does not grant right.

The article should read, "The Constitution does not protect the right to concealed carry"... and that of course, is debatable!!

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! Telling someone how they can carry said arms sounds like infringement to me!

Either way, this ruling doesn't change anything at all! The only thing it does is solidify the States' ability to regulate concealed carry - WHICH THEY ALREADY DO. It also solidifies the Fed's ability to restrict carrying concealed firearms on Fed property. WHICH THEY ALREADY DO!!

This ruling DOES NOT mean concealed carry is illegal. It does not mean concealed carry is going away.

Sorry libtards.

 

[K1052]

California prohibits open carry, so if they restrict concealed carry as well then how would someone go about exercising their right to keep and bear arms? Might as well say they've allowed the banning of weapons being carried outside generally since if you can't concealed carry and you can't open carry, you can't carry period so trying to spin it as 'this only deals with concealed carry" is both accurate and misleading at the same time given the whole context.

This is akin to the people in pro-life states who pass TRAP laws under the guise that abortion is still legal, you just can't get one due to all the restrictions so it might as well be illegal. Which is fine if you want to support the rights of both states to take those steps, but you can't support them in one and oppose them in the other.

Per Heller you can exercise your right to bear arms in your home. The idea that this somehow established a requirement for states to automatically go shall-issue for cc is fantastical. It didn't.

 

[glenn1]

Per Heller you can exercise your right to bear arms in your home. The idea that this somehow established a requirement for states to automatically go shall-issue for cc is fantastical. It didn't.

Well then I guess you'd be fine with restricting abortions to being performed strictly in one's home then also. Should neatly solve the "problem" of guns and abortions, eh? Of course I look forward to the blissful silence of street protesters once we limit the First Amendment to inside their houses as well. Whee this is fun.

 

[Humpy]

based on slates logic, there was never a right to aboritions before the supreme court ruled, so therefor we should not have aboritions.

WTF Aboritions?

Indigenous ghosts?

 

[buckshot24]

WTF Aboritions?

Indigenous ghosts?

haha

 

[K1052]

Well then I guess you'd be fine with restricting abortions to being performed strictly in one's home then also. Should neatly solve the "problem" of guns and abortions, eh? Of course I look forward to the blissful silence of street protesters once we limit the First Amendment to inside their houses as well. Whee this is fun.

You're just embarrassing yourself with nakedly fallacious arguments now.