General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAppeals Court: No 2nd Amendment Right To Public Concealed Carry
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/appeals-court-no-2nd-amendment-right-concealed-carry?utm_content=bufferb646d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferThe gun rights movement was delivered a setback Thursday when an appeals court based out of San Francisco said there was no Second Amendment right for a member of the public to carry a concealed weapon in a decision upholding a California firearm restriction.
"As the uncontradicted historical evidence overwhelmingly shows, the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed weapon in public," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said in its opinion. In a 7-4 vote, it upheld the previous ruling of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, which had been appealed to the full court.
"The Second Amendment may or may not protect to some degree a right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm in public. If there is such a right, it is only a right to carry a firearm openly," the opinion said. "But Plaintiffs do not challenge Californias restrictions on open carry; they challenge only restrictions on concealed carry."
The opinion noted the question of open carry had not been answered by the Supreme Court.
(end snip)
spanone
(135,630 posts)DustyJoe
(849 posts)Just another lower court that the SC will have to remind them what shall not be infringed means
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)it says nothing about concealed, open, or even if the arms are working. Ammunition is certainly not included.
The ownership of ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment:
http://volokh.com/2010/11/04/d-c-s-highest-court-holds-ammunition-ban-violates-second-amendment/
And the right own a working firearm is also protected. In Heller, the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's ban on owning an operational firearm. From the summary of the decision:
Held:
***
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The Districts total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibitionin the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acutewould fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But I don't think there's any serious chance that Heller is reversed anytime soon, if ever. Here's a link to a post I started from a few days ago discussing an article in The Atlantic that basically makes the point that (1) Heller really didn't change anything (2) Heller permits most gun laws that have been challenged and there's little chance it will be reversed and (3) if it were reversed then there is a legitimate chance of a constitutional amendment clarifying that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that shall not be infringed - http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172195248. Excerpt from the article:
I think it is a generally academic question because I agree that Heller won't be reversed, but I do wonder if a constitutional amendment would in fact pass. I think it might -- the only states I can think of that would absolutely oppose such an amendment are New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and California, perhaps Massachusetts. The trend is for less stringent gun laws and all of the states in the south, the Midwest (perhaps excluding Illinois), and the mountain west would likely support a constitutional amendment stating something like "the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense at home and in public shall not be infringed." I think it would be pretty easy to come up with a list of 38 states that would vote in favor of such an amendment.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)it's a business and it's about the emotion of having guns. It was nothing to do with freedom, life, liberty or justice.
Only money and fear.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1790. ME 8 2
Orrex
(63,084 posts)Instead of, you know, rubber-stamping every NRA wet dream that rolled past his vile presence.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)DustyJoe
(849 posts)The court ruled the amendment makes no mention of bearing a legal firearm concealed, but does not deny the fact that in order to bear a personal firearm it can only be under one of 2 conditions. In the open carried position or concealed. The right to bear the firearm is not the issue, just the mechanics of how it's carried. Like others have stated, let the states define their own rules, the federal amendment is quite clear of the right to carry, just not how.
Orrex
(63,084 posts)If the court simply reads the text and correctly declares that the dubiously sacred amendment makes no mention whatsoever of an individual's right to stockpile weapons.
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)And historically the members of a militia were expected to bring their own arms, including colonial era militias. The common citizenry have had a right to own firearms for hunting, self defense, and defense of the state since the colonial era. No court is going to get rid of that, the authoritarian dreams of some people notwithstanding.
Orrex
(63,084 posts)How many posts until you call me a "gun grabber" while covertly consulting LaPierre's handbook of rhetorical witticisms?
Tell me--when the National Guard (our modern militia) is assembled, are individual members of that service branch required or expected to provide their own weapons? No? Then that argument is an irrelevant anachronism.
Gun advocates would have more credibility if they simply said "we want our guns because we want our guns" rather than trying to stuff 21st century reality into the quaint standards befitting flintlock muskets. That line of reasoning convinces no one other than fellow gun advocates.
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)The structure of the national guard is irrelevant.
As for authoritarian, I oppose anyone who wishes to destroy individual liberties and rights. It doesn't matter if it's the religious right and their persecution of LGBT individuals and their sick devotion to the enslavement of women as baby incubators by trying to ban abortion or those who support the classical right wing ideology that the common man is incapable of owning something like a firearm and must defer to his betters, the wealthy and powerful. I believe in the egalitarian philosophy so much I've been a card carrying member of the ACLU my entire adult life, despite my occasional disagreements on some policies. I'm proud to be called a Liberal.
Orrex
(63,084 posts)Every argument in favor of so-called "gun rights" must first and foremost account for the thousands and thousands and thousands of gun murders committed each and every year, many committed by people who were "responsible gun owners" just minutes prior.
I have never once heard or read or seen a gun advocate give a credible response to the epidemic of gun violence that didn't boil down to "criminals ignore laws blah blah militia blah mental health blah blah blah liberty and freedom." That's true of DU, and it's true of this very thread.
I want a nuclear warhead and a bank of anti-aircraft missiles. Who the hell has the authority to tell me that I can't own one? Which scoundrel is destroying my individual liberty and rights?
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)I support curing the violence inherent to our society due to social and economic causes without resorting to eliminating individual liberties. Obviously we disagree in our approach.
Socal31
(2,484 posts)braddy
(3,585 posts)FreeState
(10,552 posts)you have to look at the rate of decisions that are reversed not the numbers to compare it to the other districts.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_sixth_sense_6th_circuit_has_surpassed_the_9th_as_the_most_reversed_appeal
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Gangsters in California will realize that by carrying a concealed weapon they are violating the law and immediately cease doing so. Right?
Orrex
(63,084 posts)Let's get rid of all laws, since criminals won't obey them anyway.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)If the case goes to the Supreme Court, though I doubt they would accept cert because you would most likely end up with a 4-4 split at this point.
So you are ok with taking guns away from law-abiding citizens so that only criminals can have them? I've never found the notion that we'll hamstring the right of an individual to protect him or herself to be very progressive. Thankfully California is an outlier on the gun rights issue (gun laws are becoming more permissive/progressive in almost every state except California and New York).
Orrex
(63,084 posts)Perhaps it won't have an immediate effect on reducing availability of guns in criminals' hands, but it might reasonably cut back on the number of firearms used in crimes of passion, for instance. If the net effect is to eliminate a few hundred domestic violence-related gun murders annually, then I'd say that it's worth it.
I've previously posted a number of suggestions by which gun owners might be held more fully to account for their weapons, but these suggestions have generally been dismissed by gun advocates who offer no alternatives beyond a vague call to "improve mental healthcare."
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)In my mind a large part of the violence stems from (1) poverty and (2) the "war on drugs." Providing education, jobs, etc. would help with the first, and we just need to legalize some drugs (I'm looking at you marijuana) and figure out how to address others (meth has to stay banned, along with other dangerous drugs). Anyway, I appreciate your reasoned response, and I was perhaps a little over the top in my previous one.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What is the specific relevance of your suspicions in regards to this particular court ruling?
Right?
Just like they do in Chicago, NYC. Miami et al
TipTok
(2,474 posts)You can carry it on your head or in your waisband...
Unless the right is explicitly restricted, people should have it by default.
Probably a legal concept for that which escapes me at the moment.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your most sincere concern was directly addressed in the court's ruling. Try reading it... it allows additional and relevant information that also seems to escape you at the moment.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)Only once is necessary...
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)I doubt "gun nuts" are freaking out, though I imagine there are some folks in California who aren't happy with this decision. Thankfully though, most states are much more progressive when it comes to firearms and concealed carry. No state completely bans concealed carry and only a handful (California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, perhaps Hawaii) require a showing of "good cause."
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)U.S. judge strikes down D.C. concealed-carry gun law as probably unconstitutional
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-strikes-down-dc-concealed-carry-gun-law-as-likely-unconstitutional/2016/05/17/d36d35dc-1c49-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_dcgunban1255pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
"A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a key provision of the Districts new gun law is probably unconstitutional, ordering D.C. police to stop requiring individuals to show good reason to obtain a permit to carry a firearm on the streets of the nations capital."
The Tuesday ruling imposed a preliminary injunction, pending further litigation. The decision means the city cannot deny concealed-carry permits to residents who do not show a good reason for needing a gun but otherwise would qualify for the permits.
...
"Leons opinion reignited a running debate over the Second Amendment in the District and its courts; three different judges have come to different conclusions about the law, and gun rights advocates have made the city a main front in battles over gun-control measures."
USSC will have an important decision, and set a major precedence, if any of these cases get that far.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)argument that he didn't address tucking one in your pants so you feel safe enough to go to the store, but all he said was "home." Fact is, people are tired of george zimmerman types walking around with a gun in their pants.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I assume you meant criminals who carry guns and use them to commit crimes, not law-abiding citizens? And yeah, I've seen arguments that the 2d only applies to guns in homes. The 9th Circuit seems to think that is the case, at least for concealed carry.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Martin is considered in the statistics that supposedly show how often guns are used to protect someone. Personally, I believe most shootings by what you want to call "law-abiding citizens" could have been handled differently if the gun toter hadn't invested so much time and money preparing to shoot someone.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That is, those states in which no special permit is needed to carry concealed. The majority of states have concealed carry statutes requiring permits, and those permits must be issued if the applicant is legally qualified. They don't depend (directly) on the Second Amendment. California is in the rather extreme minority of states without a "must issue" concealed permit statute (that is, you can't get such a permit unless you are spectacularly well-connected).
Paladin
(28,202 posts)The open carry types are far more extreme, more of a danger to the public. They're carrying their firearms in plain view because they really, really want to use them against other people.
Kingofalldems
(38,360 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)His supporters tend to be authoritarians who like rigid social hierarchies and have the "daddy protect me" complex. A lot of them don't really believe in personal/individual freedoms. The ones I know are very supportive of the drug war for instance.