Dealing a blow to gun supporters, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.
In a dispute that could ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said local law enforcement officials can place significant restrictions on who is allowed to carry concealed guns.
In a 7-4 vote, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must supply a “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry permit. People who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are often given permits.
The ruling overturned a decision by three-judge panel of the same court that said applicants need only express a desire for personal safety.
The 9th Circuit’s rulings are binding in nine Western states. Only two other federal appeals courts have taken up the issue — in cases out of New York and Maryland — and both ruled the way the 9th Circuit did.
The National Rifle Association called the ruling “out of touch” and said the dispute could ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court, which has so far declined to take up the issue.
“This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection,” said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.
Gun-control advocates hailed the decision.
The New York-based gun control organization Everytown called it “a major victory for public safety.”
The 9th Circuit decision arose from a lawsuit Edward Peruta filed challenging the San Diego County sheriff’s refusal to issue him a permit because he failed to cite a “good cause.” The sheriff required applicants to produce supporting documents, such as a restraining order against a possible attacker.
Peruta argued that the requirement violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris called the ruling “a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws.”
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
The good cause is that I am a Free American Citizen who has served his Country in many ways for over FIFTY years. I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY FREEDOM and my right to bear arms. This article indicates EXACTLY why the second amendment was put into place. The government is threatening to put you under their absolute control and whether you like guns or not, you had better recognize the fact that it was the GUN that gave you the freedom that you have and if you don’t want to live under TERRANY you had better send the message LOUD AND CLEAR!
This is just another way in which the government is trying to incorporate martial law. Like you, I will not give up my second amendment right, which legally allows me to carry. I went through the training, obtained my permit, and I am well capable of defending myself.
THEY WILL TAKE MY GUN FROM MY COLD DEAD HAND!
Well said, Dawg. The right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It is the law of the land, our Constitutioal right, and it doesn’t put any restrictions on it, like “if the government agrees”. It was put in there to protect us against goverment control.
Some how the 9th fed dist court has been able to assemble a pack of incompetent, ignorant judge with absolutely no understanding of the constitution!! Brains they possess none!! Yes, cowards they are, they believe the robes they wear protect them as the are more homosexual than men!! They’re true inept losers and will continue to demonstrate such!!!
Just what are these MORON EXCUSES FOR JUDGES going to do…..when some CRIMINAL THUG Points a Gun at their USELESS BRAIN DEAD HEAD in Public….and NO ONE is there to SAVE THIS USELESS PIECE OF INHUMANITY from getting KILLED…
Some how the 9th fed dist court has been able to assemble a pack of incompetent, ignorant judge with absolutely no understanding of the constitution!! Brains they possess none!! Yes, cowards they are, they believe the robes they wear protect them as the are more homosexual than men!! They’re true inept losers and will continue to demonstrate such!!!
Double standard The Constitution gives the rights not local law enforcement
David-
Technically, no; the Constitution “gives” squat. We have a NATURAL right to self defense, and the Constitution forbids government jackals from screwing with it. Every judge who voted in favor of this restriction should be brought up on charges of felony perjury, for lying under their oaths of office.
All they need to do is refer to US v Cruikshank, which says, in relevant part:
“[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;… This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…”. U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
Let me repeat that last line: “No other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government”. There’s that grade-school logic, of which the federal courts used to have a much better command than is the case today.
As the Cruikshank court clearly understands (and only the mendacious could not), “Shall not be infringed” prohibits the party limited thereby from any measure of any kind which has the effect of burdening, hindering, or, in short, affecting in any way the keeping and bearing of any weapon by any person. Interfering in the acquisition of any weapon is implicitly prohibited as well, of course.
The Constitution’s Second Amendment – which ALL officeholders swear fealty to – does not specify whether “keep and bear arms” means openly or concealed, either. IMO, Bear MEANS Bear, in any way a law-abiding man or woman sees fit to do so.
In addition, although i found out that both the State Constitutions of Montana and Colorado specifically forbid carrying concealed weapons, in 1822, Kentucky judges made the following analysis, with which i am in agreement:
“But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form—it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution. If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. … The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; … For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing [of] concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former is unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.”
— Kentucky Supreme Court, Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 KY. (2 LITT.) 90 (Kentucky 1822) reprinted in THE FOUNDERS’ CONSTITUTION, Volume Five (Amendments I-XII) p. 212-213 (Univ. of Chicago Press).
You see, we have Rights that long preceded the writing of the Constitution, much less it’s ratification, and these Rights – God-given, not the fickle gift of some politician or magistrate – will long outlast the Constitution, as well. In short, no matter how many times you’ve heard it, NO ONE HAS “Constitutional Rights.” In actuality, we have Constitutionally-secured Rights, but these are only as good (and secure) as the honor, integrity, and honesty of office-holders, from the lowliest Marine recruit up to the President, from the youngest unpaid Congressional page to the Speaker or Senate leader, from the lowliest law clerk up to SCOTUS. But if we find that any of them LACK that honor, integrity, or honesty, then it is OUR DUTY to drive them from office, peaceably if they’ll go, forcibly if not.
The Constitution of the United States was written as a binder upon officeholders, to set limits beyond which they could not(lawfully) go. It is the shame of Americans that more have not been arrested and tried for Felony Perjury every time they violate the precepts of the document to which they swore their fealty – but it’s not too late to do so.
Well said, Constitutionalist!!
Does this mean that if you have a permit you can “OPEN carry?”
Barbara-
You cannot “license” a right; if you do, it becomes a privilege which can be denied.
A Right is something you have simply by virtue of being born; to keep these rights untrammeled, we must not commit felonies against our fellows, however.
Hamilton(first Sec. of the Treasury) strongly disagreed with having a Bill of Rights appended to the Constitution because he considered this point SO obvious, that is, that we have inherent, natural rights from God which no government can lawfully trample.
Lucky for us, he was totally outvoted, because the State reps pointed out so many flaws and opportunities for evil men to twist the Constitution’s meaning(particularly Patrick Henry) that the reps of ALL the States simply refused to ratify the Constitution withOUT that Bill of Rights – which, just like a codacil to a will, modifies and further limits what it states. Here, let me point out the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which – curiously – is often OMITTED from most textbooks today(probably because the PtB don’t want Americans to KNOW about it):
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See especially the bolded and italicized words. “Misconstruction” is another way to say “misconstrue,” or change the meaning thereof…a principle apparently quite lost on liberal SCOTUS judges. The word “restrictive” also has a specific legal meaning which SCOTUS seems to have ALSO chosen to ignore when it suits them – and why not? No one has ever arrested or tried a sitting judge for lying under his oath of office, have they? Therefore they have no fear of the American People…and they SHOULD! Every law passed by Congress should have to pass the “beneficent” test, too – that is, does the law benefit the people or oppress them?
WARNING: DON’T MESS with TEXAS!!! You have been duly warned.
WARNING: DON’T MESS with TEXAS!!! You have been duly warned.
Texas Son:
That should be DON’T MESS WITH THE PATRIOTS!!! If I remember correctly, there were heros from all over the U.S who died at the Alamo, not just Texans. We had better work as a team “UNION” of the people if we are to take our Country back.
Isn’t it very odd that the big share of the ones screaming for gun control have body guards that are armed? Time for people to wake up!
It appears there is a plan here which requires some conservative attention. So if the ninth circuit court makes this ruling and it is appealed to the supreme court and it happens to get there while they are short a judge and the ruling comes back 4 to 4 (very likely). The lower court ruling stands. Seems to me that could be the plan. Consequently, it could be advantageous to stretch the appeal out so it does not reach the court until some time next year.
Why anyone lives in that damn state I will never know. The so called liberals have ruined it and it is a very beautiful, desirable state to live in.
No American can ever be really free without the availability to self protect. That self-protection is just as American as apple pie, hot dogs and baseball.
The nineth district court is right…the Constitution does not make it right to conceal carry. The Constitution gives us the right to bare arms, the law makers need to get their heads not of their A– and pass a law that allows people to carry conceal which they have done in most states. This is what the Justices go by. The lawyers are the simple minded ones that can-t figure that out.
I know this is a nasty comment-but maybe a few judges could be victims of street crime or their immediate families. Would this wake them up. They think they can vote this way because they live in rich gated communities that get the best police protection. Let them be victims for once. Please!!
I firmly beleive that there should be a law put in place that states, “Any appointed of elected official who attacks the “CONSTITUTION” or trys to amend any of its amendments, Shall be immediately arrested for deceiving the public, by not intending to up hold that SCARED document that has shaped this nation. No person shall restrict the ownership of firearms. Or restrict the manufature of owner ship of ammunition, or register such items. There shall not be any record of said purchases. Past present or future.
Any person desiring to regulate such shall be prosicuted under articles of treason.
See how many so called politicians would stand up for a bill like this one?.
The State of Arizona is now my home
And I am happy here. Although I do miss San Diego it used to be beautful now look at down town SD blacks, mex, Muslim all living on Calif welfare system.Rats running the street the State and my city are finished a least for this life time.
WHEN THE C0NSTITUTION WAS CREATED THE CONCEPT OF A CONCEALED WEAPON WAS MUTE.
WHO COULD CONCEAL A BLUNDERBUS YOU WOULD NEED STRONG SUSPENDERS TO HOLD UP YOUR HOLSTER.. HAND GUNS WERE SIMILAR IN SIZE. SMALL CANONS. GET REAL
Emil-
One word: knives.
Look, “arms” was DELIBERATELY not defined as “firearms” in the Constitution for a REASON…that reason being that any peaceable man or woman could keep, bear, and use any arms whatsoever – from slingshots to nukes – in defense of himself, his property, his family, his neighborhood, his town/city/county/State or Country – from bullies of all stripes. That would include thugs, including thugs who wear badges.
Most people are unaware that if any officer of any type attempts to make an unlawful arrest(for example, takes your camera from your hands, smashes it on the ground, then tries to arrest you for “littering” – which has happened), you can resist that arrest with FORCE, up to and including the KILLING of that agent, and no greater than manslaughter charges can be brought against you. Want proof? Ok:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.”
Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
i have more, but i think that these instances sorta prove the point, which i needn’t belabor.
It’s time to take this country back from the government that has sorely out grown it’s boundries….peacefully, not a chance. England didn’t give up peacefully and neither will the US government who thinks it knows everything and can govern everything….
Marcos-
i do NOT recommend ANY kind of armed revolution against USG forces.
Look, there’s a very old strategy which the globalists have used to advance their OWG/NWO agenda for many years; i leaned about it from G. Edward Griffin, author of “The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.” It’s called the A-I-F strategy, which stands for agitate, insulate, and facilitate.
Certain eschelons of the USG have been DELIBERATELY trying to get Americans to revolt for quite some time, so that they can put it down without mercy and justify both retributive and preventive measures. Right now, they’re stomping on the “agitate” nerve, trying to get people pissed off. That’s working great! Next, they’ll have a false-flag planned, where many Americans will be massacred(the “insulate” part; keep the intended victims from knowing what’s about to happen), and the blame can fall on those in the Liberty/TEA party/anti-globalist movement(they’ll “facilitate” the intended perps by any number of methods, like the FBI did with the first WTC bombing that failed when the bomb-laden van was not parked next to a structural column). Then, they’ll move to exterminate or imprison millions – that is, IF Americans fall for it!
If you’d like to read Griffin’s whole article, google “The Grand Deception: A Second Look at the War on Terror,” and get hip; you’ll also learn many previously-unknown-to-you facts about American history and the methodologies of the PtB, including their use of Foundations and the grants they give. It’s roughly 30 pages, so it ain’t for the lazy…or the emotion-and-impulse-driven.
Or, stay ignorant, vote for The Liar, and wait ’til you get your 4AM door-smashing-in.
Do what is right and let the consequences follow Aka live to fight it out in court tomorrow Take out USCCA insurance to help pay the bill