Federal Court Shoots Down Concealed Carry in California

[martybegan]

These freaking morons, should all be impeached and replaced with random names from the Fresno phone book.

Appeals court rules Americans don't have right to carry concealed guns | Fox News

We have a right to guns, but we don't get to conceal them without permit.

The issue isn't the permit, the issue is the Sheriff can deny a person one "just because". These people applied for a CCW, and were denied because they didn't give a "reason" why they "need" one.

If people see you carry, they will leave you alone. Not everyone notices the way a jacket lays to know that person is carrying.

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

 

[martybegan]

How so? The National Guard may have federal connections, but the 2nd amendment was never repealed, and if a State chose too, they can still raise another Militia.

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

Heller, only established that within your home you have a right to own a weapon(s) suitable for home defense, and they don't need to be unloaded or have locks.

I think it will be interesting to see how much power individual states have to refuse to license concealed carry or to not allow weapons in cars.

heller established the 2nd amendment as an individual right, not a collective one, it did not answer the question on CCW because the question wasn't asked.

 

[Contumacious]

We have a right to guns, but we don't get to conceal them without permit.

The issue isn't the permit, the issue is the Sheriff can deny a person one "just because". These people applied for a CCW, and were denied because they didn't give a "reason" why they "need" one.

If people see you carry, they will leave you alone. Not everyone notices the way a jacket lays to know that person is carrying.

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

THEY HAVE NO SUCH AUTHORITY.

DON'T LET THEM BAMBOOZLE YOU

 

[Contumacious]

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

Heller, only established that within your home you have a right to own a weapon(s) suitable for home defense, and they don't need to be unloaded or have locks.

I think it will be interesting to see how much power individual states have to refuse to license concealed carry or to not allow weapons in cars.

heller established the 2nd amendment as an individual right, not a collective one, it did not answer the question on CCW because the question wasn't answered.

Heller was not a good case.

It allowed UNCONSTITUTIONAL FEDERAL REGULATIONS TO STAND.

 

[bendog]

We have a right to guns, but we don't get to conceal them without permit.

The issue isn't the permit, the issue is the Sheriff can deny a person one "just because". These people applied for a CCW, and were denied because they didn't give a "reason" why they "need" one.

If people see you carry, they will leave you alone. Not everyone notices the way a jacket lays to know that person is carrying.

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

 

[martybegan]

The issue isn't the permit, the issue is the Sheriff can deny a person one "just because". These people applied for a CCW, and were denied because they didn't give a "reason" why they "need" one.

If people see you carry, they will leave you alone. Not everyone notices the way a jacket lays to know that person is carrying.

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal court in the nation.

They're probably about to add to that score.

Even though I believe current doctrine is wrong and states should have the right to make gun laws, under current reading of the law, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY survive appeal.

I can't even see how THIS court could ignore Moore v Madigan where a federal court already ruled that concealed carry is a protected right.

An appellate court in the 7th has no binding authority on the 9th. Open carry of an unloaded gun is legal in CA, A concealed gun, loaded or not, requires a permit issued by the County Sheriff for all not LE personnel. BTW, only a fool desperate for attention openly carries an unloaded firearm.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal court in the nation.

They're probably about to add to that score.

Even though I believe current doctrine is wrong and states should have the right to make gun laws, under current reading of the law, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY survive appeal.

I can't even see how THIS court could ignore Moore v Madigan where a federal court already ruled that concealed carry is a protected right.

An appellate court in the 7th has no binding authority on the 9th. Open carry of an unloaded gun is legal in CA, A concealed gun, loaded or not, requires a permit issued by the County Sheriff for all not LE personnel. BTW, only a fool desperate for attention openly carries an unloaded firearm.

No of course they don't have authority over them, but on matters of whether a law is constitutional or not , the appellate courts should be consistent.

The same could be said when you had some courts ruling that gay marriage was legal and others saying it wasn't.

That's stupid. Geography should play ZERO part whether a law is Constitutional or not. Precedent however should.

As for open carry. I don't see the point. I always carry (concealed) myself, but that's more a matter of habit than out of any fear that I may need my gun.

 

[martybegan]

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is the most overturned Federal court in the nation.

They're probably about to add to that score.

Even though I believe current doctrine is wrong and states should have the right to make gun laws, under current reading of the law, I don't see how this could POSSIBLY survive appeal.

I can't even see how THIS court could ignore Moore v Madigan where a federal court already ruled that concealed carry is a protected right.

An appellate court in the 7th has no binding authority on the 9th. Open carry of an unloaded gun is legal in CA, A concealed gun, loaded or not, requires a permit issued by the County Sheriff for all not LE personnel. BTW, only a fool desperate for attention openly carries an unloaded firearm.

Than you admit that there is no true open carry in CA, right?

 

[Contumacious]

The issue isn't the permit, the issue is the Sheriff can deny a person one "just because". These people applied for a CCW, and were denied because they didn't give a "reason" why they "need" one.

If people see you carry, they will leave you alone. Not everyone notices the way a jacket lays to know that person is carrying.

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

BULLSHIT

Is it believable that Iraqis had more rights under "tyrant" Saddam Hussein than Americans?


.

 

[bendog]

Well, technically speaking you're right, and states still have a power to have a state "guard" or milita. But those that exist are small, and seemingly marginally effective if there was a need. The fed govt poured money into the states to fund natl guards, which are generally deployed in civil emergency. But the natl guards can be called up to the federal level.

State defense force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also the link in the first sentence for the relationship between the natl guard and state militias.

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

Heller, only established that within your home you have a right to own a weapon(s) suitable for home defense, and they don't need to be unloaded or have locks.

I think it will be interesting to see how much power individual states have to refuse to license concealed carry or to not allow weapons in cars.

heller established the 2nd amendment as an individual right, not a collective one, it did not answer the question on CCW because the question wasn't asked.

yes and no. Heller said no restriction for self defense guns in the home, but other restrictions could be constitutional .... including

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession **2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing *627 conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

So, while the question is unanswered, it's not possible to argue that CC cannot be regulated

 

[martybegan]

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

Heller, only established that within your home you have a right to own a weapon(s) suitable for home defense, and they don't need to be unloaded or have locks.

I think it will be interesting to see how much power individual states have to refuse to license concealed carry or to not allow weapons in cars.

heller established the 2nd amendment as an individual right, not a collective one, it did not answer the question on CCW because the question wasn't asked.

yes and no. Heller said no restriction for self defense guns in the home, but other restrictions could be constitutional .... including

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession **2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing *627 conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

So, while the question is unanswered, it's not possible to argue that CC cannot be regulated

The real question is can government say NO carrying out of the home, i.e. no open carry, no concealed carry. (unless you got a buddy in the government, which is another issue, i.e. cronyism)

 

[bendog]

If people see you carry, they will leave you alone. Not everyone notices the way a jacket lays to know that person is carrying.

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

 

[Contumacious]

This still doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people, and that right cannot be infringed.

Absolutely correct

Well then to me, if a sheriff can deny a CCW, and open carry is illegal, I really don't see how this does not infringe on "bearing" in right to keep and bear arms.

Heller, only established that within your home you have a right to own a weapon(s) suitable for home defense, and they don't need to be unloaded or have locks.

I think it will be interesting to see how much power individual states have to refuse to license concealed carry or to not allow weapons in cars.

heller established the 2nd amendment as an individual right, not a collective one, it did not answer the question on CCW because the question wasn't asked.

yes and no. Heller said no restriction for self defense guns in the home, but other restrictions could be constitutional .... including

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession **2817 of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing *627 conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

So, while the question is unanswered, it's not possible to argue that CC cannot be regulated

That's pure bullshit.

The 2A does NOT grant regulatory authority


Why do you continue to lie about the ruling when there is HISTORICAL EVIDENCE that the 2A does NOT confer regulatory authority over the right to bear arms

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights"

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist 84

 

[martybegan]

Another issue, is that more than likely, open carry isn't allowed in that county either.

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

 

[pwjohn]

The wording:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Does it say the right of the militia or the right of the people? One would think that since that everyone can read how in the hell do they screw up something so simple?

Is is so simple. The militia secures the state, the people living within that state are the militia. Including your 90 year old granny, if she's still able.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

I would agree that they can pass a law meaning you have to prove you actually have a right to own/carry a firearm because after all they also have a right to pass a law requiring you to prove you have a right to vote, but any restrictions beyond that start to become onerous they are in fact bans.

 

[bendog]

Know the laws before you carry a gun. With the internet it is easy to find out.

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

 

[martybegan]

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

The criteria was "need". Something as ambiguous as that creates the ability for the official to deny a permit on their whim.

And what is the problem for wanting a CCW just because you want one? Why does government get a choice in it beyond making sure you are legally able to posses a firearm?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It's not a question of knowing the law, its a question of the law being unconstitutional.

How is the government being able to decide who can carry or not carry on a whim constitutional?

You might look at Breyer's dissent in Heller as for regulations of the day, and then in the 19th century west, municipalites had restrictions on carry.

They were also small enough that the Sheriffs could at least come close to guarantee the safety of those who gave up their weapons before entering the jurisdiction. That was the compact. Show me a police department in a city that bans carry that guarantees your safety and provides enough patrols to back it up, and then that situation would have a point.

Ah, but you're conceded limitations existed. The question becomes whether the citizenry was satisified that the regulation made them safer.

the bottom line is we can arm ourselves in our homes. Carry outside is subject to regulation. An outright ban, with no exception in any case would, imo, be unconst. But licensing subject to individuals passing some "safety course" or something .... prolly gonna be ok.

What is the difference between an outright ban, and a law enforcement agency that can reject your CCW "just because they feel like it"?

The lawsuit wasn't about any courses required, or permits, or anything else, they were denied a permit because the local Sheriff's office decided "you don't need one".

That's not entirely correct. I assume you referred to Peruta. In Peruta, there was a requirement for some class, as I recall. But more importantly, to get a CC license, one had to show he fit certain criteria. The plaintiff's didn't fit.

If it were truly up to just the whims of some local officials, the restrictions would fail because they would be arbitrary and thus fun afoul of the 14th. But, so long as the requirements are reasonably related to something making the applicant different from just someone generally wanted protection from some unspecified threat, then I think the regulations would be upheld.

They ARE up to the whims of a county sherrif though. You could literally see a person move from one county to another and go from having a CCW permit to not having one, based on the politics of an elected Sheriff. SURELY you see the danger in that.