En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Ugh
     

    Attachments

    • Peruata En Banc Decision.pdf
      2.7 MB · Views: 2,593

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    On a cursory read the only small good thing I can say is at least they went out of their way to state they were only ruling on concealed carry and were not touching upon visible carry.

    Sucks but it's the Ninth Circuit. Not surprised.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    Elections have consequences...

    We do not reach the question whether the Second
    Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public,
    such as open carry. That question was left open by the
    Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it
    here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing
    concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the
    Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to
    carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the
    overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude
    that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the
    scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to
    the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of
    the general public.
    The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some
    degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry
    firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right,
    and the scope of such a right, are separate from and
    independent of the question presented here. We hold only
    that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the
    general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
    Case: 10-56971, 06/09/2016, ID: 10007709, DktEntry: 333-1, Page 19 of 89
    (19 of 190
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Not huge surprise. There is no right to concealed carry, while separately there is no right to open carry. Neat hat trick which allows the progressives to read bear out of the constitution.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The Nichols OC case is now teed up at the 9th circuit. Will they actually allow for OC now or do Lucy with the football and now come up with reasons to deny that too?
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    what do you think?.
     

    Attachments

    • Charlie-Brown-kick.jpg
      Charlie-Brown-kick.jpg
      51.4 KB · Views: 5,378

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    This does not bode well for DC either...

    IANAL, but someone correct me if I am wrong, because of Parker, there is applicable outside the home guarantee. (For Parker & all SAF members as party to the suit; as applied). That guarantee did NOT mention how the district may administer the right, and that is oblivious what is at stake between Wrenn and the Pink Pistols' respective cases.


    I am quite tired of the ruling class, they can all kiss my white hairy fat American ass.

    Perhaps that letter from a concerned citizen telling the court to do their job actually worked. Even if it was the wrong way, they finally did it.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,263
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom