En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

EL1227 · Jun 9, 2016

swinokur said:
the land of fruits and nuts

And the one's who aren't fruits and nuts are just a bunch of flakes ...

swinokur · Jun 9, 2016

Scalia's passing was a tragedy in more ways than one.

Brooklyn · Jun 9, 2016

shacklefordbanks said:
I'm afraid the En Banc Peruta decision is much worse than expected. (At least expected by us who thought the 9th Circuit would find some way out of granting permits.)

The panel ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public and specifically do not answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public, the panel made a point of saying that they "would entirely agree with the answer the concurrence" of Judge Graber.

Judge Garber "write separately only to state that, even if we assume that the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional.

So the vast majority of Ninth Circuit believes that even if open carry was protected by the Second Amendment that restrictions like the "good and substantial" requirement to get an open carry permit in the interest of "public safety" are constitutional.

You still do not get to carry your gun.

They have set a trap. If you only argue that open carry is constitutional the court will take years to say "yeah, but so what, as a matter of public safety we can limit the number of guns on the street." Then you are right back where you started. This is a perfect blueprint for other states to get around the 2nd Amendment completely. Every restriction will be ok as a matter of public safety.

I am truly not happy about this. Bad news for us all.

In the 9th there was never much doubt how it would rule..

And SCOTUS likely will take a pass..

So now we start thinking about a Constitutional convention
..

Its time.. and in any case it's coming.

The end of the union within my lifetime...

let's get on with it.

press1280 · Jun 9, 2016

shacklefordbanks said:
I'm afraid the En Banc Peruta decision is much worse than expected. (At least expected by us who thought the 9th Circuit would find some way out of granting permits.)

The panel ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public and specifically do not answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public, the panel made a point of saying that they "would entirely agree with the answer the concurrence" of Judge Graber.

Judge Garber "write separately only to state that, even if we assume that the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional.

So the vast majority of Ninth Circuit believes that even if open carry was protected by the Second Amendment that restrictions like the "good and substantial" requirement to get an open carry permit in the interest of "public safety" are constitutional.

You still do not get to carry your gun.

They have set a trap. If you only argue that open carry is constitutional the court will take years to say "yeah, but so what, as a matter of public safety we can limit the number of guns on the street." Then you are right back where you started. This is a perfect blueprint for other states to get around the 2nd Amendment completely. Every restriction will be ok as a matter of public safety.

I am truly not happy about this. Bad news for us all.

Graber ' s concurrence only got 2 other votes, that has to tell you something. The open carry is another question, although I'm trying to wrap my head around CA9 killing off CCW in favor of open carry.

fred333 · Jun 9, 2016

Klunatic said:
I guess we will have G&S permits for voting, free speech and attending church as well right?

G&S for free speech is coming..[no sarcasm]

fightinbluhen51 · Jun 9, 2016

press1280 said:
Graber ' s concurrence only got 2 other votes, that has to tell you something. The open carry is another question, although I'm trying to wrap my head around CA9 killing off CCW in favor of open carry.

As many have stated here over the years, if you give us open carry, the public will freak and demand we conceal it; then we are right back to where we wanted to be.

shacklefordbanks · Jun 9, 2016

However the panel ruled that there was NO constitutional right to concealed carry, so there was no need to address the argument about the good and substantial reason being constitutional so they did not have to sign on to the concurrence, EXCEPT they went out of their way to say the agreed with the concurrence. Only reason to do that was to set the stage for the follow on lawsuit challenging the open carry ban. Basically saying to bring it on because we are just going to say it does not matter, the government can restrict your rights in the name of public safety.

Gryphon · Jun 9, 2016

danb said:
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.

Exactly! Disingenuous, intentionally short sighted grabbers. So where can I bear it?

KevinK · Jun 9, 2016

shacklefordbanks said:
However the panel ruled that there was NO constitutional right to concealed carry, so there was no need to address the argument about the good and substantial reason being constitutional so they did not have to sign on to the concurrence, EXCEPT they went out of their way to say the agreed with the concurrence. Only reason to do that was to set the stage for the follow on lawsuit challenging the open carry ban. Basically saying to bring it on because we are just going to say it does not matter, the government can restrict your rights in the name of public safety.

This is how I see it. I wish I didn't.

shacklefordbanks · Jun 9, 2016

If you follow the logic to its final conclusion, there are NO restrictions other than a total ban of handguns that are unconstitutional.

So:

Ban on assault weapons: OK
Handgun licenses: OK
No carry: OK
Etc, Etc, Etc: OK

Kharn · Jun 9, 2016

swinokur said:
hopefully a CERT petition will be forthcoming but with a 4-4 split, doesn't seem worth the effort.

At this point, I'd almost prefer a loss at the SC rather than another denied petition with years of waiting for the DC cases. At least then the NRA can use it to bully Congress towards adding national reciprocity on a must-pass bill and work to reverse the SC or add a 28th Amendment.

wolfwood · Jun 9, 2016

Well I've still got two carry cases out of Hawaii where my clients asked to carry either openly or concealed so I am still alive.

swinokur · Jun 9, 2016

If Trump is elected and we hold both houses of congress, national reciprocity will be a reality, although I don't know how it helps us unless the MGA makes changes.

MDFF2008 · Jun 9, 2016

shacklefordbanks said:
If you follow the logic to its final conclusion, there are NO restrictions other than a total ban of handguns that are unconstitutional.

So:

Ban on assault weapons: OK
Handgun licenses: OK
No carry: OK
Etc, Etc, Etc: OK

That's basically what the courts have decided. What was not expressly said in Heller is fair game, and even then, the courts are loath to even enforce Heller.

BeoBill · Jun 9, 2016

Klunatic said:
DC is different because you don't have the option of Open Carry so they can't fall back on that loophole. They make the excuse you can OC so you don't need to be able to CC.

And in Merryland they make the excuse that you can walk your dog somewhere else, presumably after stepping out of your Tardis.

shacklefordbanks · Jun 9, 2016

I would pay good money to see the 9th Circuit judges walk the streets of Compton explaining to all the gang bangers why they need a permit.

BeoBill · Jun 9, 2016

fred333 said:
G&S for free speech is coming..[no sarcasm]

And the unhindered practice or a Christial religion. Also [no sarcasm]... :sad20:

randian · Jun 9, 2016

press1280 said:
The open carry is another question, although I'm trying to wrap my head around CA9 killing off CCW in favor of open carry.

They didn't. There's no question their next ruling (Nichols) will kill off open carry.

rambling_one · Jun 9, 2016

swinokur said:
If Trump is elected and we hold both houses of congress, national reciprocity will be a reality, although I don't know how it helps us unless the MGA makes changes.

How about an executive order stating a permit from any state is valid, thus including we non-res permit holders.

shacklefordbanks · Jun 9, 2016

wolfwood said:
Well I've still got two carry cases out of Hawaii where my clients asked to carry either openly or concealed so I am still alive.

I'm afraid you'll never make it past the 9th panel. It's a matter of public safety that your unwashed clients not be able to carry guns on the street. They might shoot someone or themselves. So says Judge Garber.

En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

R.I.P.

Attachments

In a State of Bliss

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

Banned

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Active Member

inveniam viam aut faciam

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Active Member

Crank in the Third Row

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics