- Dec 30, 2012
- 7,001
If/when Clinton gets elected. Then "Atlas Shrugged" comes true.
En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
If/when Clinton gets elected. Then "Atlas Shrugged" comes true.
iH8DemLibz
When All Else Fails.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand? Infringe: 1) to actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.); 2) act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:. That means don't take away, limit, undermine or otherwise encroach on an American citizen's right to keep (own) and bear (hold, wear, or use lawfully) arms (firearms, knives, swords, spears, etc.). *sigh*
PowPow
Where's the beef?
Coincidentally, I just ordered more ammo...
You know, I've heard that you can never have too much.
krucam
Ultimate Member
This decisions whole reliance on its ruling towards "concealed carry" may be its downfall. They clearly leave the door open on "open carry" or just "carry" as written in the 2A.
From the ruling:
The Nichols v Brown Open Carry case is going to be huge now. It is currently before the 9th Circuit, it was stayed there pending the Peruta outcome. Nichols couldn't have asked for a better gift to be dropped into his lap.
I hope SAF, GOA, NRA and everyone else get behind the Nichols case as it is the only salvation coming from 9th and its more pure nature of "carry" may be the saving grace...
From the ruling:
The Nichols v Brown Open Carry case is going to be huge now. It is currently before the 9th Circuit, it was stayed there pending the Peruta outcome. Nichols couldn't have asked for a better gift to be dropped into his lap.
I hope SAF, GOA, NRA and everyone else get behind the Nichols case as it is the only salvation coming from 9th and its more pure nature of "carry" may be the saving grace...
No they don't. Remember this is CA9 we're talking about. There is zero chance they fail to squash open carry with a public safety carveout.
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,099
Remember, folks, the Federal judges who decide these cases are all nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Every one of them.
Elections matter.
Do you want Hillary nominating every new federal judge whenever there's a vacancy in the districts, circuits, and Supremes?
#federaljudgesmatter
#presidentialelectionsmatter
#congressionalelectionsmatter
Every one of them.
Elections matter.
Do you want Hillary nominating every new federal judge whenever there's a vacancy in the districts, circuits, and Supremes?
#federaljudgesmatter
#presidentialelectionsmatter
#congressionalelectionsmatter
krucam
Ultimate Member
I disagree, they can not put the genie back in the bottle and they can not completely eviscerate the right that they acknowledge exists.
All rights are subject to Time, Place, Manner restrictions. Here, they've eliminated 1 of the 2 Manners of Carry in the Court. They've eliminated the alternate method through Legislation. They won't get away with taking the 2nd away.
Will we see more decisions happen before a new pres is picked?
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
CA9 will take away open carry with the expectation SCOTUS either denies cert, or grants cert and upholds their decision.
There will be no carry allowed in CA9 and SCOTUS will look the other way.
There will be no carry allowed in CA9 and SCOTUS will look the other way.
Maestro Pistolero
Active Member
- Mar 20, 2012
- 876
They just did exactly that, as of now.
danb
dont be a dumbass
This is awesome! Now Nichols will be even more obnoxious about open carry is the real right.
But who knows. 2016 may go down in history as the year of the obnoxious outsider winning.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,763
Somehow, someday, somewhere, someway, I will buy for you the beverage(s) of your choice.
shacklefordbanks
Active Member
- Mar 27, 2013
- 252
Yes they will and they said so in our faces. Here is the meat of the decision:
VII. Agreement with the Concurrence
Our colleague Judge Graber concurs fully in our opinion,
but writes separately “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.” Graber, J., concurrence at 52. Even if we
assume that the Second Amendment applies, California’s
regulation of the carrying of concealed weapons in public
survives intermediate scrutiny because it “promotes a
substantial government interest that would be achieved less
effectively absent the regulation.” Id. at 58 (internal
quotation marks omitted). For the reasons given in our
opinion, we do not need to reach the question addressed by
the concurrence. But if we were to reach that question, we
would entirely agree with the answer the concurrence
provides.
Conclusion
We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in
any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members
of the general public. This holding resolves the Second
Amendment question presented in this case. It also
necessarily resolves, adversely to Plaintiffs, their derivative
claims of prior restraint, equal protection, privileges and
immunities, and due process. In light of our holding, we need
not, and 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.
Our colleague Judge Graber concurs fully in our opinion,
but writes separately “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.” Graber, J., concurrence at 52. Even if we
assume that the Second Amendment applies, California’s
regulation of the carrying of concealed weapons in public
survives intermediate scrutiny because it “promotes a
substantial government interest that would be achieved less
effectively absent the regulation.” Id. at 58 (internal
quotation marks omitted). For the reasons given in our
opinion, we do not need to reach the question addressed by
the concurrence. But if we were to reach that question, we
would entirely agree with the answer the concurrence
provides.
Conclusion
We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in
any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members
of the general public. This holding resolves the Second
Amendment question presented in this case. It also
necessarily resolves, adversely to Plaintiffs, their derivative
claims of prior restraint, equal protection, privileges and
immunities, and due process. In light of our holding, we need
not, and 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.
Judge Graber's concurrence came next it it was full of all the new-age reasons that the courts have been using to make ANY gun regulation legal other than the complete ban on handguns. The 9th Circuit is saying bring on your open carry lawsuits, we don't care. We can say open carry, or any other carry, outside your house can be regulated including requiring a permit for "good cause." So read it for yourself and see. If this stands, we are screwed.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf
aquaman
Ultimate Member
Nothing will really change until there is massive civil disobedience. And that won't happen because conservative types don't rally and organize like the leftist
MikeTF
Ultimate Member
I suspect that there are many criminals there that really don't see this law affecting them one bit. They will continue to concealed carry all they like, without fear of prosecution: just like the illegal immigrants, welfare cheats, and other criminal elements of our society.
DanGuy48
Ultimate Member
So I got this from NRA-ILA this morning; is this case effectively dead for us because of the instructions they used on how the case be reconsidered?
"Nevertheless, after that decision was issued, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took it upon itself to order the case to be reheard. In reversing the panel’s decision, the full court deceptively recast the issue in the case as whether plaintiffs, who “wish to carry concealed firearms in public” but “do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties” nevertheless have a Second Amendment right to be issued concealed carry licenses."
.....
"While the majority opinion blithely asserts that people who believe California’s ban on open carry violates the Second Amendment have the option of challenging that ban, they ignore the fact that no provision of California law provides a means for law-abiding citizens to do so for self-defense. Thus, achieving proper standing to mount such a challenge would be difficult for anyone who does not commit a criminal violation of California’s open carry ban.
In the final analysis, the majority opinion does perform one very important public service: It provides the clearest possible example of why liberty-loving Americans need to go to the polls this November and vote for those candidates who will preserve their Second Amendment rights. The consequences of failing to do so could not be clearer. "
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ked-to-deny-californians-their-right-to-carry
"Nevertheless, after that decision was issued, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took it upon itself to order the case to be reheard. In reversing the panel’s decision, the full court deceptively recast the issue in the case as whether plaintiffs, who “wish to carry concealed firearms in public” but “do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties” nevertheless have a Second Amendment right to be issued concealed carry licenses."
.....
"While the majority opinion blithely asserts that people who believe California’s ban on open carry violates the Second Amendment have the option of challenging that ban, they ignore the fact that no provision of California law provides a means for law-abiding citizens to do so for self-defense. Thus, achieving proper standing to mount such a challenge would be difficult for anyone who does not commit a criminal violation of California’s open carry ban.
In the final analysis, the majority opinion does perform one very important public service: It provides the clearest possible example of why liberty-loving Americans need to go to the polls this November and vote for those candidates who will preserve their Second Amendment rights. The consequences of failing to do so could not be clearer. "
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ked-to-deny-californians-their-right-to-carry
shacklefordbanks
Active Member
- Mar 27, 2013
- 252
Charles is screwed too. The 9th Circuit clearly said it does not matter what manner of carry there is, open or concealed, the government can regulate that carry outside the home any way they want to other than a total ban. So even if you win open carry, you lose because they will require a "good cause" for you to get a permit to do so from the government.
So the legal eagles need to come up with better arguments because this line of arguments will get most guns banned and nobody will be able to leave their house with them. We need a strong argument for keeping and bearing any arm we can bear WITHOUT any government permission whatsoever. Otherwise, we get this crap from the courts stuffed with Clinton and now Obama judges.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000? (3 Viewers)- Latest: BurtonRW
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
What would be the best Maryland compliant rifle I can buy for under $3000? (3 Viewers)
- Started by Tool
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
The Clock's Tickin': Be READY for Tomorrow!- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 1
-
-
