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!
  • BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,058
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    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.

    If Trump is elected and we hold both houses of Congress, the Feds can cut off the cash flow to the offending states' social programs. This would be entertaining for, say, Baltimore City or PG/MOCO - the prospect of SNAP cards turning off would be positively terrifying to the ruling gentry.
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    If Trump is elected and we hold both houses of Congress, the Feds can cut off the cash flow to the offending states' social programs. This would be entertaining for, say, Baltimore City or PG/MOCO - the prospect of SNAP cards turning off would be positively terrifying to the ruling gentry.

    And if Hillary or Bernie are elected (or Biden / Warren 2016, shudders), the ensuing debt crash will do it out of natural forces. :innocent0
     

    shacklefordbanks

    Active Member
    Mar 27, 2013
    252
    They didn't. There's no question their next ruling (Nichols) will kill off open carry.

    I feel somewhat bad for Charles Nichols. He must be taking quit a s**t over the ruling. He was banking on concealed carry being ruled unconstitutional so he could move forward with his open carry being the only constitutional carry option argument. The 9th Circuit just showed him how wrong he was. They can restrict him from carrying even if, and only maybe if, open carry is constitutional due to public safety.

    I never quite liked his smugness against those wanting a concealed carry where open carry was banned. I always thought it was shortsighted and dangerous path to take. I guess he will not have to start carrying that purse after all.

    But unlike Charles, I feel bad when another 2nd warrior goes down.
     

    fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    Yeah but too bad the vast population of CA actually must think this sort of law is ok, otherwise they wouldn't have passed it.

    The majority of people living in the US think it's okay.:innocent0

    Assimilation, separation (Two-State Solution) or annihilation—those're the choices.
     

    Elliotte

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 11, 2011
    1,207
    Loudoun County VA
    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.


    Well, since the 9th does panels of En Banc this wasn't the whole court. While the chances are small, there is always the appeal to a full court En Banc.
     

    fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    If you think it through logically, cultures that lionize the likes of PAA, Sanders and Clinton cannot tolerate armed citizens, especially those that disagree with them.
     

    swinokur

    In a State of Bliss
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 15, 2009
    55,394
    Westminster USA
    Yep, Charles Nichols comes across as kind of arrogant and with a good sized helping of hubris. He criticizes Gura over on OCDO all the time


    What now Charlie?
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    27566226575_3687366711_b.jpg
     

    HaveBlue

    HaveBlue
    Dec 4, 2014
    733
    Virginia
    My question will make it obvious that I am not a lawyer or legal scholar.....

    Where does the Constitution define a class of citizens called "the general public"? (I guess that sounds less condescending than "unwashed masses") .

    Logically, wouldn't a CCW permit holder, necessarily, no longer be a member of "the general public" group by the fact that they have such a permit?

    Maybe I'm being obtuse. What they probably meant was that "general public" is anyone who doesn't work for or on behalf of the government.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    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.


    It was exactly what I expected. Cases are decided on the arguments presented. It is some times easy to win with a bad argument. This is not one of those cases.

    The historical precedents against concealed carry were documented in Heller. Peruta never really addressed why things are different now.

    Additionally Peruta framed the argument around an individual right without articulating the collective component of that right. The state raised an important issue without demonstrating how that is actually achieved. There are many precedents for individual rights to bend to collective interests.

    The real problem is that the term public safety gets thrown around without actually understanding its meaning and how it is actually achieved. Self defense is the individual component of public safety. There is little legal obligation for people to help others, which means the self defense is the primary component of self defense. You need to couple that with the states obligation for public safety, which is entirely general in nature and does not apply to individuals. The state actually endangers public safety because it does not allow the public to protect itself.
     

    shacklefordbanks

    Active Member
    Mar 27, 2013
    252
    My question will make it obvious that I am not a lawyer or legal scholar.....

    Where does the Constitution define a class of citizens called "the general public"? (I guess that sounds less condescending than "unwashed masses") .

    Logically, wouldn't a CCW permit holder, necessarily, no longer be a member of "the general public" group by the fact that they have such a permit?

    Maybe I'm being obtuse. What they probably meant was that "general public" is anyone who doesn't work for or on behalf of the government.

    Some animals are more equal than others.
     

    BUFF7MM

    ☠Buff➐㎣☠
    Mar 4, 2009
    13,576
    Garrett County
    My question will make it obvious that I am not a lawyer or legal scholar.....

    Where does the Constitution define a class of citizens called "the general public"? (I guess that sounds less condescending than "unwashed masses") .

    Logically, wouldn't a CCW permit holder, necessarily, no longer be a member of "the general public" group by the fact that they have such a permit?

    Maybe I'm being obtuse. What they probably meant was that "general public" is anyone who doesn't work for or on behalf of the government.

    I like your thinking, definately a good way to look at it.:thumbsup:
     

    w2kbr

    MSI EM, NRA LM, SAF, AAFG
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 13, 2009
    1,128
    Severn 21144
    Well, it has always been my position the "Bill of Rights" does NOT provide any rights to We The People. In the opening remarks of the Founders, they said(paraphrasing here) that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. To ensure that the Central Government did or does not infringe on those inalienable rights, the Founders included the First Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) to keep the Central Gov. from inhibiting Free speech, freedom of Religion, keeping and bearing arms, Quartering of Military in Private Homes, unreasonable search and seizures, and on and on. The Founders wanted to make sure the Gov. maintained a "hands-off" position on all those things enumerated in the "Bill of Rights"

    IMHO, it is very plain to understand. The Founders said what they meant, and meant what they said. I simply cannot abide in so called legal eagles rendering their own interpretations of plain English. Right is Right, if nobody is right, and Wrong is Wrong if everybody is wrong. Unfortunately, We The People are paying the price for their outright foolishness.

    Off Soapbox
    R
     

    Maestro Pistolero

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2012
    876
    Even if we did rewrite the amendment via a convention of the states or whatever, what possible language might it contain that could be more unequivocal than "shall not be infringed"?

    If the courts can eviscerate that language by interpretation there are no bounds to what they may do. They have substituted their opinion for that of the founders and those who ratified the BOR in the first place.

    Unfortunately, Heller gave them plenty to work with vis a vi concealed carry.


    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
    manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
    weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
    or state analogues.

    Aymette held that the state constitutional
    guarantee of the right to “bear” arms did not prohibit the
    banning of concealed weapons. The opinion first recognized
    that both the state right and the federal right were
    descendents of the 1689 English right, but (erroneously,
    and contrary to virtually all other authorities) read that
    right to refer only to “protect[ion of] the public liberty” and
    “keep[ing] in awe those in power,” id., at 158. The court
    then adopted a sort of middle position, whereby citizens
    were permitted to carry arms openly, unconnected with
    any service in a formal militia, . . .

    “As the Constitution of the United States, and the
    constitutions of several of the states, in terms more or
    less comprehensive, declare the right of the people to
    keep and bear arms, it has been a subject of grave discussion,
    in some of the state courts, whether a statute
    prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as
    travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons,
    be constitutional. There has been a great difference
    of opinion on the question.”
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    Even if we did rewrite the amendment via a convention of the states or whatever, what possible language might it contain that could be more unequivocal than "shall not be infringed"?

    If the courts can eviscerate that language by interpretation there are no bounds to what they may do. They have substituted their opinion for that of the founders and those who ratified the BOR in the first place.

    Unfortunately, Heller gave them plenty to work with vis a vi concealed carry.

    This is why you need mechanism, not words, to change things properly.

    The only way to prevent the government from trampling upon the rights of minority populations ("minority" here merely means "less that 50% of the population", and has nothing to do with race or any of that) is to embed into the Constitution a direct capability for minority populations to overturn laws that would trample upon them.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,438
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom