9th Circuit just ruled that there is “no right” to carry a firearm

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!
  • rob

    DINO Extraordinaire
    Oct 11, 2010
    2,993
    Augusta, GA
    My simple thoughts go something like this.

    The COTUS is the contract that gives the Govt any power at all. If the govt violates the COTUS, it terminates the contract, ends it own legitimate existence, and no one is morally obligated to obey it ever again.



    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
     

    Bob A

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    23,438
    It’s a smug question. How’d that work out in Afghanistan? Do you believe every Apache and A-10 pilot/crew will all be on the side of tyrants? Do you think soldiers will all be willing to shoot their neighbors?

    The Blue helmets for the win! The UN has been pushing ciizen disarmament all over the planet, and the Dems are all for the UN Arms Treaty.

    Something to remember: the 7.62 Tokarev will blow through both sides of a blue helmet, as well as whatever's inside it. Just saying.
     

    lazarus

    Active Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    10,068
    We knew this when they went en banc in Peruta, to say there was no constitutional right for concealed carry.

    Young was looking good until the 9th went en banc again. To say the same thing for open carry.

    The SCOTUS will hopefully step in and say some form of carry is covered by the word "bear".

    That’s my expectation. That said, my expectations have been shattered before.

    But I can’t see the current SCOTUS either passing judgement that the state can’t put some restrictions or preconditions on carrying outside the home. But also I don’t see them letting lower courts rulings stand that the state can, if they want, effectively ban the carrying of a firearm outside the home. Either entirely or only for the most privileged.

    Not that anyone here needs the reminder, but HI bans open carry except under extraordinarily strict circumstances (more so than Maryland as you cannot openly carry a long gun except at a range or hunting basically). And concealed carry permits can be issued. However no one has met the standard to be issued one in years if memory serves.

    I can see SCOTUS say a state can put “reasonable” conditions on where you can carry and even preconditions to licensing to do it. But I don’t see needing to justify it (may issue) being allowed for both open and concealed carry.
     

    Michigander08

    ridiculous and psychotic
    MDS Supporter
    May 29, 2017
    5,104
    The en banc U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 7-4 decision on the ruling.

    MAJORITY

    Judge Sidney Thomas - appointed by President Bill Clinton

    Judge Margaret McKeown - appointed by President Bill Clinton

    Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw - appointed by President Bill Clinton

    Judge William Fletcher - appointed by President Bill Clinton

    Judge Richard Clinton - appointed by President George W Bush

    Judge Jay Bybee - appointed by President George W Bush

    Judge Michelle Friedland - appointed by President Barack Obama

    DISSENT

    Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain - appointed by President Ronald Reagan

    Judge Consuelo Callahan - appointed by President George W Bush

    Judge Sandra Ikuta - appointed by President George W Bush

    Judge Ryan Nelson - appointed by President Donald Trump
     

    jcutonilli

    Active Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,135
    The more I think about it, they simply rewrote Peruta and changed concealed weapons to simply any weapon. Now that they proclaimed that
    It remains as true today as it was centuries ago, that the mere presence of such
    weapons [handguns] presents a terror to the public
    I would file a lawsuit against every police dept because they obviously terrorize the public by the presence of their handguns.

    I went back and looked at Peruta. It is a little hard to follow, but it appears that the Court imposed this argument without the defendants really raising the issue.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,036
    Fulton, MD
    The more I think about it, they simply rewrote Peruta and changed concealed weapons to simply any weapon. Now that they proclaimed that I would file a lawsuit against every police dept because they obviously terrorize the public by the presence of their handguns.

    I went back and looked at Peruta. It is a little hard to follow, but it appears that the Court imposed this argument without the defendants really raising the issue.

    So, you're saying the court itself stacked the deck against the plantiffs?
     

    jcutonilli

    Active Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,135
    So, you're saying the court itself stacked the deck against the plantiffs?

    Sort of. I think the Peruta/Richards team did a disservice by not putting the historical concealed carry precedent into perspective given that it is explicitly mentioned in Heller. I don't believe they really challenged the precedent after the Court ambushed them either. I think Young did a mediocre job of responding to a newly introduced argument. I think the Court took advantage of the weaknesses to write a very lopsided opinion.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,399
    Frederick County
    My simple thoughts go something like this.

    The COTUS is the contract that gives the Govt any power at all. If the govt violates the COTUS, it terminates the contract, ends it own legitimate existence, and no one is morally obligated to obey it ever again.



    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    Nicely put
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    45,543
    SoMD / West PA
    We are already there....

    Not really.

    Arguably, we have opposing view points. What has be lost is for each party to respect the view of the other.

    We are not at the point where both parties see each other as enemies. We are approaching the point quickly, if society can't respect each other's opinions.
     

    Doctor_M

    Certified Mad Scientist
    MDS Supporter
    Sounds fine in theory. In practice, the GOV can just keep escalating force until they ultimately prevail. Have anything in your safe that works against an A-10 or Apache?

    You don't need to take out the A-10s and Apaches... or aircraft carriers for that matter. You need to take out the the incredibly fragile individuals that make up the command chain that puts those machines into action. Not advocating, just saying.
     

    Tungsten

    Active Member
    Jan 1, 2012
    5,545
    Elkridge, Gerrymanderland
    Not really.

    Arguably, we have opposing view points. What has be lost is for each party to respect the view of the other.

    We are not at the point where both parties see each other as enemies. We are approaching the point quickly, if society can't respect each other's opinions.

    We are absolutely at the point where both parties see each other as enemies and neither respects the other's opinions.
     

    Fox123

    Active Member
    May 21, 2012
    3,721
    Rosedale, MD
    Not really.

    Arguably, we have opposing view points. What has be lost is for each party to respect the view of the other.

    We are not at the point where both parties see each other as enemies. We are approaching the point quickly, if society can't respect each other's opinions.

    We absolutely are.

    Recent polling shows democrats chief concern was people whom voted for Trump.

    Not a policy or proposal or idea.

    No their chief concern was the PEOPLE who voted for Trump.
     

    Fox123

    Active Member
    May 21, 2012
    3,721
    Rosedale, MD
    .
     

    Attachments

    • 50FFF742-EBEA-4BBC-A525-BAF3240017FD.jpg
      50FFF742-EBEA-4BBC-A525-BAF3240017FD.jpg
      60.1 KB · Views: 262

    Brute

    Unwitting Bystander
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 14, 2020
    426
    Laurel

    Wow, I'm not sure if a single one of those "issues" makes my list at all. Definitely not in the top 10 or even 20. Yet I still refuse to believe I'm the one that lives in my own little bizarro world.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    261,268
    Messages
    6,657,931
    Members
    30,430
    Latest member
    Panduh

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom