1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

No 2A right to carry concealed

Discussion in 'Jurisprudence and the Constitution' started by Liquid Reigns, Sep 22, 2016.

  1. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Council Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    22
    The case of Peruta V San Diego, as now confirmed via the 9h Circuit, states specifically you do not have a 2A right to carry a concealed weapon.
    The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments
    and held that there is no Second Amendment right for
    members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in
    public.

    The opinion also states that a "good cause" policy via local sheriffs policy to issue CCW permits isn't unconstitutional.

    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...County-of-San-Diego_Ninth-Circuit-Opinion.pdf

    The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment.

    This article makes clear how the court determined the issue, specifically starting on page 23 of the opinion History relevant to the 2A: http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/ninth-circuit-peruta-ruling/486446/


    In his 52-page majority opinion in Peruta v. County of San Diego, Judge William Fletcher laid out an exhaustive history of British and American laws prohibiting concealed weapons, tracing a continuous thread from a decree by Edward I to his sheriffs in 1299 to a series of state supreme-court decisions in the 19th century.

    “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,” Fletcher wrote.

    The 7-4 ruling upheld California’s broad restrictions on concealed-carry use in their entirety.​

    This opinion is limited to only the 9th district insofar as it only effects California and Hawaii, as the other states in the district don't have a "good cause" policy or they already allow for concealed carry without a permit.

    How will this effect other Circuit Districts and ultimately, if it were ever to reach SCOTUS, effect the debate of concealed carry nationwide?

    What we do know is that we have a civil right to posses and openly carry weapons within the confines of our states regulations and to carry any way we choose within the confines of our own personal property. We know that the ability to own or posses a weapon is nothing more than a civil right, it is in no possible way an "unalienable right" as some "advocate". :rolleyes:
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2016
  2. TheResister

    TheResister Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    69
    Now that they have locked me out when I respond to your attacks, we can do it all over here.

    Liquid Reigns is a poseur. He comes here, trying to convince you he is this great legal mind and will "shake his head" when anyone he doesn't like has something to say.

    Now, Liquid Reigns comes here, proclaiming that you don't have a Second Amendment Right based upon a Ninth Circuit Court decision. Allow me:

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a federal court whose rulings are binding only in the Ninth Circuit. That area consists of places like Alaska, Arizona, Guam, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, parts of Washington and parts of California.

    There are a dozen other Appeals Courts in the U.S. NONE of them are bound by the law that Liquid Reigns cites. So, whatever Liquid Reigns is trying to prove is not being done with this case.

    What you have to remember is that there are at least two separate and distinct governments operating in the United States. One is the de jure (lawful) Republic and the other government is a de facto (illegal) government that is a Federal / Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

    As such, constitutionalists will advocate the original intent of the United States Constitution while the liberals advocating democracy will tell you the Constitution is a living document, subject to the interpretation and reinterpretation of the Courts. In essence, those liberals believe that we should be subject to judges legislating from the bench.

    In the final analysis, the courts may rule one way, but if enough people disagree, they will over-rule the courts. Yeah, the Courts will ultimately tell you the only Rights you have are those they give you - and some day there will be a confrontation along those lines. The government does not have the authority to grant you any Right. They are limited to doling out privileges. Nothing more.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. TheResister

    TheResister Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    69
    If there is a fool on this board, YOU are the one. Maybe you have something on the moderators and admins here. You don't have shit on me. Canards, inane, LMAFO, LOL SMH. Is that best your candy ass has?

    So you get to call me names now as well?

    I guess if you opened your blind eyes, you could see that pot smokers challenged the courts enough times so that the anti - pot laws aren't worth the paper they're written on. Your dumb ass can't understand that.

    You don't have a monopoly on understanding; you're not smarter than the rest of the people here. You're a fucking coward, hiding behind a keyboard, trying to be something you can't be as a man. You try to compensate for what you don't have. And know this: You don't have a lot of anything except a long line of bullshit and you aren't getting shit done on a computer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Liquid Reigns

    Liquid Reigns Council Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    22
    All though a state may have made smoking pot legal for medical use only, it is still a state and federal crime to be in possession of or growing it. The administration has told its officers to turn a blind eye to it, that doesn't change the law and the law is still enforceable. The admin has made it a low priority to go after, nothing more.

    I've never claimed to be smarter than "the rest of the people here", I simply state the facts as they pertain to the discussion, something you seem to have a problem with.

    Your taunts are hilarious and show just how simple minded you appear to be. :rolleyes:
     
    • Disagree x 1
  5. TheResister

    TheResister Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    69
    My taunts? You're an Internet bully without any balls or brains. I've just had enough of your bullshit. You run around with your limited vocabulary (LMFAO, SMH, canards, and inane seem to be your favorites.) You post my personal information on these boards, but you don't risk putting your information out there. Face the facts, you conned me in order to get my personal information. So whoopee de mother fucking doo [Unwelcome language removed]. You got me. But it is going to stop. That is number 1.

    You are not as smart as you think you are. You can't interact with others without pretending to be smarter than they are, and, in the process, exposing how insecure you are in your positions. That is not intelligence, boy, that's plain fear.

    As for the pot issue, the government lost. Now it's on the ballot in many states. Same deal for the civil rights laws of the 1960s. Enough people rebelled and the government was forced to change the law. And that was even true when the Republicans illegally ratified the 14th Amendment and rejected the Dred Scott decision.

    I suspect that, if you girl gets elected you may very well see the same thing when she goes after firearms.

    Now back to you... and when you lace your responses with SMH, I'll be hoping the damn thing rolls off your shoulders.

    Edit: Insofar as your "facts," most of the time you don't know shit from shinola. You have NEVER posted a fact about me. The few links you post are mostly opinions and the MSM's attempt to do character assassinations. What you say personally about me is a fucking lie... you know it, I know it and so do the rest of the posters. The fact that you won't say it to my face is proof positive of that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Mayor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    6,322
    Likes Received:
    816
    Street Criminals Are Subhuman Mutants

    Unlike open carry, concealed carry protects even those who aren't carrying. If enough people carry, a thug will back off rather than have to guess whether someone is carrying. However, in cases where the beasts take the risk, criminality will continue to thrive if the intended victim only has the right to shoo the thug away, instead of shooting him in order to eliminate an enemy of society,
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  7. oicu812

    oicu812 "Trust, but Verify"

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,597
    Likes Received:
    4,777
    funny thing,,,less than 2% of concealed carriers give a rats ass about a law against it...

    i certainly dont,,nor do ANY of the concealed carriers i know...btw,,NONE of them have a "permit" to do WHATS NOBODIES BUSINESS BUT THEIR OWN...

    pass a law?
    pffft..

    hows those laws working in shitcago?

    LOL!

    dont ask, never tell...;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  8. TheResister

    TheResister Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    69
    I fully agree with your position. But, of necessity, we must go further. When the government does not agree with your Right to keep and bear Arms, though you may have one they don't know about, it cannot be effectively employed without your having access to it. That means that others may know, and consequently, the government may find out.

    Rather than hide and lie, my view is that what I own is none of their business. And, since we have a duty and an obligation to exhaust all of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions, I think we should explore this issue of whether you have a Right to carry a concealed weapon.

    The facts are that our system of jurisprudence is based off of Anglo Saxon law. Many times we use precedents that predate our own Constitution. That is the precedents the Courts use to say you don't have a "Second Amendment" Right to carry concealed.

    The problem the liberals have with the Right to keep and bear Arms is the Original Intent of our founding fathers. An early court decision sheds some light on the OP's objections to the Right:

    The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
    1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

    The liberal position is

    A) We should have prohibited classes of human beings. Some have constitutional Rights; others don't - and for even the most insignificant youthful indiscretions imaginable

    B) If the weapon is over 12 inches long, it is an assault weapon and if it us under 12 inches long, it must be a Saturday Night Special. Nobody should own those

    C) You should go through a background check, have only registered weapons and they should be locked up. Heaven forbid that you'd never have enough time to open your safe, load a magazine, insert it and be able to use it in an emergency

    D) If the liberals don't like the gun's features you shouldn't be able to own it: barrel shroud, folding stock, removable magazine, pistol grip, or bayonet lug (thousands of drive by bayonettings, don't you know)

    E) Now they want to argue whether or not you have a Right to carry it concealed...
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  9. oicu812

    oicu812 "Trust, but Verify"

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,597
    Likes Received:
    4,777

    i understand the prog position..

    i dont agree with ANY of it...and i dont expect things to change much in my lifetime...

    i can CHOOSE to carry concealed or not,,irregardless of ANY law to the contrary...
    i can CHOOSE to accept the risks involved, both from the legal standpoint to the "action/responsibility" of carrying...

    i neither seek nor require others to "train, explain, restrict nor accept" my own justification for being self determining...

    THATS WHAT GUNS ARE FOR.

    "force multipliers"....

    i employ the "common sense" method...if i think i may need a gun,,i take it with me...

    what others may think about it is NOT my concern...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. oicu812

    oicu812 "Trust, but Verify"

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,597
    Likes Received:
    4,777
    what im saying is,,,even without a second amend.,,i would STILL do what i thought best for ME...and if carrying concealed was what i preferred,,then thats what i do/would do...

    i understand many blindly obey everything others think is good for them...

    i think for myself...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. TheResister

    TheResister Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    69
    I want you to know I thought about my response to you for several days. Please humor me as it is long winded.

    First, I agree with you in sentiment and in practice. The Declaration of Independence states:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Thomas Jefferson, principal author of that document said that it was the "foundational Charter of the Rights of man." It's at the head of the United States Code (the official laws of the United States.) It's been cited as persuasive authority even in United States Supreme Court cases. I could go on and on.

    The bottom line is the Right to Life is the most important Right you or I - or anyone has. Inherent in that Right is to defend it the best way we can. That is the a founding principle of the United States.

    "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams

    That is all the justification I need at a personal level to carry a firearm. The Right to Life is unalienable. It has long been held in our Courts (until the Supreme Court began legislating from the bench) that your Right to keep and bear Arms is above the jurisdiction of government.

    Yet government claims a power over us. And, if I had to use a firearm against someone, I realize that if the government outlawed guns, I may only trade that moment only to become a slave in a prison just because some men believe they can deny me the Right to defend my life in the best manner that I can. And so, I fight against gun control and offer the most compelling case I can against gun control.

    A weapon is no good unless you have it and can utilize it if / when the necessary moment comes. Regardless of man made laws, I will utilize the best tools I can afford - and asking permission from a tyrannical government won't change that. I will not ask permission. But, we need to keep our case before the people and before elected officials so that they are notice that we have a case and they cannot take from us Rights bestowed upon us by a Creator (our God, whomever we deem that to be.)

    In protecting the Right, I admonish everyone to never, ever get a license to exercise a God given Right. Take the license - lose the Right. It's time to know your Rights, stand up, and make sure that everyone understands you have the Right to defend your life in the best manner you can.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. oicu812

    oicu812 "Trust, but Verify"

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,597
    Likes Received:
    4,777

    we dont disagree on anything here...

    i have owned and carried dozens of firearms in my life...i ask no permission nor seek no counseling...i regularly take one into places that have signs prohibiting them,,thats their choice,,its my choice to ignore them...fact is,,they will never know...my choice trumps theirs EVERY SINGLE TIME...they may THINK they have the right to do so, and the government may have laws attesting to that,,,,but i KNOW i have a god-given right to self protection...nobody taught me i have that right,,,ITS INSTINCTIVE IN EVERY LIVING CREATURE..corner a rat and see what it does,,it will go after you like a demon on fire...

    yes,,the 2nd has been weakened and is under constant attack by those that wish to enslave us..
    for some illogical reason they want men with guns to take away other mens guns...and then go on to illogically think its all ABOUT the gun...

    IT-IS-NOT...

    btw,,,as stated above,,dozens of guns have passed through my hands over 50 years,,,more than i can count,,,and NOT ONE OF THEM WAS EVER REGISTERED IN MY NAME.

    why?

    because ITS NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS what firearm i choose to use,,,and any paper trail,,is a potential hunting trail..
    dont buy ammo where its recorded and NEVER use a credit/debit card for ANY gun related items purchased...
    that may be difficult for some,,,but NOT for those of us who grew up with them around...

    NEVER SUBMIT,,NEVER COMPLY...

    its better to die on your feet than kneeling..
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
  13. Abatis

    Abatis Council Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    164
    Nobody who knows the law expected the 9th to find a federally enforced (by the 2ndA) right to carry concealed.

    But since state law mandates all carry must be under permit and the permit only allows concealed carry, that this court chose to leave the question of whether the 2nd secures a right to open carry begging, means this opinion is lacking.

    The concealing of a weapon was always considered dishonorable by the citizenry and authorities and the indefensible action of a ruffian or criminal and as such was the domain of state criminal law. People on both sides need to understand is that going back to the early 1800's, state laws forbidding the concealing of a gun were not an attack on the underlying right to be armed for self-defense (unless you were Black of course).

    Historically and legally, the setting of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state issue and the 2nd was never examined for guidance or thought to speak on any aspect of concealed carry -- primarily and simply because the 2nd was not applicable to the states.

    The California situation is peculiar in the overall scheme of public carriage of arms simply because California is among the few states who do not have a right to arms provision in their state constitution. The state legislature has taken that to mean ANYTHING is possible as far as gun control goes, so they prohibited all carry . . .

    This has created a legal problem though, California's legal justification for state courts sustaining various state gun control schemes (and we are talking about looking back 70+ years) was not built upon any interest in what a "right to keep and bear arms" is and how that constrains legislative action. There was no sophisticated testing of state laws against a state RKBA provision or the 2nd Amendment. California sustained its laws by lazily relying on 20th Century (post 1942) lower federal court decisions pushing invalid "collective right" theories -- and the legal fact that the 2nd did not apply to state action.

    This has led to much ignorance regarding what the right to arms is in California and has polluted California state court decisions which establish the underlying law for the 9th to examine. It is a mess because decades of California's (and the 9th's) case law is actually abrogated and invalid and of zero use; judges (state and these 9th Circuit ones) are pretty much making it up as they go now and still ignoring (or misrepresenting) what the 2nd is and what it does.

    I believe that the 9th's ruling in Peruta will be just like the 7th Circuit's ruling in McDonald, . . . being legally correct for the specifics of that Circuit given the underlying law, (e.g., Hickman in CA and the Illinois constitution), only to be expanded for the wider national circumstance in the big room in DC. . .

    I think that this -concealed- vs -open- question is a good candidate for the courts to apply the "modern condition" to the law that the left so often advocate. Without question the sentiment regarding concealed arms has reversed and tht sentiment -- that only a criminal would want to conceal a weapon -- was the impetus for prohibiting concealed carry. The modern, enlightened public which includes many arms bearers, now reject open carry and now consider concealed carry to be the mode that's responsible and more respectful to the tender sensibilities of the public.

    That's not a "right" you are describing; you are defining a privilege.

    I believe the 2ndA (as applied under the 14thA) does secure a right to bear arms in public for self-defense that all states will eventually be forced to recognize. But, dictating as to the actual manner of carriage will remain in the state's prerogative. IOW, discretionary (discriminatory) "pressing need" hurdles are unconstitutional, states must have a system to allow law-abiding citizens to carry (even if it is -no- system, open OR concealed without permit).

    The fact that California prohibits all carry without a permit and then restricts the use of the permit to just concealed carry and restricts the issuance of a permit to only those who can prove "need" -- means that if the right to arms is the right to be armed in public for the purpose of self-defense, then California is overstepping its constitutional authority.

    Apply the circumstances to speech or assembly and see if you still think they are inoffensive . . . No speech or assembly without permit and no permit without proving to government an immediate need to speak or compelling reason to protest . . .

    That's an opinion residing entirely in conjecture. You could lend support for your opinion by citing a specific, express grant of power that would allow government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. The Sage of Main Street

    The Sage of Main Street Mayor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    6,322
    Likes Received:
    816
    The Constitution Does Not Protect Us

    Open carry scares law-abiding citizens. Concealed carry scares criminals, who will never know if their intended victim can shoot them dead. Which brings up a more important problem: if the criminal knows that his victim will be afraid to fire the gun, he will ignore that threat. The fact that he was acquitted should not be taken as making it safe for others; he never should have been charged in the first place. The first police action was to refuse to press charges and let him go immediately. Only then was the public protected from criminals, who are the enemies of the human race.
     
  15. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    14,876
    Likes Received:
    1,751
    Well, concealed carry is legal in all 50 states, regardless of whether there is a right to the practice, or not. That is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  16. JackDallas

    JackDallas Governor Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    19,484
    Likes Received:
    3,041
    It is disgraceful and to the shame of my state (Texas) that even a person, with a prescription for medical marijuana from another state, will be arrested and charged with being in possession of a controlled substance. This is just fundamentally wrong, in my opinion.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    22,613
    Likes Received:
    3,951
    Californa is about to secede their court's opinion have no Merrit with the rest of the country. And if they don't leave the second amendment Trumps their opinion anyway. Life is great.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. TheResister

    TheResister Council Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    69
    What?
     
  19. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    22,613
    Likes Received:
    3,951
    This ruling took place in Californa a lot of the ruling that comes out of courts in the far west get overturned. it's not a shocker they ruled this way.
    But as I said Californa is wanting to secede their court rulings have ZERO merits for the rest of the country. Can you hear me now?
     
  20. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    26,175
    Likes Received:
    1,453
    That's just recklessness. Nobody wants to take away your rights, but Johnny Cash sang, "Don't Take Your Guns to Town" for a reason.
     

Share This Page