Posted by Tina
The so-called learned judges on the 9th circuit have ruled that the people of California don’t have a constitutional right to concealed carry:
By a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a California law that requires gun owners to show a good reason before they can get a license to carry a concealed handgun.
“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.”
The court declined to say whether the Constitution protects openly carrying a gun in public. It said that question was not at issue in the case.
Gun owners in two California counties challenged the requirement that they show “good cause,” as defined by county sheriffs, before they could get concealed carry permits.
Thursday’s majority opinion traced the rights of gun owners from medieval England to the founding of the United States and through the Civil War, finding that local laws almost universally prohibited carrying concealed firearms in public.
This decision begs the question, “Can they read and comprehend?”
The Second Amendment reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This decision also begs the question, “Since when do the laws of ‘medieval England” supplant the rights of the people in modern day America?”
This case will find it’s way to the Supreme Court. The right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to every American. The amendment doesn’t say only certain citizens can bear arms. It doesn’t say you can only have a concealed carry permit if you can prove you need one. Be aware…this issue is vitally important. Your vote in the presidential election in November will make the difference between upholding the Constitution and trashing the Constitution. If they are allowed to infringe on one right they can and will infringe on others.
If you care about the rights of individual Americans, if you care about the individual right to “keep and bear arms,” there is only one choice in November and that is Donald Trump.
OK lets read it together,,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
well formed Militia? Where does it say a single nutjob can conceal carry?
The right to bear arms has not been infringed.
Now maybe if you can get congress to allow any kind of carry in the building we can talk.
Where does it say a single nut job cannot conceal carry? We already have laws that restrict those convicted of a federal crime)
This decision is special rights…about making allowances for the famous, the important, or, arbitrarily, the fearful, while restricting the rights of other citizens. So If I’m Rosie O’Donald or Nancy Pelosi I can have a body guard with a concealed carry, but if I’m a woman who fears a violent intruder I have to PROVE the threat is great enough to be granted the right by a low level official.
The ruling is unconstitutional and it does infringe on the right to bear arms. (They should know better and do…the ultimate agenda is disarming the people)
Dewey if your going to live in America you need to know a little something about the founders and Constitution of this great nation. Let’s start with Foundingfathers.com:
Thankfully we need not rely solely on our own ideas about the Second Amendment. We can look to the founders to see what they meant when they wrote the it.
Rob Natelson is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution’s original meaning have been repeatedly cited in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and published or cited by many top law journals. An excerpt from a speech he gave in Colorado in 2013 sets the stage for the quotes below from the Founders:
We can easily check this constitutional scholars position against quotes from the founders. Seehere:
George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
Tenche Coxe: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. (Tench Coxe was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789)
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).
Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)
Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.
George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic…”
Sir George Tucker: “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.” – Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
I must second Dewey …
1) An individual is not a militia.
2) A militia does not carry concealed weapons.
I’m sure I’ve told this story before, about the proudest day of my dispatching career. We’d been out to this wife beaters house, oh, too many times. And the officers did not like to go, cause the wife beater was a gun nut. House was awash in armament. So I got curious, had we actually ever taken this clown into custody? Well, there was a file … crammed full of yearly renewals of the clown’s carry permit. I pulled said file and suggested to my sergeant that the situation wanted the chief’s attention.
This, second only to the choking baby.
Sad isn’t it, especially for the baby.
I had a couple in my neighborhood years ago that were constantly calling the cops. She and her husband didn’t need guns they used knives and baseball bats…one night they tore the kitchen cabinets clean off the wall. Both were drinkers and used drugs…when the cops came neither ever wanted to press charges…and so it goes. The law has changed some since then.
The file you mention was “crammed” with permits to carry…how much paperwork in that file involved his using the gun? I assume none, or you would have said something. In America we don’t deny rights without cause or due process…you know that.
Ah, but it was only a matter of time, given the fella’s violent propensities. Is only ever a matter of time. It is axiomatic that fellas with stockpiles should not have them … as no one but a nut job would want one.
Hey Libster,
Yer right…your girl Shillary did make history.
Read all about it here.
Good grief Libby you are so biased!
There are countless people with “stockpiles” that are no more violent than you or I.
You cannot build a risk-less society and you certainly can’t anticipate when anyone will go wacky and do harm, if not with a gun then a bat or a knife or their own bare hands.
This fear of weaponry is unreasonable.
“Individually, we do not bear arms because we are afraid. We bear arms
as a declaration of capacity. An armed man can cope – either in the city
or in the wilderness – and because he is armed, he is not afraid.
The hoplophobe fears and, yes, hates us, because we are not afraid. We
are overwhelmingly “other” than he, and in a way that emphasizes his
afflictions.”
Jeff Cooper
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j35de2QOd4
Uh-huh.
All I know is that common and garden variety social conflict/distress becomes carnage ONLY if the one of the distressed is armed.
So, as the conflict is unavoidable, we will be restricting the armament.
I have no doubt this is true RHT447.
I would much prefer go into a wilderness, or a bad neighborhood, with the weapons and skills to defend myself than leave it all to chance.
But there are countless women in America, from older women living in Detroit, to younger women attending college, to stay at home moms and working women, who have either lived in fear due to circumstances or naive recklessness. Many of these women have now chosen to train and arm themselves rather than continue a life of fear and dread.
Guns are not about aggression for law abiding, civil people. They are about about preparedness and securing self-defense and when necessary defense of others.
If the liberal ignoramuses keep pushing their fascistic agenda the day could come when it becomes necessary to use them to restore our basic liberties. The most basic reason the founders brilliantly wrote this amendment with the terms, “shall not be infringed,” is to ensure protection of individuals from the tyrannies of government.
Tina
There are good people and there are the far right extremists who are waiting to wage civil war. Take a ride around the country.
You have not a clue how lucky you are you Live in CA. I see many things out here. The middle of the country is full of survivalists and their swastikas. They believe crazy things.
Anyone who bashes our Great State of CA needs to leave.
Clueless I say. You live in a Leave it to Beaver world that never existed.
Can you blame Trump for pointing out the obvious about the judge hearing his case? But I’m sure the liberals who infest this blog will not think this is racist.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/06/09/whites-go-back-europe-california-hispanic-state-said-founder-judge-curiels-group/
Trump is not some above board kind of guy. There is a reason he will not release his actual taxes as every Presidential candidate has done.
Trump’s stump speech in San Diego was a babbling monologue about all his lawsuits. Watch it. Tell me that is Presidential.
There is a reason Trump now speaks from a pre-written speech on a Teleprompter. The GOP needs to control his mouth.
Yes Trump tried to discredit the Judge using racial slurs because that is the base he collected. Better hurry and get one of those last Trump Confed flags.
Trump is a Phony, Hillary is a Phony
They are both in it for financial gain
The gen has not started and Romneyman is in the wings.
As much as I do not like the vulture capitalist economic values of Romney I will give him credit for his recent comments on Trump. He is correct. I always give credit where credit is due.
“We” will also be overturned.
Tina
Requiring a permit that shows one is a trained responsible concealed carried gun owner is a good thing.
I support responsible gun ownership and will defend the 2nd to my death.
The Fearmonger is dangerous. We have too many irresponsible gun owners due to today’s media. Guns are a serious tool and device of protection.
I also think the fact Americans are armed actually protects us from the fascists who are taking over. Yes it is time to use the F word. Both Hillary and Trump are fascists. We have business writing legislation for financial gain. We have endless wars for investor profits. The NRA is a lobby now not the organization we once loved.
We have serious issues here and have lost our rights. Whether we agree on how to solve our problems does not matter.
Facts, Truth, Morals, and Ethics do.
The power of the Corporate owned Media is dangerous.
It is up to We the People to be open honest and attack our problems together.
This is not a football game of Red and Blue. As long as people play that game things get worse. The donors hedge their bets on both sides yet you pick one? Who is smarter?
There is a reason us Independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. We are sick and tired of the corruption. End the game. We all loose in this game.
Dewey: “The NRA is a lobby now not the organization we once loved. ”
Have you given much thought to why an organization dedicated to the safe use of firearms, whether target shooting or hunting and gun safety for children had to form a lobby?
I submit it is due to the relentless push by fascist thinkers on the left who have no respect for the second amendment and who are bound and determined to un-arm the American people. they formed a lobby to balance the lobby of the gun grabbers in Washington. Lobbying isn’t just about money; it is also about protecting the rights of the people and people in business to be free from the heavy hand of the federal government.
“Whether we agree on how to solve our problems does not matter.”
Of course it matters! It matters when “the solution” put forth is more restrictive controlling government (fascism) in our affairs, especially when the result is lost jobs and higher costs for healthcare, for instance.
“As long as people play that game things get worse. ”
As long as those who sit in the middle, criticize, and refuse to pick a side the blue party that loves fascism, promotes it, and sells it to our kids in our schools (propaganda) will win and “things” will get worse…much worse.
Independents aren’t the only ones who are sick of the corruption. Ignorant independents have been part of the problem…you cover for the blue party and buy into the notion that “corporations” rather than people (individual politicians) are the problem. Only the politician can take the money and then make the law or regulation change. He has the power to say no. When he fails to stand firm ethically both he and the person offering the quid pro quo are implicated.
Not all political donations are made for specific favors. We need to weed out the bad but as long as the left is protected it will never happen. a bill and Hillary prosecution would go a long way to discouraging this “game.”
Tina you know better. The NRA is a Lobby. Go to DC,
Look at the Board of directors.
GO to flipping DC and see what the NRA does. Profit amd Power is what everything is about.
They do not care about the people, they tell themselves they do. You have not a clue how they ALL talk about the citizens behind closed doors.
Tina: “Have you given much thought to why an organization dedicated to the safe use of firearms, whether target shooting or hunting and gun safety for children had to form a lobby?”
Money. Telling people “Obama is comin’ fee yer guns!” is good for business; just look at the surge in gun buying over the past eight years. The NRA used to support gun control laws; it was liberal extremist groups like the Black Panthers who opposed them. But the NRA isn’t a gun safety group anymore, they’re a “let’s sell as many guns as possible, laws be damned” group.
Also, you should really stop using the word “fascist” wrong. The fascist Nazis in Germany *loved* guns–Hitler actually expanded private gun ownership and weakened gun control laws. (Yes, Jews were excluded from this, but Jews were excluded from *everything.* Even their bikes were confiscated.) The notion that gun control is “fascist” ignored that private gun ownership was popular in the most notorious fascist government of all time.
Let’s ask the people of Venezuela what they think NOW of having to give up their guns!
It’s the 9th Circus, all right . . . . . .
Right on!
Cubans are not fairing particularly well either despite the presidents love fest.
And that remark is exactly the sort of thing to inspire some REAL gun control. Because for
all the paranoid sniveling, no one has proposed to grab your guns. You remember this and consider your position, your responsibility, as the situation could change.
You see, if we start to get the idea that you are the sort of people who will cave in a crisis, who will murder their neighbors for the contents of their refrigerators, the regulatory environment will change, dramatically.
Let’s not help fix the VA and get our vets better treatment—oh no, let’s do this:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/283049-petraeus-mark-kelly-form-new-gun-control-group
There is a storm coming.
It makes me sick that this group, that promotes itself as being formed over concern for the veterans committing suicide, would then use cases like Gaby Gifford’s as evidence for a need for more gun laws.
I’m with you RHT447, they should put their efforts into helping the vets instead.
They might take a look at the way this nation, and our soldiers, have become demoralized since the anti war left started it’s anti-Bush, anti-war, socialize the military campaign.
Tina, does it bother you that Trump agreed with Obama in gun control as recently as 2012?
Back then, Trump tweeted, “President Obama spoke for me and every American in his remarks in #Newton Connecticut.”
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/280754630047199232
I’m not sure why you would trust him to defend your interpretation of the second amendment.
Chris neither you nor I know what Trump was saying in that tweet. Were his thoughts on political issues or was he thinking in terms of the families impacted by a senseless, heinous act? You decided to jump on the political. I’m more inclined to believe that in that moment Trump was thinking as we all were thinking, some version of, “What a terribly tragic moment of heartbreak for the students, teachers, families and friends in this community!”
The Presidents remarks began:
So no, it doesn’t bother me. Trump on right to keep and bear arms:
And in terms of the politics, both Hillary and Obama have changed their positions on a number of issues. Did they do it from a sincere change of heart and mind or for politics. We don’t really know do we?
I think that’s a very weak rebuttal, Tina; whenever one says someone “speaks for me,” they are generally referring to the whole statement, not just a snippet of it. If Trump disagreed with Obama’s statements on gun control (which were in the speech) at the time, he would have said so.
And yes, politicians do flip flop. But you still can’t tell the difference between flip-flopping, and having no coherent principles whatsoever. Trump obviously falls into the latter category. So many in your party can see that; why can’t you?
Evidently Libbya and Dupester, like all progressive gun grabbing ***holes s do not understand what “shall not be infringed” and “militia” means. A “militia” means armed citizens. They do not have to be active members of an active militia, just armed and ready to join one when the the homeland is threatend.
Screw you. Your aim is to make it so people are denied the right to protect themselves. This will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned.
Dupester says “we are sick and tired.” Up yours Dupester, we are sick and tired of YOU.
Go pound sand.
Pie, that is your interpretation; it flies in the face of the dictionary (again; what have you got against that book?), it is bogus … and you want to settle down.
You keep pushing this to the Supreme Court and you’re probably going to be sorry. The Court has never tackled this bit, and the definition of militia has not changed at all in the last three hundred years.
In our current “mass shootings by icky boys” environment, they could go strict constructionist, conclude that a militia is not an individual, and that any right to bear arms by individuals is not constitutionally guaranteed and may be regulated into next Tuesday by your government.
Libby, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to bear arms applies to individuals in 2008. Has the court ever overturned a previous ruling that has *expanded* Americans’ rights? I doubt they will overturn this decision any time soon, “icky boys” notwithstanding.
This may be surprising to some here, but I agree with the court’s ruling: individuals have the right to bear arms.
That said, it is not at all clear that the 2nd Amendment applies to concealed carry or open carry. Even Scalia didn’t seem to think so, writing in the majority opinion, “Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited…[It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on…laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or…prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns
So no, there is nothing in this ruling that goes against the second amendment–at least not according to the man who was the most conservative, pro-gun member of the Supreme Court.
You can argue all you like about decisions of judges, from local courts to SCOTUS, and you can argue all you like about the intention of the founders when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.
In the meantime, I intend to exercise my inalienable right to self-defense and my obligation to protect my family with the most effective tools intended for the job.
It would be nice if those in power agreed with me.
If not, oh well.
Well said, sir!
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Peggy, thanks for providing that. I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that the court “ruled” on the right to concealed carry, since that was not the right they were ruling on; they simply pointed out that their decision does not make any changes to current laws regarding concealed carry, and that those laws still stand. I think a separate ruling would be needed to clear up this issue if enough people really do believe concealed carry is a right under the Second Amendment. But the language in this decision–which was written by Scalia, the most conservative and pro-gun Justice–clearly throws cold water on the idea that concealed carry is automatically included under the right to bear arms.
Tina, do you think Scalia was reading the Second Amendment incorrectly?
Yeah, this was “trigger lock”. I can’t remember which pundit it was; it was awhile ago, but they were saying that court always ruled very narrowly in gun cases cause there was little textual support for any individual right, but of course lots of historical, traditional support, and they REALLY didn’t want to get into it. Nice to see Scalia take custom over text when it suited him.
And Section 2 does leave way for further regulation.