Ninth Circuit rules against CCW in Peruta

[Balog]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/legal/breaking-ninth-circuit-rules-against-peruta/

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.

Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: 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. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment.

[Ben]

This is very bad. Especially with an unfilled seat on the SC.

[makattak]

Especially with an unfilled seat on the SC.

Meh. It's June. Most (if not all) of the Supreme Court docket is already booked for next year. This will not go before them before the next president is inaugurated.

[RevDisk]

California's US Circuit Court rules against the Constitution, shocking, I say, shocking. 

It'll go to SCOTUS.

[K Frame]

California's US Circuit Court rules against the Constitution, shocking, I say, shocking. 

It'll go to SCOTUS.

Where, if the current status quo remains, it will end up in a 4-4 tie, meaning that the 9th's opinion will stand.

[Ben]

Meh. It's June. Most (if not all) of the Supreme Court docket is already booked for next year. This will not go before them before the next president is inaugurated.

Yeah, but depending on who's elected....

[makattak]

Yeah, but depending on who's elected....

True, but either way, the empty slot doesn't matter. If it wasn't empty, it would already be filled with some raging leftist appointed by Obama.

[grampster]

The 9th Circuit Court would rule the Constitution unconstitutional.

[Triphammer]

Wouldn't this infer that open carry is a protected right and should be exercised widely?

[Ben]

Wouldn't this infer that open carry is a protected right and should be exercised widely?

That is what will be interesting in the SC. The counterpart to Peruta is CA having ruled that open carry, loaded or unloaded, is illegal. With both the open carry and concealed carry going to the SC, if both are ruled against, it effectively would state that there is no right to keep and bear arms.

Seems like even the lib side of the current SC would be hard-pressed to completely eliminate the right to bear arms (I realize I'm setting myself up for disappointment). In fact this ruling by the 9th specifically mentioned the fact that open carry has not been answered by the SC, which seems to be their excuse for this ruling. It also looks like several judges dissented.

 

[Ben]

A good synopsis:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436408/peruta-loss-ninth-circuit-second-amendment-advocates

[RevDisk]

A good synopsis:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/436408/peruta-loss-ninth-circuit-second-amendment-advocates

It brought up a good and valid point. Concealed carry is not by itself protected by the Constitution. D.C. v. Heller said so, and it actually is a reasonable position to take. Do I like it? No. Is banning CCW kosher under the constitution...  Technically yes even to a libertarian nut like me. Right to keep and bear arms doesn't specifically protect concealed carry.

HOWEVER, if California also banned open carry, then it would be illegal. You can ban open carry, OR concealed carry. Not both. Which California did. They should have pointed that out and did not. By banning both, it bans the right to keep and bear arms.

[Balog]

It brought up a good and valid point. Concealed carry is not by itself protected by the Constitution. D.C. v. Heller said so, and it actually is a reasonable position to take. Do I like it? No. Is banning CCW kosher under the constitution...  Technically yes even to a libertarian nut like me. Right to keep and bear arms doesn't specifically protect concealed carry.

HOWEVER, if California also banned open carry, then it would be illegal. You can ban open carry, OR concealed carry. Not both. Which California did. They should have pointed that out and did not. By banning both, it bans the right to keep and bear arms.

Pretty sure it's one of those emanations and penumbras I hear so much about.

[Angel Eyes]

HOWEVER, if California also banned open carry, then it would be illegal. You can ban open carry, OR concealed carry. Not both. Which California did. They should have pointed that out and did not. By banning both, it bans the right to keep and bear arms.

A clarification:
California has may-issue concealed carry, which is at the discretion of the county sheriff.  Some counties are, for all intents and purposes, shall-issue.  Others, including most urban areas, are effectively no-issue (unless you have connections).

Unloaded open carry was banned outright a few years ago after some yahoos made a point of open carrying their empty firearms on public sidewalks, into Starbucks, etc. and the bliss-ninnies got scared.  Loaded open carry has been banned for as long as I can remember.

Agreed that most urban and suburban California residents cannot legally exercise their right to bear arms.

[Perd Hapley]

Pretty sure it's one of those emanations and penumbras I hear so much about.

No, no. The sun is on the right-hand side of the Constitution, so the penumbras only appear on the Left.

[Hawkmoon]

It brought up a good and valid point. Concealed carry is not by itself protected by the Constitution. D.C. v. Heller said so, and it actually is a reasonable position to take. Do I like it? No. Is banning CCW kosher under the constitution...  Technically yes even to a libertarian nut like me. Right to keep and bear arms doesn't specifically protect concealed carry.

HOWEVER, if California also banned open carry, then it would be illegal. You can ban open carry, OR concealed carry. Not both. Which California did. They should have pointed that out and did not. By banning both, it bans the right to keep and bear arms.

Some states, such as Ohio and (I believe) Idaho, have seen their highest courts rule explicitly that because their respective legislatures had prohibited concealed carry and their state constitutions guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms, ergo open carry MUST be legal. This was what led a few years ago to open carry-ins around Ohio, which created such a ruckus that the legislature caved and enacted a concealed carry law. To the amazement of none of us and to the chagrin of the anti-2A crowd, the widely predicted blood in the streets failed to materialize.

Such is life.

[RoadKingLarry]

This is why (duh) SCOTUS appointments are so important. If this case were to make it to the SCOTUS today I would expect a 4/4 split thus affirming the 9th's ruling. Once Hillary gets her liberal appointees in place  it will be affirmed 5/4 in the 9ths favor.
And so it begins.

[RocketMan]

We've had it pretty good for a number of years.  It's not all that surprising the pendulum is starting to swing back the other way.
Problem is, it's likely to be a permanent swing this time.

[BryanP]

This is why (duh) SCOTUS appointments are so important. If this case were to make it to the SCOTUS today I would expect a 4/4 split thus affirming the 9th's ruling. Once Hillary gets her liberal appointees in place  it will be affirmed 5/4 in the 9ths favor.
And so it begins.

I doubt an appointment by Donald "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting periods" Trump would be much better.

[TommyGunn]

I doubt an appointment by Donald "I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting periods" Trump would be much better.

Trump has already provided a list of 11 judges he'd like to consider and they are all conservatives.   
Apparently Trump's sons are into guns and hunting, and "set him right" about the 2A.  I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now ..... I am cosmically certain that Hillary would be much worse. 

[seeker_two]

The good news is that this decision has absolutely no effect on non-licensed concealed carry....which is pretty much the only way to carry in California......

.....though calling it "undocumented carry" sounds more PC.

[Perd Hapley]

The good news is that this decision has absolutely no effect on non-licensed concealed carry....which is pretty much the only way to carry in California......

.....though calling it "undocumented carry" sounds more PC.

  I've not heard that one before.

[lee n. field]

The good news is that this decision has absolutely no effect on non-licensed concealed carry....which is pretty much the only way to carry in California......

.....though calling it "undocumented carry" sounds more PC.

Undocumented carry.  I like it.   I'll have to remember that.

[longeyes]

So...my right of self-defense ends at my front door and beyond that, in a "public space," we are dealing with the King's Peace?  Interesting.  We can bear arms then, but only walking around the living room.  I get it now.  Does this mean that all of our rights under the BOR are valid only in our personal "castle?"  How about the right to privacy and abortion?  Is that only legal in the back bedroom?  

Imagine a flip-flop squishing a human face, forever.

[grampster]

Try growing a little pot in your living room for personal consumption and you'll find out in a hurry how constitutionally secure you are in your own house.