No Right to Concealed Carry

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.

.....hmmm.

And realistically, it's not a new idea in the courts

courts have observed that Heller tacitly condoned concealed carrylaws when it stated, in dicta, The majority ofthe 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. The District Court for the District of Nebraska,
for example, stated that states can prohibit the carrying of a
concealed weapon without violating the Second Amendment. A
federal court in West Virginia similarly found that the state's
concealed carry prohibition continues to be a lawful exercise by
the state of its regulatory authority notwithstanding the Second
Amendment.
Kiehl,

Haven't read the whole thing yet, but looks like status quo but with the possibility of open carry as guaranteed? Hmmm...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Yup. It is right there. No provisions, no qualifiers, no conditions. For anyone capable of reading at a remedial level this should not be open for discussion. What other right is there that is clearly laid out in the Constitution that also causes these issues with the ordinary meaning of the words?

Well, the 1st states:

or abridging the freedom of speech

How many abridgements of speech do you reckon are on the books, including civil and criminal law? Yet I don't think any of us want something like false reporting (which is speech) or slander (which is speech) taken off the books even though the 1st amendment doesn't specifically lay out what abridgements actually are ok. Rights aren't absolute, and reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn.

 

[cbhausen]

So, how many Trump haters are going to stay home NOW on Election Day on principle (or vote for someone else)???

Wake up, people! Get off of your asses and vote to protect your rights! Hillary WILL nominate Supreme Court justices who WILL gut the Second Amendment.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Shouldn't judges be required, at the very least, to pass a high school civics class? It's obvious that some dropped out.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Well, the 1st states:


How many abridgements of speech do you reckon are on the books, including civil and criminal law? Yet I don't think any of us want something like false reporting (which is speech) or slander (which is speech) taken off the books even though the 1st amendment doesn't specifically lay out what abridgements actually are ok. Rights aren't absolute, and reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn.

I know it's not the type of "false reporting" you're talking about, but if false reporting were against the law, then half the reporters (or more) for the alphabet media outlets would be in prison.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, the 1st states:


How many abridgements of speech do you reckon are on the books, including civil and criminal law? Yet I don't think any of us want something like false reporting (which is speech) or slander (which is speech) taken off the books even though the 1st amendment doesn't specifically lay out what abridgements actually are ok. Rights aren't absolute, and reasonable minds can differ on where the line is drawn.

Apples and oranges. No one (I think) is saying the right to keep and bear arms includes assault, man slaughter, armed robbery, murder, etc. Sure that right (like speech...or any other right) is not absolute---when you use it to cause real harm to others.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't need anyone or any government to tell me what rights I have and which I don't. It is we who tell government which rights they have, and not the other way around.

Powers, Murph. Powers and authority, which government derives from the just consent of the governed.

People have rights. Governments and their agents have powers and authority. I don't mean to be pedantic, but this is an important difference.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[AA&E]

What if all civil rights stopped at your door? This is ludicrous.

Great comment... repped.

 

[AA&E]

Yup. It is right there. No provisions, no qualifiers, no conditions. For anyone capable of reading at a remedial level this should not be open for discussion. What other right is there that is clearly laid out in the Constitution that also causes these issues with the ordinary meaning of the words?

You could argue the 4th amendment has been slaughtered to a larger degree then the 2nd in my opinion. Look at asset forfeiture laws allowing people to lose property without due process. Look at the questionable tactics the government utilizes to intercept phone data, computer data without warrants. These are just two of the more glaring examples... slowly but surely every one of our civil liberties are being dismantled. And once the 2nd goes, the remaining liberties will fall in short order.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't get this, at all. It's RIGHT THERE!

"The Right of the People, to Keep and BEAR Arms..."

Yeah, it's THAT simple. But it's the "wacky" 9th, so I'm not surprised. And yes it is really referred to as "wacky."

 

[Tactically Fat]

Soap box...ballot box...jury box...

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

So, how many Trump haters are going to stay home NOW on Election Day on principle (or vote for someone else)???

Wake up, people! Get off of your asses and vote to protect your rights! Hillary WILL nominate Supreme Court justices who WILL gut the Second Amendment.

Sad, but true. If you don't like the 9th ruling (or any of the 6th for that matter), that's what SCOTUS is going to look like.

 

[Koven]

More votes for Trump definitely. Hillary is all for making California's laws a national practice, as KG1 stated as well, and with the NRA endorsing Trump, I think we all know where the gun owners votes will be going and not gong. Especially in the state of California.

 

[Libertarian01]

Soap box...ballot box...jury box...

Is not the last one AMMO BOX?

Regards,

Doug

 

[Robert Richardson]

We live in interesting times ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Hop]

Is not the last one AMMO BOX?

Regards,

Doug

Yes, yes it is.

 

[HoughMade]

Slow your roll, friends. We're nowhere near that.

 

[KG1]

You mean I can get out of the middle of the street with my musket and go back in the house now?

 

[Caleb]

I don't get this, at all. It's RIGHT THERE!

"The Right of the People, to Keep and BEAR Arms..."

And yet, they are allowed to chip away at it via compromises

 

[Expatriated]

Well, it is true that the 2nd doesn't give you a right to carry concealed. "Concealed" is not mentioned anywhere. It gives you a right to bear (carry) arms. It doesn't specifically articulate a particular method that is guaranteed for that bearing. One could argue that it doesn't specifically give you the right to carry open either, simply because it doesn't mention the method. So, in that sense the court is right in that concealed isn't a specific constitutional right. That is not to say it implies restriction of a certain method, either, however.


The problem gets more complicated in CA. As I understand it, there is no open carry permitted in CA. So, that method is already illegal and not available. Meaning, if you have the right to bear arms under the 2nd (which you do), you must have the right (by default) to carry it concealed. If that is not a guaranteed right, then you don't have a right to bear arms in CA, which of course, infringes on the 2nd. I can see this being overturned, but not for the reasons most are saying.

To me, the real villains in this case are not the courts, but the local LEO population who has set such a high standard on what "good cause". CA law seems to allow the sheriffs to determine standards of good cause for issuing a permit. Nothing other than "2A right exercise" should be needed. That's good cause enough. Heck, that's BEST cause.

This should have never gone to the courts.