- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
9th District Court of Appeals Ruling Overturned (2nd Amendment Right to CCW)
Posted on 6/9/16 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 6/9/16 at 1:25 pm
Saw this on another board - Peruta vs. San Diego ruling overturned:
We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. 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. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. 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. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
7
Posted on 6/9/16 at 1:26 pm to dawg23
.....and here we go again. 
Posted on 6/9/16 at 1:35 pm to dawg23
It's called the 9th Circus for a reason.
Posted on 6/9/16 at 1:43 pm to dawg23
slightly off topic but I have question that will probably show my ignorance.
I grew up in the country hunting and fishing. I like guns just fine but I am far from what many here would call a gun enthusiast. I probably own 6 guns today. I had a few more but they were lost in a house fire. Almost exclusively shotguns or rifles.
I digress...so here is my question. How does it make sense that I would need a permit to CC but I need nothing to open carry? What am I missing? Personally I don't believe you should need a permit at all but the current laws seem backwards to me.
I grew up in the country hunting and fishing. I like guns just fine but I am far from what many here would call a gun enthusiast. I probably own 6 guns today. I had a few more but they were lost in a house fire. Almost exclusively shotguns or rifles.
I digress...so here is my question. How does it make sense that I would need a permit to CC but I need nothing to open carry? What am I missing? Personally I don't believe you should need a permit at all but the current laws seem backwards to me.
Posted on 6/9/16 at 1:46 pm to Rounder1
quote:
How does it make sense that I would need a permit to CC but I need nothing to open carry?
It doesn't make sense.
Posted on 6/9/16 at 1:47 pm to dawg23
quote:
Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources,
Guess they didnt reference the historical source...the constitution itself. "...Shall not be infringed".
Why does it matter where I bear my arms?
Posted on 6/9/16 at 2:00 pm to dawg23
Unless I am reading this wrong, this ruling is in effect in Alabama anyway. We have to have a ccw permit, and on the permit it asks what reason for a ccw? I write personal protection and it's issued. 
eta, No permit required for open carry
eta, No permit required for open carry
This post was edited on 6/9/16 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 6/9/16 at 2:03 pm to GoT1de
quote:
nless I am reading this wrong, this ruling is in effect in Alabama anyway. We have to have a ccw permit, and on the permit it asks what reason for a ccw? I write personal protection and it's issued.
eta, No permit required for open carry
That's the way my permit application was filled out too. I had to justify my need. Personal protection was justification enough for Madison County Sheriff.
Posted on 6/9/16 at 3:56 pm to dawg23
Just reading the excerpt, and knowing nothing else about the case, there is nothing surprising in what was written. If carrying concealed firearms was a 2d Amendment right of everyone, then we wouldn't have to get permits, and carrying a concealed firearm could not be a crime. It would be a huge shift if a major court ruled that the 2d Amendment prevents government from regulating or prohibiting concealed firearms.
And don't attack me based upon how you personally want the 2d Amendment read. I'm not advocating for anything here, just reading the passage and commenting on what was written.
And don't attack me based upon how you personally want the 2d Amendment read. I'm not advocating for anything here, just reading the passage and commenting on what was written.
This post was edited on 6/9/16 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 6/9/16 at 4:09 pm to TBoy
Posted on 6/9/16 at 4:59 pm to dawg23
The judge went back to an English law from the 16th century to come up with this bs, unreal.
quote:Pretty sure the 2nd Amendment was written sometime after that. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
"The historical materials bearing on the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments are remarkably consistent," wrote Judge William Fletcher, going back to 16th century English law to find instances of restrictions on concealed weapons. "We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."
Posted on 6/9/16 at 7:05 pm to TBoy
quote:If I posted an opinion indicating "how you personally want the 2d Amendment read" I apologize.
And don't attack me based upon how you personally want the 2d Amendment read. I'm not advocating for anything here, just reading the passage and commenting on what was written.
However I'm pretty sure I didn't. I think I posted an excerpt from the en banc ruling.
Posted on 6/9/16 at 9:32 pm to Pioneer BS 175
quote:
The judge went back to an English law from the 16th century to come up with this bs, unreal.
Referring to English Common Law is not uncommon in 2nd Amendment cases. Justice Scalia used it in Heller.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 9:51 am to Rounder1
quote:
How does it make sense that I would need a permit to CC but I need nothing to open carry?
I guess the rationale is that open carry is less restricted because it's a known and observable thing whereas with CC it's secretive.
I just gave myself a migraine trying to reason through that.
The difference seems to only benefit police by being able to easily spot potential threats. But as is always the case, if someone is truly a threat they're not going to worry about some stupid permit.
Posted on 6/10/16 at 5:58 pm to USMCTiger03
Posted on 6/11/16 at 9:43 am to TBoy
This decision can be used to force "may issue" localities to allow unpermitted open-carry. Other courts have already tossed out laws that require "good cause" as a reason to purchase a handgun. If it is found that "good cause" presents an unreasonable barrier to self-defensive use of a firearm outside of the home (remember, all states have some form of CCW/OC scheme so they all recognize the legitimacy of the Second Amendment outside of one's personal property) then it's not difficult to see how a SCOTUS that ruled unanimously that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms could find such "good cause" requirements are unconstitutional.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News