Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16588
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:54 am

Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

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.


Chas.
Attachments
Peruta Opinion - En Banc.pdf
(387.42 KiB) Downloaded 68 times
Image

User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts: 1395
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby Flightmare » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:06 am

Wow! Just wow....I have no words, I am just stunned.
Deplorable lunatic since 2016

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5761
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby ELB » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:10 am

So this brings us to the conclusion that if the 2A is judged to protect the right to carry arms in public, but concealed carry is not, then open carry must be constitutionally protected.

I'll bet the majority of the en banc would not like that outcome.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16588
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:21 am

ELB wrote:So this brings us to the conclusion that if the 2A is judged to protect the right to carry arms in public, but concealed carry is not, then open carry must be constitutionally protected.

I'll bet the majority of the en banc would not like that outcome.

That was not the outcome of case. The Peruta court expressly stated that it was not reaching the issue of open-carry in public. It's clear that court (9th Cir.) would not hold that there is a right outside one's home.

Chas.
Image


DevilDawg
Senior Member
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:53 pm

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby DevilDawg » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:28 am

Quite scary, yet not a surprise given the location of this Star Chamber.

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: DFW, TX

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby bblhd672 » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:30 am

The 9th Circuit isn't very constitutionally friendly anyway - didn't expect a different outcome.
NRA Life Member, TSRA Member
“What ‘gun law’ would have prevented the Sutherland Springs church massacre? Or the Las Vegas massacre?"

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5761
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby ELB » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:38 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
ELB wrote:So this brings us to the conclusion that if the 2A is judged to protect the right to carry arms in public, but concealed carry is not, then open carry must be constitutionally protected.

I'll bet the majority of the en banc would not like that outcome.

That was not the outcome of case. The Peruta court expressly stated that it was not reaching the issue of open-carry in public. It's clear that court (9th Cir.) would not hold that there is a right outside one's home.

Chas.


I know what this opinion held. I said "if". It would have been clearer if I put "elsewhere", i.e. if a SCOTUS decision in another case holds that carry in public is protected, then the 9th and California would seem to be backed into a corner, no? I don't remember what is queued up elsewhere right now...
Last edited by ELB on Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts: 5761
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby ELB » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:39 am

There is a copy of the opinion at Maryland Shooters. It is the only one I can find. It's not even on the 9th circuit web page yet.

https://www.mdshooters.com/attachment.p ... 1465479426
USAF 1982-2005
____________
The Most Interesting Texan in the World. :txflag:

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22860
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby The Annoyed Man » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:44 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

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.


Chas.

Charles, this is the defendant's appeal of the earlier 9th circuit's 3 judge panel decision which protected concealed carry?

In any case, don't Heller and McDonald supersede any 9th circuit decision?
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16588
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:50 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

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.


Chas.

Charles, this is the defendant's appeal of the earlier 9th circuit's 3 judge panel decision which protected concealed carry?

In any case, don't Heller and McDonald supersede any 9th circuit decision?


Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.
Image


NTexCopRetired
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:37 pm

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby NTexCopRetired » Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:53 am

So the original three-judge panels decision was vacated, wiped off the books. The California Solicitor General said during the en banc oral arguments that the 2nd Amendment really does extend beyond the perimeter of your home but does not extend to concealed carry. The Court rules out open carry from consideration on the front end and then wipes out the right to concealed carry. That leaves us with the right to keep and bear arms as long as you aren't bearing the arm by open carry or concealed carry. I can't help but believe that the death of Judge Scalia has emboldened these blatantly liberal Courts. This is just a taste of what will happen if the election goes south this November.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22860
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby The Annoyed Man » Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:03 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, this is the defendant's appeal of the earlier 9th circuit's 3 judge panel decision which protected concealed carry?

In any case, don't Heller and McDonald supersede any 9th circuit decision?


Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment is doomed if Hillary is elected, but what happens at the state level? Can a leftist-packed SCOTUS vacate state carry laws for states like Texas, which manifestly approve of at least licensed carry, or Constitutional Carry states like AZ or VT?

I ask not because I'm willing to concede a loss of the 2nd Amendment nationally, but because I want to know that my local rights are preserved no matter what madness reigns in DC.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre

User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby JALLEN » Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:18 am

But Clinton has said many times that she supports the 2nd Amendment.

She just doesn't want anybody to have guns.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5486
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby Pawpaw » Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:34 am

:iagree: She supports the Second Amendment.

She is going to take on the NRA her first day in office.

(Now where is that sarcasm font?)
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

KLB
Senior Member
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Re: Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

Postby KLB » Thu Jun 09, 2016 10:36 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.Chas.

Absolutely. Whatever others may think, I find the prospect of a Trump presidency depressing. I think he will do damage both domestically and internationally. But I can't conceive that he'll be worse than Hillary or whoever else the Democrats may put up (there's still a faint possibility of prosecution). My plan, however much I lament it, is to vote for the arrogant vulgarian. The male one.


Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests