Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[Flightmare]

Wow! Just wow....I have no words, I am just stunned.

[ELB]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[DevilDawg]

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

[bblhd672]

The 9th Circuit isn't very constitutionally friendly anyway - didn't expect a different outcome.

[ELB]

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...

[ELB]

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

[The Annoyed Man]

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?

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[NTexCopRetired]

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.

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[JALLEN]

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

She just doesn't want anybody to have guns.

[Pawpaw]

She supports the Second Amendment.

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

(Now where is that sarcasm font?)

[KLB]

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.