9th rules concealed carry is not a 2nd amenment right - broad application

[utbagpiper]

but did you read the peruta decision? because they go back to the 1500's when talking laws and case law and stuff.

Yes.

Short version for the kids tweating on their phones:

This is a decision hostile to RKBA. Period. The court limited their formal decision to CC, but are worse than flippant about whether they believe the 2nd protects OC. The court reaches back to 14th century England to make a case that the late 18th century Bill of Rights--adopted specifically to prevent the abuse of individual rights the colonists had experienced at the hands of a tyrannical king--doesn't protect CC (and maybe doesn't even protect OC). The cases they cite to support their pre-existing conclusion are as hostile to OC as they are to CC. They are highly selective in what evidence or cases they examine in this nation post Constitution adoption, and highly selective in what they quote from those cases.

Nobody who supports RKBA generally, or even OC specifically, should be pleased about this ruling. In fact, even as we might be glad that all they really ruled was that the 2nd Amd doesn't protect a right to CC in public, we might have been better off had the court gone ahead and ruled the 2nd doesn't protect any public possession of firearms except at the pleasure of the king (I mean governor). That is what their ancient precedence supports. It is what several of their State decisions support since so many of those decisions were based on the notion that the 2nd doesn't protect any individual right but only a "collective right" to form a militia. And such a case might be more likely to be granted cert by the SCOTUS.

Their treatment of Bliss is dismissive and for some reason the 2-1 nature of that case bears mentioning while the divided nature of cases that support their view are ignored.

I predict that when this court is presented with a case on OC, they will come to a very similar conclusion unless there is by then SCOTUS precedence requiring that States respect OC. In any event, I expect this court to rule in favor of the most restrictive laws that they can possibly squeeze in under whatever ruling the SCOTUS might hand down.

I'll post a longer analysis later for you and whomever else is capable and wiling of reading something substantial. For those who are actually hostile to the notion of an individual right to carry discretely, they will view this post as far too long.

Charles

 

[press1280]

At what point is the divide between the state analogues and the 2A? And why were the anti-CCW clauses added to the state amendments beginning in 1850?

 

[press1280]

Yes.

Short version for the kids tweating on their phones:

This is a decision hostile to RKBA. Period. The court limited their formal decision to CC, but are worse than flippant about whether they believe the 2nd protects OC. The court reaches back to 14th century England to make a case that the late 18th century Bill of Rights--adopted specifically to prevent the abuse of individual rights the colonists had experienced at the hands of a tyrannical king--doesn't protect CC (and maybe doesn't even protect OC). The cases they cite to support their pre-existing conclusion are as hostile to OC as they are to CC. They are highly selective in what evidence or cases they examine in this nation post Constitution adoption, and highly selective in what they quote from those cases.

Nobody who supports RKBA generally, or even OC specifically, should be pleased about this ruling. In fact, even as we might be glad that all they really ruled was that the 2nd Amd doesn't protect a right to CC in public, we might have been better off had the court gone ahead and ruled the 2nd doesn't protect any public possession of firearms except at the pleasure of the king (I mean governor). That is what their ancient precedence supports. It is what several of their State decisions support since so many of those decisions were based on the notion that the 2nd doesn't protect any individual right but only a "collective right" to form a militia. And such a case might be more likely to be granted cert by the SCOTUS.

Their treatment of Bliss is dismissive and for some reason the 2-1 nature of that case bears mentioning while the divided nature of cases that support their view are ignored.

I predict that when this court is presented with a case on OC, they will come to a very similar conclusion unless there is by then SCOTUS precedence requiring that States respect OC. In any event, I expect this court to rule in favor of the most restrictive laws that they can possibly squeeze in under whatever ruling the SCOTUS might hand down.

I'll post a longer analysis later for you and whomever else is capable and wiling of reading something substantial. For those who are actually hostile to the notion of an individual right to carry discretely, they will view this post as far too long.

Charles

There's also approval for the Drake and Woollard cases, which dealt with a general public carry permit, not a CCW. I too can't see this group of judges making a meaningful recognition of open carry (I hope I'm dead wrong). The one thing liberal elitists hate worse than CC is OC. Our Federal judiciary is media driven and falls into this category, will some exceptions.

 

[WalkingWolf]

At what point is the divide between the state analogues and the 2A? And why were the anti-CCW clauses added to the state amendments beginning in 1850?

I wasn't born yet, but I would imagine the use of concealed weapons used to commit crimes brought about the statutes. It is still the same today, most criminals hide their weapons, most people who do not hide them are honest. That is not to say that the current law abiding privilege card holders are not honest, just that CC is, and always will be the preferred carry of criminals.

 

[hammer6]

Yes.

Short version for the kids tweating on their phones:

This is a decision hostile to RKBA. Period. The court limited their formal decision to CC, but are worse than flippant about whether they believe the 2nd protects OC. The court reaches back to 14th century England to make a case that the late 18th century Bill of Rights--adopted specifically to prevent the abuse of individual rights the colonists had experienced at the hands of a tyrannical king--doesn't protect CC (and maybe doesn't even protect OC). The cases they cite to support their pre-existing conclusion are as hostile to OC as they are to CC. They are highly selective in what evidence or cases they examine in this nation post Constitution adoption, and highly selective in what they quote from those cases.

Nobody who supports RKBA generally, or even OC specifically, should be pleased about this ruling. In fact, even as we might be glad that all they really ruled was that the 2nd Amd doesn't protect a right to CC in public, we might have been better off had the court gone ahead and ruled the 2nd doesn't protect any public possession of firearms except at the pleasure of the king (I mean governor). That is what their ancient precedence supports. It is what several of their State decisions support since so many of those decisions were based on the notion that the 2nd doesn't protect any individual right but only a "collective right" to form a militia. And such a case might be more likely to be granted cert by the SCOTUS.

Their treatment of Bliss is dismissive and for some reason the 2-1 nature of that case bears mentioning while the divided nature of cases that support their view are ignored.

I predict that when this court is presented with a case on OC, they will come to a very similar conclusion unless there is by then SCOTUS precedence requiring that States respect OC. In any event, I expect this court to rule in favor of the most restrictive laws that they can possibly squeeze in under whatever ruling the SCOTUS might hand down.

I'll post a longer analysis later for you and whomever else is capable and wiling of reading something substantial. For those who are actually hostile to the notion of an individual right to carry discretely, they will view this post as far too long.

Charles

i mean, a simple yes woulda worked.

the case was about whether or not the "good cause" portion of the law was constitutional. the court said yes, since concealed carry is not the right inferred by the 2nd amendment. the court even mentioned how if the plaintiff erred in bringing them a concealed carry complaint.

i don't know what you're missing if you truly did read the 100+ pages of the decision.

 

[OC for ME]

Politicians back in the day did not like CC, for whatever reason, judges backed them up and we now have "precedent." The bearing of arms in whatever manner we choose that does not violate another citizen's rights, without just cause, must not be infringed by the state.

CC is not "protected" because folks, 2A folks by the way, keep equating CCing with criminal intent. Mere peaceable possession is not evidence of a crime or criminal intent. Sad to read that many here disagree with this premise. Sad to read that many here agree with a prior restraint placed upon the citizenry where the bearing of arms in concerned.

Prior restraints have arisen — and been struck down — in several contexts. Special taxes on newspaper paper and ink have been held to be unconstitutional, pre-dissemination burdens on speech. Ordinances banning news racks have met the same fate. Many other permit and licensing requirements also have been invalidated for unduly inhibiting speech.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/prior-restraint

Any prior restraint on our RKBA is unconstitutional.

It would be nice if folks would ask a judge to determine if CC laws (government infringement) are a prior restraint on a right. I'll not hold my breath though.

I'm with charles on this point...even said so in my second sentence.

 

[redhawk44]

Politicians back in the day did not like CC, for whatever reason, judges backed them up and we now have "precedent." The bearing of arms in whatever manner we choose that does not violate another citizen's rights, without just cause, must not be infringed by the state.

CC is not "protected" because folks, 2A folks by the way, keep equating CCing with criminal intent. Mere peaceable possession is not evidence of a crime or criminal intent. Sad to read that many here disagree with this premise. Sad to read that many here agree with a prior restraint placed upon the citizenry where the bearing of arms in concerned.

Any prior restraint on our RKBA is unconstitutional.

It would be nice if folks would ask a judge to determine if CC laws (government infringement) are a prior restraint on a right. I'll not hold my breath though.

I'm with charles on this point...even said so in my second sentence.

I am in agreement with both of you.

 

[since9]

The history of the state analogues suggests their understanding was for both OC and CC, otherwise these analogues wouldn't later include the phrases about banning/regulating concealed carry.

I concur. It's terrible when the courts forget history.

 

[California Right To Carry]

I concur. It's terrible when the courts forget history.

Bliss was the only case which ever held that there is a right to concealed carry and its evaluation was based on the Kentucky Constitution, not the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Bliss court held that Kentucky was free to change its constitution and ban concealed carry, something which it could not have done if the court believed that the Second Amendment protected a right to concealed carry.

I wish folks would stop claiming that they have a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. It makes the rest of us look stupid by association.

 

[utbagpiper]

I wish folks would stop claiming that they have a right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment. It makes the rest of us look stupid by association.

I wish folks who claim to support RKBA would provide some evidence other than emphatic assertion or appeal to authority of antebellum courts anxious to disarm blacks and other undesirables that the 2nd amendment wasn't intended to protect my right to carry a gun in the manner I choose.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

i don't know what you're missing if you truly did read the 100+ pages of the decision.

I'm missing anything at all compelling from the court that their view on discrete carry is actually supported by the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

They spend pages and pages reviewing complete bans on carrying weapons in 14th century England, but nothing from the words of the Founders or Framers?

They spend pages going over State court rulings whose fundamental premise--that the 2nd protects only a "collective right" to be armed in a militia--that has completely debunked by Heller, but gloss over Bliss, making a big deal out of its 2-1 split, because it was decided based on the words "...right to bear arms shall not be quested," rather than the words "...right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

Exactly what part of their decision did you find so persuasive?

Other folks are revealing they only really support carrying in the manner they approve of and are latching onto this decision in some kind of confirmation bias.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

You are right. I am not interested in civil discourse,...with you.

A better man might simply choose to disengage from me then. Not sure what your problem is.

 

[utbagpiper]

At what point is the divide between the state analogues and the 2A? And why were the anti-CCW clauses added to the state amendments beginning in 1850?

Why is any infringement of our RKBA ever advanced?

If you haven't read Clayton Cramer's "Racist Roots of Gun Control" you should. There are always un-trusted, undesirable elements of society that the upper-crust would prefer not have the power of arms: Slaves, freed blacks, Catholics, Jews, Irish, recent immigrants, Mormons, the poor.

Remington manufactured something on the order of 7,000 cane guns. Cane swords were more common than that. Yet how many court cases do we see over these types of concealed weapons? Very few. Men of wealth carried canes in the Victorian era.

Working men were much more likely to carry a Bowie knife, concealable pistol, or other discrete self-defense weapon. And these are the weapons we typically see in 19th century cases involving violation of concealed carry laws.

Simply put, rich men were not subjected to anti-concealed carry laws which were aimed primarily at the working man.

The more things change...

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

I wasn't born yet, but I would imagine the use of concealed weapons used to commit crimes brought about the statutes.

And those who believe that probably believe that the use of semi-automatic firearms to commit mass murder is the reason for the 1994 ban on scary looking guns.

It is still the same today, most criminals hide their weapons,

Nonsense. Most criminals around the world display their weapons openly.

Demonstrably, most murders in the last 200 years have been committed by police officers, soldiers, and other government agents acting in their official capacity to infringe the rights of the citizens of their nation. Rape, looting, and other crimes committed by occupying military personnel is probably a distant 2nd, but still involve criminals who are openly armed.

Cases of run-o'-the-mill criminals mugging their fellow citizens and committing murder with previously concealed weapons is very rare by comparison.

It is still the same today, most criminals hide their weapons, most people who do not hide them are honest.

But the vast majority who carry discretely, are law-abiding and honest and never infringe anyone's rights.

In contrast, nationwide I'd bet cops who OC outnumber private citizen OCers quite handily at this time. How often do police officers infringe someone's rights.

Fun with numbers. And a little perspective.

That is not to say that the current law abiding privilege card holders are not honest, just that CC is, and always will be the preferred carry of criminals.

Only common criminals. It is pretty tough to conceal an AR or AK style rifle which the jihadists and nut cases seem to like to use for mass shootings.

Someone once wrote "We can either hang together, or we shall surely hang separately." Especially from those who take such offense when CCers attack OC, it is really unfortunate to see OCers who express such hostility to CC in so many different ways.

Gentlemen have long favored discrete possession of arms as evidenced by the booming business in cane swords and cane guns, ornate pocket and palm pistols, pistols built into cigarette cases, and all kinds of other "AOWs" common in the 19th century on both sides of the pond.

Anti-CC laws were and are aimed mostly at the poor. Those who favor limits on CC have long been the bigoted elite. Today, progressives, cops, and politicians are among the groups most likely to be deeply concerned about the "wrong kind of people" being able to conceal. People with money, power, and/or political influence are almost never the wrong kind of people.

Charles

 

[California Right To Carry]

Me so happy!

Charles Nichols will be pleased to note that what should have been obvious previously, has finally been accepted as fact.

I haven't the words to express how pleased I am but this video comes close to capturing how I feel:


[video]https://youtu.be/2oKR9MYYdBM[/video]

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut

Please show me where the 2nd Amendment mentions a difference between the methods of "bear Arms" and mentions where one method of bearing (open carry) shall not be infringed while a different method of bearing (concealed carry) is OK to be infringed.

Amendment II

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You answered your own question, bear is about the opposite as you can get to hide.

Please show me where the term "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment is limited to only being in plain sight.

 

[Bikenut]

Please stop using what is possibly the most moronic defense of concealed carry I have every encountered. It makes gun-owners look too stupid to even own a gun, let alone to carry one in public.

The Framers of the Second Amendment did not have to elaborate on the Second Amendment because the people who wrote it and voted to enact it into law understood what the Second Amendment meant. Likewise for the 1st Amendment. There is no mention of the First Amendment preventing human sacrifice because the Framers of the First Amendment weren't morons.

Please stop being condescending and using ridicule hoping to bolster your own argument. When folks use that technique it says much more about them than it does about the topic at hand and the person they are talking with.

And I believe the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment did most certainly understand what the wording therein meant and that they spent a great deal of time carefully choosing the exact words they used which is why they did not include any wording differentiating between any methods of bearing arms available in order to make all forms of "bear" protected.

Please show me where the 2nd Amendment differentiates between bearing arms openly or concealed.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[California Right To Carry]

Please stop being condescending and using ridicule hoping to bolster your own argument. When folks use that technique it says much more about them than it does about the topic at hand and the person they are talking with.

If the dunce cap fits...

And I believe the folks who wrote the 2nd Amendment did most certainly understand what the wording therein meant and that they spent a great deal of time carefully choosing the exact words they used which is why they did not include any wording differentiating between any methods of bearing arms available in order to make all forms of "bear" protected.

Your belief and 50 cents won't buy a cup of coffee.

Please show me where the 2nd Amendment differentiates between bearing arms openly or concealed.

The en banc Peruta decision just gave 59 pages of reasons. Or did you not bother to read it?

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where in the First Amendment does it say that death threats, counterfeiting and human sacrifice is protected?

Not a single Federal circuit court or state high court agrees with your ludicrous claim that there is a right to concealed carry. Not a single one of the concealed carry lawsuits brought by the so called gun-rights groups has ever cited a single case, or any historical authority, which supports your belief that there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry.

You can ramble on all you like about the non-existent Second Amendment right to concealed carry but it won't change the fact that the right never existed. Even the four judges in the Peruta en banc minority conceded that there is no right to concealed carry. Instead, they were more than willing to ban a fundamental, enumerated right to Open Carry and substitute it for something even they said is not a right because some people don't like the Open Carry right.

Be glad they were stopped there. Just imagine what this Nation would be like if rights could be banned in exchange for something which isn't a right? For example, an all day sucker or a shiny new nickel.

 

[hammer6]

these arguments have brought me from leaning heavily to one side, to being on the fence. like, literally. i'm sitting on a fence right now on my phone.






just kidding.



but seriously.

 

[solus]

these arguments have brought me from leaning heavily to one side, to being on the fence. like, literally. i'm sitting on a fence right now on my phone.

just kidding.

but seriously.

i'm worried hammer, since you are smiling broadly so are you sidesaddle or straddling that ther fence ~ hummm

rof...

ipse