9th Circuit: Concealed Carry Not Part of 2nd Amendment

 

shutterstock_294491978The court ruled, 7-4, that the Heller and McDonald decisions do not gartuntee a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon outside one’s home:

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. […] 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.

Regarding that last line, California law, prohibits carrying a loaded firearm on one’s person or in one’s vehicle “while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.”

There are 87 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    So you can keep arms, but not bear them?

    • #1
  2. Guruforhire Member
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    I would like to understand what they think the meaning of “bear” is.

    The 2nd amendment has 2 rights in it.

    But reading is apparently optional to be a federal judge.

    • #2
  3. Penfold Member
    Penfold
    @Penfold

    • #3
  4. Dave_L Inactive
    Dave_L
    @Dave-L

    Go Hillary!

    • #4
  5. Bob W Member
    Bob W
    @WBob

    Unless the Supreme Court overturns its own ruling in Heller, or else reads “and bear” out of the law, this will go away. Any locality that refuses a CC permit will then be faced with the prospect of people bearing their guns openly in protest.

    • #5
  6. Hypatia Inactive
    Hypatia
    @Hypatia

    The Notorious Ninth strikes again.

    Vote for Trump–or HillBily will pack the Supreme Court with alumni of this renegade leftist tribunal.

    • #6
  7. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Well, at least Hillary will stop this nonsense. She’s the most conservative candidate in the race!

    • #7
  8. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    Austin Murrey:Well, at least Hillary will stop this nonsense. She’s the most conservative candidate in the race!

    This is true. I read it on Ricochet.

    • #8
  9. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Close your eyes and imagine armed rebellion.

    • #9
  10. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    This is the reason we need to be vigilant about who we elect locally – p.s. typo in your first paragraph (sorry)

    • #10
  11. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    DocJay:Close your eyes and imagine armed rebellion.

    Got a crash fitness course you can recommend?

    • #11
  12. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Penfold:

    Problem is, in Russia, it’s pointed at you and your freedom…..

    • #12
  13. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    And is it begins.

    • #13
  14. BrentB67 Inactive
    BrentB67
    @BrentB67

    DocJay:Close your eyes and imagine armed rebellion.

    Tease

    • #14
  15. Kevin Creighton Contributor
    Kevin Creighton
    @KevinCreighton

    Stay at home. Don’t vote for the candidate who’s endorsed by the NRA. Don’t vote for the candidate who has a “dream team” list of Supreme Court candidates.

    Don’t vote, and let the person who calls the NRA her enemy become President. Let the person who agrees 100% with this ruling (and wants to go beyond it) become President.

    Don’t vote for Trump. Because what difference does it make if you did?

    • #15
  16. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    If I remember correctly, in the first round of this the three judge panel said essentially that citizens could bear arms either openly or concealed, but that government could not proscribe both methods. With Scalia gone there exists a real possibility that the right to bear arms will be read out of the constitution by the liberals on the court. Parts of the 1st are in the crosshairs as well. The left is chipping away at fundamental rights and doing so to the applause of close to half of the nation — people who would apparently rather be ruled than governed.

    • #16
  17. Son of Spengler Contributor
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    I’ve never been a fan of the open carry activists, but at the rate this is going, I might become one. Can’t carry concealed? Fine, I’ll walk around with a scary black rifle slung over my shoulder.

    • #17
  18. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Bob W:Unless the Supreme Court overturns its own ruling in Heller, or else reads “and bear” out of the law, this will go away.

    Why would it go away? The HRC government will just not enforce the current reading of the law so the change will stand de facto. If they do take the case to the SCOTUS under the current 8 justices it will tie and the lower court ruling will stand and become the new interpretation of the law. Once HRC has stuffed the court with her progressives judges then SCOTUS will overturn its previous rulings and it will become the new law. Anyway you look at it in about a decade there will be no legal gun ownership.

    • #18
  19. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    I guess I could read the decision myself, but why bother when Ricochet can tell me the answer: what is concealed carry?

    As I go about my business you may be able to see my shoes, my shirt and/or jacket, and my trousers. If it’s cold or raining you’ll see an overcoat, trousers and shoes. You won’t see my socks, except incidentally, my wallet or, most of the time, my watch. Are these things — to say nothing of the leather straps and piercings under it all — ‘carried’ in a ‘concealed’ manner? What about my keys, change or handkerchief? My bus ticket?

    I guess the answer is: “yes”.

    So, reformulated question: why did bans on concealed weapons become such a thing in the early 19th Century? (See this pdf table for a summary of a summary.) One answer is racism, xenophobia and class bias, which tickles my prejudices, but… Why? How could anyone think it made any sense? How could anyone think it makes any sense today?

    (Do I have to read all of Clayton Cramer’s book?)

    • #19
  20. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    DocJay:Close your eyes and imagine armed rebellion.

    I’ve seen the results of civil war in Yugoslavia and Ukraine.

    it won’t be pretty.

    • #20
  21. Ross C Member
    Ross C
    @RossC

    This has always been my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It does expressly talk about a well regulated militia. My plain reading is that concealed carry was not the original intent.

    We can talk about what is right and just, or how the 2nd amendment was drafted poorly, but does anyone think the framers had concealed handguns in mind?

    • #21
  22. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Ricochet Editor’s Desk:Regarding that last line, California law, prohibits carrying a loaded firearm on one’s person or in one’s vehicle “while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.”

    Actually you may not carry an unloaded handgun in public in California.

    However, California’s “open carry” right was repealed effective January 1, 2012. This is the date on which California Assembly Bill 144 went into effect as Penal Code 26350.

    Thanks to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is now illegal.
    Carrying an unloaded handgun in public is a misdemeanor

    Most violations are punishable by:
    1.up to one year in county jail, or
    2.a fine of up to $1,000.

    I strongly disagree with California’s firearms laws, but if you’re a California resident you need to know the law.

    • #22
  23. Lily Bart Inactive
    Lily Bart
    @LilyBart

    Its a crying shame that the republican primary voters didn’t nominate someone committed to defending the 2nd Amendment (or the 1st Amendment for that matter). The NRA’s endorsement notwithstanding, Trump has, in the past, spoken for gun control. And past experience should have instructed us all that you cannot depend on promises made during the heat of a campaign battle.

    We are going to have to come out in force to elect conservatives to the House to protect our rights because “our” nominee cannot be counted upon in this matter.

    • #23
  24. Austin Murrey Inactive
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Ross C:This has always been my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It does expressly talk about a well regulated militia. My plain reading is that concealed carry was not the original intent.

    We can talk about what is right and just, or how the 2nd amendment was drafted poorly, but does anyone think the framers had concealed handguns in mind?

    Well if we’re talking about what the framers had in mind I should be able to buy my very own ICBM – since the intent was for military-grade hardware to be available to private citizens.

    • #24
  25. Liz Inactive
    Liz
    @Liz

    Ross C:This has always been my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It does expressly talk about a well regulated militia. My plain reading is that concealed carry was not the original intent.

    We can talk about what is right and just, or how the 2nd amendment was drafted poorly, but does anyone think the framers had concealed handguns in mind?

    My understanding is that it makes neither prescriptions nor proscriptions regarding the mode of “bearing.”

    • #25
  26. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    genferei:I guess I could read the decision myself, but why bother when Ricochet can tell me the answer: what is concealed carry?

    As I go about my business you may be able to see my shoes, my shirt and/or jacket, and my trousers. If it’s cold or raining you’ll see an overcoat, trousers and shoes. You won’t see my socks, except incidentally, my wallet or, most of the time, my watch. Are these things — to say nothing of the leather straps and piercings under it all — ‘carried’ in a ‘concealed’ manner? What about my keys, change or handkerchief? My bus ticket?

    I guess the answer is: “yes”.

    Honestly, this is my problem with concealed carry laws — in many places with them, open carry is not allowed. If someone can see the imprint of the gun under your clothes, it’s not considered “concealed” and you can be fined. This makes it especially difficult for women to conceal carry.

    Also, as someone who doesn’t carry, I prefer the open carry people. Lets me know who I can rely on if needed.

    • #26
  27. Son of Spengler Contributor
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    Ross C:This has always been my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It does expressly talk about a well regulated militia. My plain reading is that concealed carry was not the original intent.

    We can talk about what is right and just, or how the 2nd amendment was drafted poorly, but does anyone think the framers had concealed handguns in mind?

    At the time of the founding, pistols were clearly included in the scope of the amendment, and pistols have always been designed for concealment (as opposed to long guns). We know that pistols were often concealed at the time, as were other arms such as knives. There was no thought of limiting or banning such weapons.

    If anything, contemporary legal thought and construction suggests that the militia clause was intended to allow any arms suitable for military use. As such, pointing to the original understanding of the militia clause should expand the right (as interpreted by the courts today), rather than limiting it.

    • #27
  28. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    genferei: (Do I have to read all of Clayton Cramer’s book?)

    No. I can be lazy and read this blog entry.

    Whatever the ultimate explanation for the prevalence of interpersonal violence in the southern United States, it seems clear that the proximate cause for the passage of these first 8 concealed weapons laws prior to 1840 was a (real or perceived) rise in violence perpetrated with concealed weapons, especially cutting and stabbing weapons.

    Possibly due to the suppression of dueling — so that unorganized violence replaced organized violence.

    Make of it what you will, but the distinction between “concealed” and “open” still makes no sense to me, and probably made no sense to anyone before 1820-ish. (Just as “assault weapon” makes no sense except in the aftermath of an invented rhetorical-legal categorisation.)

    • #28
  29. Son of Spengler Contributor
    Son of Spengler
    @SonofSpengler

    Austin Murrey:

    Ross C:This has always been my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It does expressly talk about a well regulated militia. My plain reading is that concealed carry was not the original intent.

    We can talk about what is right and just, or how the 2nd amendment was drafted poorly, but does anyone think the framers had concealed handguns in mind?

    Well if we’re talking about what the framers had in mind I should be able to buy my very own ICBM – since the intent was for military-grade hardware to be available to private citizens.

    Nope. “Arms” meant weapons typically carried by an individual. As opposed to, say, artillery.

    • #29
  30. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Ross C:This has always been my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It does expressly talk about a well regulated militia. My plain reading is that concealed carry was not the original intent.

    We can talk about what is right and just, or how the 2nd amendment was drafted poorly, but does anyone think the framers had concealed handguns in mind?

    Under the plain reading of the amendment citizens have a right to military weapons. And to ” bear arms”, meaning I should have the right to carry my weapons. If it doesn’t guarantee concealed carry, it sure as hell guarantees open carry.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.