And so it begins…

nogun

No guns for you.

A federal appeals court says people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday.

The panel says law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or otherwise have a good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel.

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to And so it begins…

  1. R.D. Walker says:

    They limited to “concealed” arms. You have to have the right to bear arms but there is no historical precedent, they argued, of the right to bear concealed arms.

    Of course California also bans open carry. Some analysts are saying that the wording of the ruling implies that there has to be the means to bear arms even if concealed arms are prohibited. That would imply that there can be a ban of concealed arms or open carry but not both.

    Of course SCOTUS will tie on this meaning this will likely hold as it is.

  2. roger says:

    trump better win or you anti trumpkins can bend over and kiss your guns goodbye! remember who signed the first major gun control law in californa as governor.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Well, it isn’t quite that easy. First, Heller would have to be reversed. A leftist SCOTUS might do that but overturning precedent isn’t that easy.

      Even if Heller is overturned, nothing would change as an immediate result in most of the United States. I don’t see a reversal on Heller causing, say, Texas to change its gun laws.

      Nor does it change the national laws. Even if Heller is overturned and Clinton is president, it would take an act of Congress to make any fundamental changes to federal gun laws. As long as the Republicans control Congress, I don’t see that happening.

      Frankly, if there were another terrible event like Sandy Hook, and the president started calling for magazine bans and so forth, I would predict the GOP Congress would be more likely to accommodate the president if it was Trump than if it was Clinton.

      • Squib Load says:

        Yep. As long as republicans control congress. How long do you suppose that will be?

        The biggest long-term threat to the 2nd amendment is the never ending flood of immigrants from the third world. They overwhelmingly vote D, which eventually means annulling the 2nd amendment. And honestly, 3rd world immigrants are too criminal for the 2nd amendment anyway The constitution wasn’t written for Mexico.

        Trump is much better for this reason. Hillary will open the gates Merkel style.

    • slinger says:

      Nobody is going to bend over and kiss their guns goodbye regardless of who wins the election.

      I am quite certain that both candidates would and will try … I am also quite certain that there are still enough men left in this country to ensure that won’t happen.

      Come and take them.

  3. Jim22 says:

    Concealed means concealed. That means that the public is unaware of the fact that you are carrying. Because of this fact it will be very difficult to try to enforce this decision.

    How many times have you been the only person in line who is actually paying attention to potential robbers and terrorists? How many times have you smiled at the cashier and the people around you and made them all feel like they were with friends? How many times have you been willing to identify a bad guy, increase your level of alert, and deter him if he pushes things?

    The fracas in Israel the other day shows the values of having someone carrying a concealed gun. The severity of the attack was greatly reduced because the good guy stopped the bad guys.

    Even if a progressive court makes rulings, even if a notorious anti-gunner like Hillary Clinton is elected President, There will be men and women who ignore the new restrictions because we will know our rights under God and our responsibilities.

  4. reboot says:

    The goal of concealed carry is just that. Pissant cuckish morons like roger don’t get that.

    They can take me to trial for concealed carry and defending myself or others if I need to pull a weapon. I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

    I’ve noticed in my office, there is about a thirty percent amount of people that actually watch what the fuck is around them at any given time. The majority are sheeple. That saddens me. I’m still trying to train the wife how to be calmly observant. She’ll learn.

  5. Broc Thompson says:

    These moron judges are just political hacks and can kiss my ass. Self defense in God given, I don’t believe he can be over-ruled.

  6. Jim22 says:

    After reading the linked article at Fox News I found this: “An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the 7-4 ruling, upholding a state law requiring applicants to show “good cause,” such as a fear of personal safety, to carry a concealed firearm.

    The judges, further, definitively dismissed the argument that a right to carry a concealed weapon was contained in the Second Amendment.”

    It seems that the decision had to do with interpreting a California law. Since that is true I am going to interpret that the ruling only applies in California.