States Can Restrict Conceal Carry

[Dave_L]

Yup, isn't that neat....


"We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/concealed-carry-second-amendment/

[spqrzilla]

Its not unexpected and its just Ninth Circuit. Seventh Circuit for example has already held to the contrary.

And statutorily only two states in Ninth Circuit do not provide for Shall Issue concealed carry.

What is bad, is that with Scalia's death, this is a bad time to appeal this or other circuits' decisions.

[TFOGGER]

It's not called the 9th Circus for nothing...

[Gman]

This whole country is turning into a circus.

[roberth]

This whole country is turning into a circus.

...and those of us who are paying attention have a ringside seat.

Concealed is concealed.

[Zundfolge]

This is why Hillary must be stopped ... even if it means voting for Trump.

[Skip]

Its not unexpected and its just Ninth Circuit. Seventh Circuit for example has already held to the contrary.

And statutorily only two states in Ninth Circuit do not provide for Shall Issue concealed carry.

What is bad, is that with Scalia's death, this is a bad time to appeal this or other circuits' decisions.

My fear too. Half the court completely disregards the written law and judges on policy and feels. How's that going to work?

What's comical is listening to Libs celebrate and declare "it's a states' rights issue." Really? Didn't McDonald say otherwise?

[DavieD55]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AolTbt9rHFw

[Chief_of_Scouts]

Just a reminder, Colorado State Constitution:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

I doubt it will be long before some statist decides that Colorado citizens should be denied their right to conceal carry because the Constitution doesn't "justify the practice".

[Aloha_Shooter]

Just a reminder, Colorado State Constitution:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

I doubt it will be long before some statist decides that Colorado citizens should be denied their right to conceal carry because the Constitution doesn't "justify the practice".

... and that works when the right to carry openly is accepted as it was in 1876. While I prefer carrying concealed, my right to defend myself hasn't been abrogated. The problem arises when they come from both directions like California or Denver and try to restrict open carry while denying CCW permits at the same time.

[Chief_of_Scouts]

While I prefer carrying concealed, my right to defend myself hasn't been abrogated.

Agreed. Everyone has a right to self-defense. No matter who you are or where you are. The issue comes down to the consequences of that action. I am willing to live and find out what those consequences might be than to die and suffer the final consequence.

[Aloha_Shooter]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/11/peruta-v-san-diego-analyzed/

Analysis by Dave Kopel (whom I think all of us can agree isn't a gun control fanatic?):


The 9th Circuit in Peruta v. San Diego (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/09/10-56971.pdf) upheld longstanding precedent that the concealed carrying of firearms may be prohibited. All 11 judges of the en banc court agreed bearing arms that are concealed is not, in itself, part of the Second Amendment right as that right has been traditionally understood.


All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms. Heller itself said so, with approval.


the dissenters pointed out that a recently-enacted California statute prohibits open carry (replacing a former statute allowing unloaded open carry). According to the main dissent, by Judge Callahan, the text of the Second Amendment guarantees the right to “bear arms.” Heller and McDonald said so too. And so did the precedents which recognized the individual Second Amendment right in the course of upholding concealed carry bans.


According to the Peruta dissenters, because the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms (while allowing legislative choice about open vs. concealed), Mr. Peruta and the other plaintiffs were entitled to concealed carry permits.


According to the dissenters, the Second Amendment expressly guarantees the right to bear arms; legislatures may regulate but not prohibit the right. So in the 19th-century cases, the legislature could choose to ban concealed carry while not even requiring a permit for open carry. The dissenters wrote that today, legislatures ought to allowed to reverse that preference: to restrict open carry, while allowing concealed carry under a fair and reasonable licensing system.


The logic of the majority opinion would eventually force California to broadly allow open carry, once a case squarely forces the 9th Circuit to decide whether “the right to keep and bear arms” includes the right to bear arms in public places.

These are just brief snippets. Mr. Kopel's entire article at the Volokh Conspiracy is worth reading.