9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Concealed Carry

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Concealed Carry

Though the Supreme Court is probably reluctant to take on another gun case at the moment, this case is headed that way. In a ruling that reverses a previous ruling by a smaller, three-judge panel, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that a California law requiring “good cause” to apply for concealed carry permits should stand, and also said the Second Amendment does not apply to concealed carry.
powerful-handguns

By a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a California law that requires gun owners to show a good reason before they can get a license to carry a concealed handgun.

“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 court declined to say whether the Constitution protects openly carrying a gun in public. It said that question was not at issue in the case.

Gun owners in two California counties challenged the requirement that they show “good cause,” as defined by county sheriffs, before they could get concealed carry permits.

A dissent by one of the judges was pretty direct – this ruling is in direct opposition to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, dissenting in Thursday’s ruling, said the restrictions were tantamount to an infringement of the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

“In the context of present-day California law, the Defendant counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense,” Callahan wrote.

“Because the majority eviscerates the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined by Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald, I respectfully dissent,” Callahan said.

The Heller decision was a 5-4 vote, with the late Justice Scalia writing the majority opinion. If this case was taken on by the current court, there would be a 4-4 deadlock and the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling would stand. And while this may not change the laws immediately in some states (I live in a “shall issue” state, for example), it will certainly give the legislatures of gun-unfriendly states more opportunity to take concealed carry away from law-abiding gun owners.

And as of right now, California bans both open carry and concealed carry (unless you show “good cause”). So much for that “bearing arms” part of the amendment. I can’t think of another right that is only allowed to be exercised within the confines of one’s home. Can you?

As was noted by Victory Girl Nina back in April, this election is so terribly important because the balance of the Supreme Court is at stake. This California case illustrates that point perfectly. While Donald Trump is a wild card, we know perfectly well what kind of Supreme Court justice a President Hillary Clinton would appoint. If we value our rights, she should never be president.

Written by

2 Comments
  • GWB says:

    whatever the scope of that protection may be

    IOW, they don’t care to even look at SCOTUS precedent on that scope. It’s pretty farking clear in Heller and McDonald.

    Because the majority eviscerates the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined by Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald, I respectfully dissent.

    Seems to me that if the court is eviscerating a Constitutional Right, then you ought not “respectfully dissent” at all, but you should be screaming from the rooftops how they’re a bunch of tyrants in black robes, and your dissent in the case should read more like an a*-ripping than anything “respectful”.

    I can’t think of another right that is only allowed to be exercised within the confines of one’s home. Can you?

    Well, it seems that the First Amendment is pretty well restricted to that nowadays. Parts of it are still exercisable in your church of choice, but that won’t last long (can you say 0bamaCare?). Heck, you can’t even practice privacy (4th) in your own home nowadays, if the police have a Stingray that nabs your phone, and your email is open to being examined by the State.
    The Second is by no means unique in its un-Constitutional restrictions in our rapidly fascizing country.

    I don’t honestly believe (do you, really?) that Trump will appoint actual Constitutionalists, much less ones that will get through the Senate (regardless of the party with a majority), do you? Besides, there’s always Roberts to throw things the totalitarian direction if all else fails.

  • r minty says:

    “Good Cause”???? I am a human being who wishes to protect myself and live – to protect my family, friends, neighbors, and even strangers. Isn’t that cuase enough?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram