States can restrict concealed weapons, appeals court says

[Crabtownboy]

You know this will go the the Supreme Court.

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

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that there is no Second Amendment protection for concealed weapons -- allowing states to prohibit or restrict the public from carrying concealed firearms.

The en banc opinion by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could set up a new showdown on gun rights at the Supreme Court.
At issue was California's law on concealed weapons, which requires citizens to prove they have "good cause" to carry concealed firearms to get a license. Plaintiffs challenged guidelines in San Diego and Yolo counties that did not consider general self-defense to be enough to obtain a license.

 

[Alcott]

Maybe next there will be restriction of concealed religion, and everyone will have to go through a belief detector at airports of stadiums to 'prove' they are not there to blow the joint up or to stir mob violence.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Considering how often the 9th Circuit gets overturned, it will be interesting to see how how the SCOTUS deals with this case.

 

[TCassidy]

Considering how often the 9th Circuit gets overturned, it will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS deals with this case.

SCOTUS will split 4/4 with the absence of Justice Scalia, so the 9th Circuit's ruling will stand. Another blow to liberty in California.

Thankfully, at this time, the ruling only applies to California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Mariana Islands as far as binding precedent is concerned.

This highlights the reason the upcoming Presidential election is the most important election of the past 50 years and will affect the direction our nation goes for the next 50 years.

If Clinton gets elected and appoints her left wing Justice choices our liberty will be a thing of the past. The Bill of Rights will become waste paper and We the People will no longer be free citizens but will be reduced to the status of vassal subjects of our federal feudal masters in Washington DC.

 

[Benjamin]

Thankfully, at this time, the ruling only applies to California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Mariana Islands as far as binding precedent is concerned.

In Arizona we don't even need a permit or license to conceal carry so their feeble attempts to support such restrictions are rather meaningless. -other than their nerve to attempt to disregard our 2nd amendment rights.

This highlights the reason the upcoming Presidential election is the most important election of the past 50 years and will affect the direction our nation goes for the next 50 years.

It does indeed, and goes to demonstrate just a small taste of what will happen if Hillary were get into office, she would work to abolish the 2nd amendment - whereas Trump in opposition has the full support of the NRA - yet some like to insist that they are "2 sides of the same coin".

 

[TCassidy]

In Arizona we don't even need a permit or license to conceal carry so their feeble attempts to support such restrictions are rather meaningless. -other than their nerve to attempt to disregard our 2nd amendment rights.

Yes, but if Arizona ever passed a law disallowing concealed carry without "justifiable cause" the 9th Circuit Court's ruling would be binding precedent and the law would stand. (Not that there is a snowball's chance in Arizona of that happening.)

 

[Alcott]

(Not that there is a snowball's chance in Arizona of that happening.)

Better hope that's not a Flagstaff snowball, or it might be feasible.