[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Source: 9th Circuit Court URL Source: [None] Published: Jun 9, 2016 Author: Circuit Judge W. Fletcher Post Date: 2016-06-09 16:48:27 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 31990 Comments: 127 Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Peruta et al v County of San Diego et al, 10-56971 (9th Cir, 9 Jul 2016) OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Under California law, a member of the general public may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she has been issued a license. An applicant for a license must satisfy a number of conditions. Among other things, the applicant must show “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant needs a concealed firearm for self-defense. Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, allege that they wish to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but that they do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. They contend that their counties’ definitions of good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They particularly rely on the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14. #1. To: nolu chan (#0) "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-09   17:18:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: misterwhite (#1) The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. Heller incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the Federal District of Columbia in 2008, but left the status of incorporation against the States undeclared. Opinion of the Court by Scalia. McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States in 2010. Opinion of the Court by Alito. While the right to keep and bear arms in protected by the 2nd Amendment, the amendment does not state, claim, or imply that it either created or defined the right to keep and bear arms. The Framers felt no need to define what were, to them, the well known terms of English common law which had prevailed in the colonies and which were carried forth in the States after the revolution. The 2nd Amendment makes no allusion of the right to carry concealed weapons. I know of no law specifically for or against concealed carry from that era. The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana. At the time, the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the States. Concealed carry may just not have been an issue back before the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Heller and McDonald make clear that the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in the English common law and that "the right to keep and bear arms is not 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'" Under Heller and McDonald it appears that there is nothing prohibiting a State from regulating or prohibiting the concealed carry of handguns. Prohibiting the carrying of handguns was held unconstitutional, but allowing open carry satisfies that. Of course, if Hillary appoints three or four justices to the Supreme Court, it may find that "common sense" regulations disarming United States civilians are lawfully justified by some emanation from some penumbra. McDonald at 20-21: Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted inthis Nation’s history and tradition.” Glucksberg, supra, at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted). Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self defense, 554 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 19–20), and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 20). Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III’s attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.” [16] Id., at ___ (slip op., at 21); see also L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 137–143(1999) (hereinafter Levy). The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights. “During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or selectmilitia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.” __________ [16] For example, an article in the Boston Evening Post stated: “For it is certainly beyond human art and sophistry, to prove the British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights, and, who live in a province where the law requires them to be equip’d with arms, &c. are guilty of an illegal act, in calling upon one another to be provided with them, as the law directs.” Boston Evening Post, Feb. 6, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 1768–1769, p. 61 (1936) (emphasis deleted). McDonald at 39-40: It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 40: Municipal respondents suggest that the Second Amendment right differs from the rights heretofore incorporated because the latter were “valued for[their] own sake.” Id., at 33. But we have never previously suggested that incorporation of a right turns on whether it has intrinsic as opposed to instrumental value, and quite a few of the rights previously held to be incorporated—for example the right to counsel and the right to confront and subpoena witnesses—are clearly instrumental by any measure. Moreover, this contention repackages one of the chief arguments that we rejected in Heller, i.e., that the scope of the Second Amendment right is defined by the immediate threat that led to the inclusion of that right in the Bill of Rights. In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   1:29:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: nolu chan (#2) "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-10   9:06:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: misterwhite (#4) Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions. A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   16:50:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, roscoe, Y'ALL --- Three Amigos against our gun rights... (#7) nolu chan (#2) --- "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). --- misterwhite (#4) NOLU ----Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions. A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-10   19:57:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: tpaine, misterwhite, roscoe (#8) And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights. Of course, Nunn found it constitutional to ban concealed carry. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. [...] Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court. [...] The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. [...] The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. In support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation. The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the States. "No State shall enter into any treaty," &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the States. There is no doubt about what Barron said. Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015) The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   1:16:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: nolu chan (#11) "Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court." Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-11   10:39:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#13) Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court." Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. misterwhite John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. And lest we forget, misterwhite insists that States can ignore our right to bear arms. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-11   10:53:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 14. #16. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#14) John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. And lest we forget, misterwhite insists that States can ignore our right to bear arms. More blithering legal idiocy. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). Actually, Chief Justice Marshall wrote majority opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury was a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, and Chief Justice Marshall was the proper authority to write for the majority of the Court. What he wrote was the Opinion of the Court. While the judicial department is empowered to say what the law is, tpaine is not. Notably absent is a tpaine provision of any opinion of any justice in the U.S. Supreme Court that has ever agreed with his nonsense that the original Bill of Rights applied to the States, other than through incorporation via the 14th Amendment. tpaine pronouncements contrary to U.S. Supreme Court holdings are legally meaningless bleatings of a fool. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11 19:55:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 14. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com