The 9th Circuit hearing the Peruta case enbanc just ruled that there is no second amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. 

 

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/11/12/10-56971%20Peruta%2011-12-14%20Order.pdf

 

"The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

And for New Jersey!

It's always sad in NJ for the 2nd Amendment.

just saw that elsewhere- http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/06/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-ninth-circuit-rules-2a-doesnt-protect-right-carry-concealed-firearm-public/

 

bad OP link?

 

Sad. 

Does this now create a split between the seventh and ninth circuits? The seventh struck down a total ban on concealed carry, but the ninth holds that "good cause aka justifiable need" is ok.

The 9th Circuit would hold that the constitution means whatever they say it means.

 

Wouldn't the next stop on this be the supreme court?  Hopefully sometime after this year.

Does this now create a split between the seventh and ninth circuits? The seventh struck down a total ban on concealed carry, but the ninth holds that "good cause aka justifiable need" is ok.

 

Not a clean split, as 7th circuit didn't need to deal with a qualifier like "need" or "cause" to get a carry permit.  My opinion is that the best case scenario to get heard by SCOTUS is going to be a case where the law is struck down by the lower court.  

 

The 9th Circuit would hold that the constitution means whatever they say it means.

 

Wouldn't the next stop on this be the supreme court?  Hopefully sometime after this year.

 

Problem here is now the plaintiffs have to decide on filing for cert.  without knowing what the composition of the court they are facing is going to look like.  Timing is about as bad as it could be. 

Seems like the timeline is 90 days to file for cert.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_13

bad OP link?

Not sure what happened to the link. I replaced it with one that I think works now.

There's a reason it's known as the 9th circus...

Apparently, the Constitution has come to mean whatever politically appointed ideologues want it to mean.  What's their definition of the word "bear"?

 

And firearms aside, this court has ruled that one's right to self defense ends at the front door.  

Their main point is that Heller doesn't talk about arms outside your house.

 

So where in the words of the second amendment are these artificial limitations coming from.

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

They purposely misread Scalia's words to change reasonable limitations (like not allowing committed people to own guns) to somehow magically mean that all citizens fall into this limitation. This is plain nonsense. We really need a Scalia like justice to be on the court!

There's a reason it's known as the 9th circus...

 

"The Justices have long had a seemingly contentious relationship with the Ninth Circuit, which covers most of the western United States and Hawaii and Alaska.

Far more cases come to the Court from the Ninth Circuit than any other court,

 

and — not surprisingly — Ninth Circuit rulings make up a sizeable portion of the docket of argued and decided cases –

75 cases, or 25.7% for the last four Terms including the current session. During that period, the Court has reversed or vacated and sent back 79.5% of the Ninth Circuit decisions it has reviewed."

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/scotus-for-law-students-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-scoring-the-circuits/

 

 

Being that wrong so consistently should require a complete replacement of the entire 9th Circus.

My friend sent me this. More relevant then ever

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

As grim as that sounds, it's really even worse than that, because a Hillary presidency and the favorable Supreme Court she would create would open the floodgate to Third World immigration, ensuring a permanent Democratic voting majority, allowing the liberals to enact their entire progressive wishlist.

 

At that point, the only option would be the "R" word, which I refuse to say in a public forum.  

It is amazing that Liberals seem to need grammar lessons that they don't understand the significance of the second comma in the 2nd amendment.  There may be no right to bare arms but there certainly is to bear arms - and the Constitutions says clearly that right shall not be infringed.  I am concerned we may be heading closer and closer to civil war.  The good thing is that the people that bear arms will probably beat those that have bare arms!

"The good thing is that the people that bear arms will probably beat those that have bare arms!"

 

From your lips to God's ears Howard!

If you want an example of how a 7-2 SCOTUS might rule, look at the breakdown of the recent 9th Circuit 7-4 ruling:

 

The 7

Chief Judge Thomas, a Clinton appointee

Judge William Fletcher, a Clinton appointee

Judge Harry Pregerson, a 93-year old Carter appointee

Judge Susan Graber, a Clinton appointee

Judge Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee

Judge Richard Paez, a Clinton appointee

Judge John Owens, an Obama appointee

 

vs.

 

The 4

Judge Consuelo Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee

Judge Barry Silverman, a Clinton appointee

Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee

Judge N. Randy Smith, a George W. Bush appointee

No one should expect anything less from the Ninth Circuit, unquestionably the most liberal, and most reversed Circuit court in the country. Don't expect SCOTUS to grant cert. At 4-4, a tie means affirmance of the judgment below. The conservatives can be expected to bide their time.

 

Here is the bright spot: the Ninth Circuit majority only held concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment. They expressly acknowledged that open carry may indeed be protected and, in an uncharacteristic display of deference, recognized that SCOTUS reserved that question in Heller and did not decide that issue. So if open carry is held constitutional, concealed carry may soon follow.

Sick and tired of this unnecessary hair-splitting mumbo-jumbo. 

We need a conservative president to appoint 3 justices to the ninth circuit. Impeach the ones we don't like.

 

Not fair? Who the &@$# cares?

 

Fight or be enslaved.

"The Justices have long had a seemingly contentious relationship with the Ninth Circuit, which covers most of the western United States and Hawaii and Alaska.

Far more cases come to the Court from the Ninth Circuit than any other court,

 

and — not surprisingly — Ninth Circuit rulings make up a sizeable portion of the docket of argued and decided cases –

75 cases, or 25.7% for the last four Terms including the current session. During that period, the Court has reversed or vacated and sent back 79.5% of the Ninth Circuit decisions it has reviewed."

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/scotus-for-law-students-sponsored-by-bloomberg-law-scoring-the-circuits/

 

 

Being that wrong so consistently should require a complete replacement of the entire 9th Circus.

I'd like to thankyou for that link.

If you want an example of how a 7-2 SCOTUS might rule, look at the breakdown of the recent 9th Circuit 7-4 ruling:

 

The 7

Chief Judge Thomas, a Clinton appointee

Judge William Fletcher, a Clinton appointee

Judge Harry Pregerson, a 93-year old Carter appointee

Judge Susan Graber, a Clinton appointee

Judge Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee

Judge Richard Paez, a Clinton appointee

Judge John Owens, an Obama appointee

 

vs.

 

The 4

Judge Consuelo Callahan, a George W. Bush appointee

Judge Barry Silverman, a Clinton appointee

Judge Carlos Bea, a George W. Bush appointee

Judge N. Randy Smith, a George W. Bush appointee

Ok, 93? No. No. No.

Just be glad Harry didn't die this term. Obama would replace him and it would still be 7-4

Trump needs to stack the courts by any means necessary if he wins. The Marxist game plan needs to be nullified. The right, middle, or whatever we want to call it, needs to multitask and play as dirty as possible. If we continue to read the rule book to see what our options are we are done.

 

What's that? ....we shouldn't do that? ....... This is a war for our liberty. Our country. Tell me what's fair....?

This is the best plain-language summary I've seen of the court's tortured non-reasoning:

 

http://bit.ly/1syrgrU

 

It's worth a read, if only to reinforce (if you don't already know) that we are doomed. The anti-gun forces have retreated to their fortifications in NJ, MD, and HI, and are spreading out from there to NY, CT, MA, CA, and into traditionally conservative states, now "battleground" states VA, CO, NM. 

 

Falling back on legal precedents from the time of Henry VIII, the 16th f-ing century, is too rich for my puny brain to fathom.

 

Call me an optimist but I am not sure this ruling would stand even with the 8 current SCOTUS justices. They might do what they did in MA with stun guns and at least remand it back to the state to rule based on the US Constitution not the Kings rules.

This is the best plain-language summary I've seen of the court's tortured non-reasoning:

 

http://bit.ly/1syrgrU

 

It's worth a read, if only to reinforce (if you don't already know) that we are doomed. The anti-gun forces have retreated to their fortifications in NJ, MD, and HI, and are spreading out from there to NY, CT, MA, CA, and into traditionally conservative states, now "battleground" states VA, CO, NM. 

 

Falling back on legal precedents from the time of Henry VIII, the 16th f-ing century, is too rich for my puny brain to fathom.

 

Soooooooo the summary of this is that basically the Court said screw our Constitution - in order to examine this case let's look to the British Bill of Rights under a King - that's the precedent of our land!

 

So much fail....

We need a conservative president to appoint 3 justices to the ninth circuit. Impeach the ones we don't like.

 

Not fair? Who the &@$# cares?

 

Fight or be enslaved.

 

 

Need to clone Napolitano and have him appointed to every court in the US.