Ninth Circuit Court in CA ruling

[Tonik]

Tough call if this goes in guns or politics, but it is huge news. The Ninth in CA, one of the more liberal circuit courts in the country just said California needs to fix it's carry laws.  That a State can ban open carry, or it can ban concealed carry but it can't ban both.  That the 2nd gives people the right to carry a gun in public for self defense. Currently in CA you have to prove to the cops that you really really need a permit. Most all people except politicians and movie stars and such are denied.

 

 

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Court-strikes-California-law-limiting-concealed-5232386.php

 

 

[Tonik]

Here is an analysis of the ruling that explains it more.

 

 

"Thus, if California law had banned concealed carry but allowed open carry (which some states have historically done), that wouldn’t have violated the Second Amendment. And if California law had banned open carry but allowed concealed carry (perhaps requiring a license that pretty much all law-abiding adults could get), that too might well have been constitutional, on the theory that it still left people free to carry guns, but just regulated the “manner” of carrying."

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... n-opinion/

[ReconRat]

I saw this just before leaving work. It's a pretty major decision for individual rights.

[Tonik]

How many times do the courts have to rule that the 2A is an individual, fundamental right of the citizenry of this nation? I'm exhausted by all of this nonsense.

We are still missing one important ruling. From the Supremes that PUBLIC carry is part of the 2nd. This ruling sets that up to happen.

[myhondas]

We are still missing one important ruling. From the Supremes that PUBLIC carry is part of the 2nd. This ruling sets that up to happen.

NO...what we are still missing is the fact that ANY law that restricts or constrains the individuals right to carry either open or concealed, single, semi, or full auto is a VIOLATION of  the 2nd..

 

This pretty much shows how our court has been allowed to violate the 2nd and now even the 1st & 4th are being violated on a regular basis....

 

http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaning-of-shall-not-be-infringed.html

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

Damn! First IL now Cali. 

[Tonik]

NO...what we are still missing is the fact that ANY law that restricts or constrains the individuals right to carry either open or concealed, single, semi, or full auto is a VIOLATION of  the 2nd..

 

This pretty much shows how our court has been allowed to violate the 2nd and now even the 1st & 4th are being violated on a regular basis....

 

http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaning-of-shall-not-be-infringed.html

 

I disagree, reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights are acceptable, the norm and necessary. For example you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater and claim free speech. So a ban on citizens having rocket launchers and grenades is fine by me. Where exactly is the line between allowed and not allowed will always be in flux, debated and challenged. And that is a good thing.

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

I disagree, reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights are acceptable, the norm and necessary. For example you can't yell Fire in a crowded theater and claim free speech. So a ban on citizens having rocket launchers and grenades is fine by me. Where exactly is the line between allowed and not allowed will always be in flux, debated and challenged. And that is a good thing.

 

This guy says it well I think.

 

GeodkytMay 3, 2013 at 12:51 PM

The technical meaning of "arms" in teh Eighteenth Century was individual weapons and equipment for combat service. For example, "a stand of arms" (the basis under which colonels were required to equip their regiments, under the privage patronage regimental system britain used shortly before the Revolution) was the weapons AND EQUIPMENT considered necessary to equip one soldier for combat. It did not include his uniform, tentage, or food, but it did include his military grade long arm, his sidearms (which, depending on the period and regiment, could include some or all of the following -- sword, ax, bayonet, dagger, and/or pistol), and his cartridge box. "Arms" for other branches of service varied based on teh duties of an individual soldier in that type of unit -- lancers needed lances, mounted troops and artillery needed shorter long guns like carbines, etc.

Militia laws that defined "arms" included an individual supply of ammunition as well, which makes sense.

Note, however, that cannon were not "arms" in the military lexicon -- they were "pieces of ordnance". Grenades (and grenade launchers, which, yes, they DID have) were not "arms" -- grenades were "munitions" and the launchers were generally classed as "ordnance".

So, it is perfectly logical to state that the "arms" referred to in the amendment refers to things that make up the "ordinary military equipment" for individual soldiers (M16, M4, submachineguns, pistols, bayonets, web gear, body armor, etc.), but not the heavier support weapons that are crew served (cannons, heavy machineguns, nukes -- while these ARE "signed out" ultimately to the senior guy on the crew, you really assign the crew to the weapon, not vice versa) or issued out for unit support (grenade launchers, AT rockets, etc. -- see above; if the guy carrying the grenade launcher gets hit, you don't evac him with the GL; THAT stays with the UNIT). 

Of course, saying something is not DIRECTLY protected by the Second Amendment is not the same as saying it has NO protection -- howitzers could be protected by a penumbra, or even under the 9th and 10th Amendments. This would require adjudication to firmly establish where heavy support weapons fall.

The status of something like a light machinegun (BAR, M249 SAW, RPK) which are issued out for unit fire support but are also the personal defensive weapon for the individual issued them would be in a grey area, requiring adjudication.

Likewise, claims that cannon and grenades are protected by teh 2nd Amendment "Because they were legal in Colonial and Founding times!" are empty. Just because something is not prohibited, doesn't mean it enjoys Constitutional protection under the Second (or any) Amendment. Maybe cannon are protected under the 2nd, maybe they aren't, or maybe they have a "penumbric" protection of lesser intensity than the protection given to individual arms -- all the legislative record shows us is that teh Founding fathers did not outlaw private ownership of heavy ordnance, not that they thought it was specifically protected. It could simply be that while they DIDN'T mean "cannon" when they said "arms", they simply didn't think there was a huge crime wave of robbers using field guns; therefor there was no REASON to pass a law prohibiting ownership of a very expensive hunk of iron and wood.

[redkow97]

I don't have time to read the full opinion now, but the Supreme Court of the United States has a long history of shitting on 9th Circuit opinions.

 

Even if they agree with the ultimate decision, the SCOTUS tends to pick apart the 9th Circuit's logic, and then rationalize it their own way.