9th Circuit Rules Against Concealed Carry

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube
Edward Peruta first won a landmark carry case in California, then lost it on rehearing this week.
Edward Peruta first won a landmark carry case in California, then lost it on rehearing this week. Photo courtesy of Mr. Peruta.

A federal appeals court in California ruled on Thursday that Americans have no Second Amendment right to carry concealed guns in public. The 7-4 ruling by the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California law requiring residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun.

What is especially galling about this decision was that the original Peruta case in 2014 found just the opposite. A three-judge panel of the court held that the Second Amendment “does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”

California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked that the Ninth Circuit rehear the case with a full panel of judges participating, leading to Thursday’s 7-4 outcome.

Edward Peruta of San Diego County was denied a concealed-carry permit in 2009 for failing to show good cause to have a license.

“Good cause,” as the county defined the term, was a “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.”

The Ninth Circuit ruling covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Other regional appeals courts that have upheld good-cause requirements include the Second (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont), Third (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) and Fourth (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) circuits.

Effectively, that means 20 of the 50 states can decide what is good enough cause to allow for self-defense in their jurisdictions. Decisions in other appellate circuits are pending.

Peruta was brought on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) Foundation and five individuals who were denied carry licenses by the San Diego Sheriff William D. Gore. In February 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit hearing Peruta resulted in a monumental ruling that held that the San Diego County sheriff’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public — unless an applicant could demonstrate a special need — was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.

After Sheriff Gore decided not to appeal the case further, state Attorney General Kamala Harris and several anti-gun groups filed requests to join the litigation and continue litigating the appeal as parties to the case. The three-judge panel denied each of the intervention requests. In December 2014, AG Harris and the anti-gun-rights groups filed requests for en banc review of the decision to deny them entry into the case.

Click here to read more background on the case.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

81 thoughts on “9th Circuit Rules Against Concealed Carry”

  1. The Judges sitting on the Ninth Court of Appeals should have been impeached many years ago. They have not up held their oath of office to up hold The Constitution of The United States. The President does have the right to impeach any Supreme Court Justice given to him in the Constitution.

    1. Have you actually read the Constitution? Apparently not or you’d know that all impeachments of Federal officers, including justices, are handled by the Congress, not the President.

      Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don’t get to decide what the Constitution says and means. Until you are sitting on the Supreme Court, your opinions concerning the Constitution are meaningless.

      1. The Constitution was written for the common man… to be simply read and followed. It is judges and attorneys who have distorted and destroyed the plain meaning of the words therein. We are not serfs or peasants — we are Citizens in a Republic. We MOST CERTAINLY have the right to say that the judges are wrong and we had better step it up, before the ‘elites’ fully destroy what is left of this once great country.

        1. The second amendment clearly states that an American citizen has the right to bear a flintlock pistol & or rifle.
          Arms that ignite a charge from some sort of a cap were not thought of or mentioned.
          A bigger threat is the right of bands to form militia groups all over the USA. They could be coordinated with malicious intent.

          1. Douglas, you probably shouldn’t comment on the history of firearms without at least completing high school history. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of this other subject you should study, called ‘Science’. They knew about scientific advancement and knew that nothing remained the same for long. Repeating arms existed but were not common. The gun that really puts the lid on these anti gun arguments that “the Founders could not have envisioned the repeating guns we have today” is this masterpiece: The Puckle Gun of 1718. Made and used by the English the also sold some to Russia. They predate our Revolution by decades, and technology wonks like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were keenly aware of them. When our Constitution was ratified in 1791, I guarantee they were well aware of this already well-aged arm. Examples still sit in museums in the Tower of London and as I recall they had one on display at the Hermitage in Russia. They were misdeployed as short range artillery, where they were viewed as underpowered and short of range. The designer clearly viewed it as an anti personnel weapon, suggesting they use round shot for Christians and square shot for Turks. It was clearly the inspiration, if not the evolutionary great grand daddy, of the machinegun. So next time some fool tells you the Founders could not have possibly foreseen what we have, tell the ignoramus to google a Puckle gun. (THR)

            And don’t even get me started on the Girandoni air rifle made famous by the Lewis and Clark Expedition. While it wasn’t built until 1779, it was obviously being thought of well before then. It was in military service from 1780 to 1815.

      2. ‘Laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void’ – Marbury v Madison. ‘It is not the duty of the government to keep the citizens from falling into error; it is the function of the citizens to keep the government from falling into error’ – Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice L. Brandeis. You have it bass ackwards, Roger; the government works for ME; not the other way around.

        1. Isn’t it interesting that you refer to the very case (Marbury v. Madison) that established the Supreme Court as co-equal with the Executive and Legislative branches. And just how did Justice Brandeis propose for the citizenry “…to keep the government from falling into error?” Did he suggest that citizens simply disobey laws they felt were unconstitutional? Can you show me where ANY Supreme Court justice suggested that any individual citizen had the right to violate laws just because, in their ignorance of the law, they thought the law was unconstitutional and therefore null and void?

          1. RIGHTS TRUMP LAWS so yes, I do have the right and the responsibility to ignore unconstitutional laws/rulings (read Thoreau). And at one time slavery and ‘separate but equal’ were perfectly OK with the Supreme Court. So you are fine with both? Catch a clue, pal, Supreme Court justices are not God.

        2. Well said, Clark. When there is a “tie” at first base, the decision goes to the runner; the runner being the citizen, in this case. While commenter Whitaker may be technically correct (I haven’t checked yet), he argues much like a teenager does when he got drunk, smashed his daddy’s car and injured his girlfriend, says the indictment is worthless because the accident happened at 10:05 PM, when it actually happened at 10:03 PM. Save us from from the silly people who act like children.

          1. The last time I checked, the Constitution does not use baseball rules to determine legal correctness.

            Nice try, though.

      3. You were correct until the last sentence. All government officials’ actions are valid only with the consent of the governed. The Constitution clearly lays out the rights of the people (government has no rights, it is only granted power in specified circumstances) and the Supreme Court does not have the right to change the law. The fact that they have done so does not grant them that right, it merely means that they’ve abused their power and nobody has stopped them.

        The Founders believed that the judicial branch would operate in a non-political way, and their actions and actual statements have demonstrated that this is absolutely not true. It’s time to add an amendment to give the people the power to override any Supreme Court decision, as a final check on government.

        1. “…the Supreme Court does not have the right to change the law. ”

          Absolutely correct. The Supreme Court has both the right and the duty to interpret the law, although that is a subtlety that many do not understand. Ruling that a statute or part of a statute is unconstitutional is not changing the law, in spite of what some uninformed people think.

          1. Thinking is not your strong suit, Roger. Better leave that category in the pasture of your mind.

      4. Well, I guess that would mean that your opinion is meaningless too…………………………even if you have “actually read the Constitution”

  2. What else could you expect from a state full of fruit and nuts. This judge is a political hack that was appointed not for his intelligence but his political views.

    1. You didn’t read the article.

      This decision was handed down by the eleven (11) justices on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. You are in no position to judge the intelligence of any of the justices.

      1. The decision was 7-4 not 11-0. So are you questioning the 4 dissents. What right have you to say that we cannot judge the intelligence of any justices.? That 7-4 ruling gives everyone the right to question the ruling. I guess we all should open carry.

      2. Yes I am because I pay their salaries. Roger; you need to elevate yourself from your government slave position.

        1. Aha! I see that you are laboring under the misconception that your uneducated opinion is equal to eleven justices’ legal education and decades of experience on the bench.

          1. And I see you have the fantasy that I work for them, not the other way around. And by the way, the majority in this case was an uneducated opinion. Plenty of educated idiots around, Roger (look in the mirror to find one).

          2. so you have to have a law degree to understand ” shall not be infrenged”. Isn’t having to go to Sheriff, pau a fee and ask for permission, not infrenging my right to keep and BEAR arms. How can you bear arms if they can’t be take out of safe without permission? In my uneducated opinion the judges are futhering there agenda, and all permits for concealed carry are unconstitutional. Pretty much all gun laws by there own definition are infringing the rights of the citizens and are unconventional.

          3. So, am I to take it that every citizen gets to decide for themselves what “shall not be infringed” means??

            So, I guess by your reasoning, people should be allowed to own bazookas, mortars, and howitzers.

            That’s an interesting concept. Not workable, but interesting.

          4. In the spirt of the second amendment, yes tanks, jets,and what ever you or your militia group can afford. there are laws that say you can’t do harm to other peaple( murder, assault ext.) and to protect property, so yes I think you should be able to own what ever you can afford as long as you use responsible. I also believe it is our job as citizens of the gratest country in the world, even as F up is it is to defend the Constitution with everthing we have. I cast my vote and write my congressmen thats what I can do , not much but it makes me feel better.

  3. In harms way?
    We the people are in harms way every day.

    Don’t these judges read a newspaper…. Watch a local newscast?

    What’s next?
    Hillary?

    Heaven help us.

  4. 9th circuit gets overruled so often that hey should just disband
    that group of idiots and replace them with squirrels from the
    funny farm. They do not know law and have ignored it since
    they were formed. Useless left wing liberal fruitcakes with
    no morals, no legal knowledge and not respect for the United
    States nor the Constitution

  5. It should be noted that this decision does not invalidate “shall issue” or “unrestricted” concealed carry state laws. That means California and Hawaii will remain “may issue” states while the remainder of the 9th Circuit states will still allow concealed carry.

    This ruling should come as no surprise. As Justice Scalia, the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, noted in the Heller decision: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Second_Amendment_findings_and_reasoning_for_the_decision

    Given the Heller decision, it is hard to see how the 9th Circuit could find against the California law.

    1. Lets list the whole decision and not parts..

      Decision[edit]
      The Supreme Court held:[44]

      (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
      (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
      (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
      (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
      (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
      (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
      (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
      (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
      (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
      The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[45]

      Second Amendment findings and reasoning for the decision[edit]
      The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller’s findings and reasoning:

      In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever “in-depth examination” of the second amendment’s meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (id. at 592); that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense”(id. at 628); that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” (id. at 628); and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]

      1. What part of only the Supreme Court gets to decide what ‘shall not be infringed’ means don’t you understand?

        1. WRONG! The PEOPLE get to decide, not the government! The Bill of Rights limits the GOVERNMENT, NOT THE PEOPLE. You have a PhD in Constitutional ignorance.

          1. Well, you see how well that attitude worked for the Bundys.

            Oh, and by the way, the people don’t get to decide. We are not a democracy. We are a republic. The people get to elect representatives who make the law. The Executive Branch implements and enforces those laws. Then the Judicial Branch interprets those laws when a question arises. If you really think you get to decide what rights you have, I suggest you go to a movie tonight and in the middle yell, “Fire! Fire! Everyone out before you burn.”

  6. F_ck the ninth circuit! Unconstitutional and bad laws should never be adhered to, period. No one has the right to deny any law abiding citizen the right to defend his or herself, period. And our rights do NOT come from government; they work for us, not the other way around.

    1. When you test this stupid opinion, please let me know. I will enjoy reading about your trial and sentencing.

      1. They can’t put all of us on trial and in prison. And if they tried welcome to the second revolution. ‘Soap box, ballot box, cartridge box’ – Abraham Lincoln. Better get your head on right or I will enjoy reading about your funeral.

  7. If the founding fathers wanted to limit fire arm possession to only in one’s house, that is what would have been written into the constitution. Judges are not all mighty gods. They are opinionated left wing liberals….for the most part thanks to unions and white trash voters… who keep thinking that the democrats “….are for the working man….” When Hillary is elected, private ownership will be on its way out. Yes, that will include the white trashes’ “hunting rifle” that will be reclassified as a sniper rifle that no citizen needs to own.

  8. The big problem with this is that “may issue” vs. “shall issue” takes a fundamental right to self defense and makes its application arbitrary and capricious at best. It violates the spirit of the Constitution because it allows the Second Amendment to be applied unequally and unfairly. In the meantime, criminals don’t care about laws as evidenced by the annual slaughter in Chicago and elsewhere.

        1. Ahh, yes, Paul murphy. Unable to intelligently argue a point he resorts to personal attacks to make himself feel better. Typical RWNJ behavior.

      1. Who cares about the Heller decision? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don’t you understand? Do us all a favor and don’t let the screen door hit you in the azz on your way OUT of the USA. Good riddance!

        1. You poor dear. You still haven’t learned that you don’t get to interpret the laws. Your opinion on what “…shall not be infringed,” is immaterial. There is only one opinion that matters and that is the Supreme Courts.

          1. Nope, RIGHTS TRUMP LAWS amigo. Always have and always will. The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution to assure government would be restrained. If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow you could not take a crap would you be constipated for the rest of your life? Sadly, I believe you would.

  9. At some point, all citizens need to realise that an attempt by
    a new President or Supreme Court to confiscate legal firearms will ignite a shooting war. If we are interested in the preservation of this Nation, we need to assure that the election in November denies Clinton the ability to dictate
    from the White House. Voters currenftly posture about whether they will vote in the elective if the Republican nominee is not as conservative as they would like or does not
    represent their personal views on all the issues. Time to man up, put on your big boy pants. Any vote that is not cast for
    Trump and anyone failing to vote against Clinton will haunt this Nation. You need to hammer that point to all of your family, colleagues and anyone you converse with about the
    election. I have never felt like a single Presidential election
    could initiate the downfall of this nation but I am now firmly
    convinced the defeat of Clinton is the only thing separating
    us from chaos. I do not agree with all of the rhetoric spoken by Trump. At this point in histrory HE IS THE ONLY CHOICE
    TO PRESERVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Barring his election, there will be fighting in the streets by those who
    refuse to succumb to a Clinton administration. I know which
    side I stand on, you need to make your decision. You need only to look at Venezuela or my god Syria to realise the
    outcome of a Clinton election. Take it seriously, it may be the Nation’s last chance.

  10. If being for or being against carrying a weapon, always remember our history lessons such as “remember the Alamo” and even more importantly “The British are coming”, where would this country be to day(and in who’s hands) if everyone during that time in history did not have a weapon in hand? I believe this is the reason our fore fathers agreed upon and enacted the 2nd amendment. I for one would not want to live under a militant dictatorship! Keep your guns people; don’t be fooled by non-conservatives and tree huggers!

      1. Roger, there’s a fine line between insanity and genius, depending on ones mental state, so having expressed your mental state in previous comments, I suggest you stay home, get some rest and leave competency to those with the fortitude to see it through. We’ll leave that sign in your yard stating, no need to fear Roger lives here, unarmed and available for whatever you wish. It’s yours for the taking, I earned it, but it’s yours for the taking. Sorry to see you go. Veritas et Libertas.

      2. My guess is you would have stood with the red coats when they also tried to disarm the colonists. Roger would be hiding soon after the start of the revolution.

        1. Time to give up on Roger. He’s a troll, just here to annoy everyone with his circular logic designed to get you all tied up in knots.

          Likes to hear himself talk. Guys like him are all over the other comment boards too.

          He’s a waste of time. Don’t bother.

          1. I can’t help it if most of you don’t understand the Constitution and how the Federal Government works. Many of you think the Declaration of Independence and Federalist Papers have a direct relationship to the Constitution. They are part of our heritage, but not part of our code of laws. All I do is point out factual realities. I’m sorry if it offends your pet beliefs and sense of privilege. The Bundy bunch had some of the same beliefs that several of you demonstrate. They are about to find out, through lengthy prison sentences, that they didn’t know squat about the Constitution.

          2. Blah-bedi Blah Blah Blah

            The day you limit yourself to ten words in a response will be the Day of Jubilee.

            You write like a lawyer. And you are self-righteous bore. Perhaps you should get a law degree instead of lecturing the rest of us.

          3. I can see you’re an ignoranus who thinks their pet opinions are as good as facts. You might try to find out what the reality is rather than subscribing to RWNJ BS.

          4. Actually, I never stated my opinion on the matter in this thread. So, mistake no. 1 on your part.

            Mistake no.2…….it’s ignoramus, not ignoramus.

            You are a fatuous blowhard.

            Forget the law degree…………….you need a remedial spelling class.

          5. Well, all I can say to that nothingburger of an insult is:

            Don’t carry concealed. In fact don’t carry at all. In fact, you should sell any guns you might own.

            Then post your address here so we can let all the bad guys know you live in a gun free zone.

            When seconds count the police are minutes away.

          6. Every one of you RWNJ gun nuts seems to think because I logically laid out the realities concerning the 9th Circuit’s decision that I’m a hoplophobe. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m sure I own more rifles, shotguns and handguns than the majority of you. I am also an Endowment Member of the NRA.

            It is important for informed citizens to know what the law says and how the courts are interpreting it. Statements like, ” RIGHTS TRUMP LAWS amigo. Always have and always will,” shows a level of abject ignorance that needs to be addressed. Anyone who believes, “Unconstitutional and bad laws should never be adhered to, period,” is liable to find themselves in jail awaiting trial much like the Bundys and their followers. Anyone who thinks their interpretation of the Constitution or law is superior to actual court rulings is setting themselves up for a felony conviction and a stint in jail.

            “What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don’t you understand? ” reveals significant ignorance of rights, laws, and the Constitution. You may not like a judicial decision, but that does not absolve you of a duty to understand it and follow the law. If you don’t like a law, then work through the political process to get it changed. If you decide to ignore it, you do so at your own peril.

          7. Then we can assume that you are a LWNJ that owns a ton of guns. Completely believable……………..Not

            It always amazes me that when you get into a “discussion” with someone who is against concealed carry, or wants universal background checks or some other gun control nonsense they always take the time to say they own lots of guns.

            One guy over at another site had bee in his bonnet about the background checks/gun show “loophole” thing. After going around and around he said he was a handgun/shotgun/rifle/gun safety instructor all rolled into one. Maybe on Mars.

            And of course both of you stormed the beaches at Normandy too.

            Here’s what you said:

            “Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don’t get to decide what the Constitution says and means. Until you are sitting on the Supreme Court, your opinions concerning the Constitution are meaningless.”

            Since you talk so much about the Constitution can we assume that you are a Constitutional lawyer? Probably not. You aren’t sitting on the S.C. either. That would mean your opinions are……how did you put it?……………..meaningless.

            But you are completely full of yourself.

            Game. Set. Match.

          8. Please quote one of my posts where I said I was against concealed carry.

            I’ll wait.

          9. Some food for thought, “The Bill of Rights”, is not, and has never been the bill of maybe, or might be or we’ll see. It is a guarantee, given by the founders that after fleeing oppression in England, that no free man should ever be repressed by a tyrannical government. Now having said that, your argument is null and void. “Shall not be infringed”, period,, anything else falls under the further definition of a tyrannical government.

          10. So, tell me this Terry: Who gets to decide what “…shall not be infringed” means? You? Me? Joe Schmidlap?

          11. I could write a book on the over reaches of the current administration. Everything from fining banks and funneling those funds, before they were placed in the treasury, out to extreme left wing causes to aiding and abetting illegal aliens. The list is extremely long. SCOTUS has already weighed in on the second amendment, and Joe S. should learn to live with his rights, rather than let people like the seven judges remove more of their rights by virtue of opinion, rather than by the law. Once the second amendment falls, the first amendment will be next. The thought police are already hard at work making sure that ones personal opinions are labeled in a derogatory fashion. Good day sir.

          12. OK I’ll play some more little man.

            At Sir Thomas More’s trial for treason he maintained that his silence gave consent to the marriage. Qui tacet consentiret……silence gives consent. It didn’t work and he lost his noggin.

            You may never have said the exact words against concealed carry but you have spent the last 24 hrs arguing against those who support it, however convoluted your arguments have been. So your very verbose silence gives consent to the 9th’s opinion.

            I didn’t say that you said anything regarding concealed carry. I said “you (meaning me, not you) get into a “discussion” with someone who is against concealed carry”. The world does not revolve around you……….fortunately.

            And since you are not a Constitutional lawyer or a S.C. justice that would mean your opinions are……how did you put it?……………..meaningless. You are a liberal, a fraud and you are a weak wordsmith

            So what part of “Game. Set. Match.” are you not getting.

          13. I find it interesting that in typical RWNJ fashion, you have absolutely nothing to refute my assertions. You bloviate and spout irrelevant asides, but have been unable to find ANY legal ruling which would confirm your positions. Rather, like others of low intelligence, you attack me rather than my facts. You think your bullying attacks marginalize the facts I have presented, but they merely show your inability to digest reality when it opposes your whack job, irrational opinions.

          14. I don’t particularly care to argue the 9th ‘s decision with you or anyone else. I know where I stand. I don’t much care where you stand.

            You have a compulsive need to be seen to be right. They are doing great things with OCD these days. Go get some help.

          15. “I don’t much care where you stand.”

            Apparently you do, or you wouldn’t have continued to comment for the past two days.

  11. Unfortunately, here is a good example of one of the problems that stumble us as a group, as a people…civility! There is no need to resort to insults while having a discussion…even a contentious one. For my part, unalienable rights do not come from the people, they come from our creator. The Constitution limits government by listing those powers given to it by the people…it has no others! The bill of rights are unalienable rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, not granted by the government. If rights can be abridged or taken away, they are not right at all.

    1. The fact you have to have a CCW permit restrict your unalienable right. Government has wiped its butt with the bill of righs, right or left. the decision was made because the Supreme Court is locked at present, and a 3 to 3 vote means lower court decisions stands. Its just liberals way of try to force their agenda through aginst “We The People’s ” will. Is it aginst the Constitution, YES is it legal unless Supreme Court over turns it then, yes do I like, Hell No. At this point all we can do is write your congressmen and vote. Congress will have to impeach them. Like i said do I believe you should have to have permission from gov to do anything with gun, No but i also have CCW permit and file out paperwork when i buy gun through FFL even when i buy a gun on line or from gun show because that is the law.

  12. It has been noted and opined that Supreme and lower court rulings are just that…opinions that do not change or make laws but, rather, opine that such rulings are guidelines for reconsideration of the findings of the lesser court in question.
    But, that being said, Supreme Court opinions have effected amendments to the Constitution, to wit, the 14th Amendment, itself considered a part of the Constitution, even if only as an amendment, by opining that a well established phrase should be understood to mean other than it was intended by it’s authors. It granted citizenship to any person simply born in the United States with no regard to parentage, by changing the definition of a word.

  13. “Depends on what yor definition of the word “is” is.” Quote from Bill Clinton under oath. I guess it all depends on what Supreme Court definition of “Shall not infrenge”. The Supreme Court job is to judge the constitutionality of law not legislate from the bench, but there change in definition of words from the original meanings is legislation from the bench. Don’t worry our gun rights are already on the way out ground work has already been laid. Constitution and Bill of Rights are not worth the toilet paper their written on to peaple like that.

  14. I like the post that said, Rogers house come on in and help yourself because I’m a huge vagina and will not fight back, not even to protect my partner and children. Take my food and all my valubles. You are a coward and a fool. You may be intelligent but your common sence is going to get you a dirt nap. I know people just like you and they will be the 1st to parish.

    1. Like the other bloviators on this thread, you assume because I have stated facts that you don’t like that I hate guns. Well, you may believe what you want. I am quite willing and able to defend myself and my family.

      By the way, it is illegal in most states to shoot someone because they are in the process of stealing something.

      *perish. Parish is a geographical area served by a church.

  15. In fact, please quote one of my posts where I said I was in favor or against anything. I simply pointed out factual realities.

  16. This comment is to all who will listen. Mainly to Roger Whiteaker.
    It has been my experience the Constitution will not protect me from the Government mainly because guys like you seem to argue loops around everyone. The Courts will not protect me because they are all very busy lining all their pockets and building nest eggs while all the time they carry their hidden weapons. It has been my experience that the Police we pay to protect us will not, or cannot, because they have had their hands tied by the same government that wants to tie my hands. Those government officials Like Hillary are really not worried about concealed carry or the rights of the general public because they have an army around them behind them and in front of them what need do they have.

    So as we look at the recent shootings which claimed at least 53 lives and possibly a few more, how did any of this protect them from death, what might have been the outcome had a few more of those people had been armed and trained.

    No matter what anyone says or does the bottom line is the only one vested enough to protect me is me. Yes, you can argue the laws as you have been doing but no matter what level education you have or those Justices have I know for a fact they act on their own agenda, which would completely change if you put them on the streets of Compton CA. at night, by themselves, you bet they would be packing.

    I have had a motto for a long time, this is a great country and I am very proud to live here and there is no other place on earth greater, no matter what the government wants to do or lie about. My motto has been they can take my gun from me when they pry it from my cold dead hands, but do you think the person they send to get it will be one of them, the elite, no the poor fool they send will be one of us. And after the shooting is done the only ones that will profit will be the Elite Justices and government officials elected to represent us and instead they have become corrupted by greed and sloth.

    And another point is the fact we are not required to follow the laws just because they have been written, do you think they jailed all those rebels from the south when they lost their revolution, no they did not, the only thing that happen was death and destruction, this will happen once more if the government does not decide to abide by the wishes of the people who elected them to office. We as Americans have the obligation to question all those items we as a people deem to be unfair. revolution is our right and in time may come to our reality if more people like you choose to argue circles rather than listening to the people better. Every person directly involved and many other innocents will suffer due to the few and their agendas. And in the end I do not think the Elite Justices and government will change their evil ways or even care, once the dust settles they will eventually go right back to the ways of old as they are doing now only 200 years later. This country started due to the fires of oppression, and will be reformed under those same fires if these law makers don’t change.

    As well as the mind sets of people like you who put all their eggs in the stock barrel of the law and government officials that are no longer for the people but only for themselves.

    1. I agree with most of what you say. However, your statement, “…another point is the fact we are not required to follow the laws just because they have been written…” is a gross distortion of reality. The Bundy Bunch thought the same thing and all it is going to get them is long prison terms. Disobeying laws you don’t like is bound to get you incarcerated.

      If you don’t like a law, work to repeal or revise it. You’ll find people like me will support you.

    2. The Bill of Rights was written as a guarantee, an agreement that we the people are in charge of the government. It is structured in such a manner as to guarantee that we the people keep control, hence the second amendment.

Comments are closed.