Posted on 04/11/2017 10:05:26 AM PDT by Cheerio
Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court on April 7 and this week will take part in deciding whether he and his fellow justices will hear the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling which upheld California’s “good cause” requirement for concealed carry.
On February 13, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the “good cause” requirement violated the Second Amendment. Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote the majority opinion for the 2014 decision and The San Francisco Chronicle quoted from that opinion, saying, “The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”
On June 9, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed itself and ruled in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement by stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed handgun outside of their home for self-defense. Lacking such a right, the court found it acceptable that Californians demonstrate a “good cause” or good reason for needing a gun with them for protection.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It is time for the Ninth Leftist Circus to be cleaned out of the anti-America, anti-Constitution commies on it.
Refusing to hear this would run contrary to Heller.
A ban is not “reasonable regulation.”
We’ll soon find out if he’s a true Constitutional conservative
Ninth Overturn Circuit = slam dunk
Exactly what I was going to post...
The right to keep AND BEAR arms. Who’s to say what is a “good cause” for being allowed to defend one’s self? That is just arbitrary.
Very true. This is the most clear cut test there is.
It’s not about the right to defend yourself, hunt, target shoot or any of that. . It’s a right to “keep and bear.” I know guys who collect firearms with the same interest as coin and stamp collectors. Almost half of my collection is wall art.
What was their “reason” for ruling one way and two years later ruling another way?
What was their “reason” for ruling one way and two years later ruling another way?
The first ruling was by a three judge panel (the usual way to hear a case). One of the more conservative judges was the Chief Justice at the time.
The second ruling occurred after a very liberal became Chief Justice (they rotate). The case was asked to go to be heard “en banc” by the whole Ninth Circuit.
In the en banc hearing, the Ninth reversed the earlier ruling (and did a lousy job, IMHO).
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/06/ninth-circuit-rules-on-peruta-no-right.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.