Posted on 03/10/2017 9:33:43 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
Petitioners in the Peruta case asked the Supreme Court to hear the case as soon as possible, taking the issue of concealed carry, a key question in Second Amendment jurisprudence, to the nation’s highest court.
The Peruta case, Peruta v. County of San Diego, was filed by concealed permit applicants who believed the “good cause” requirement for concealed carry permit issuance infringed upon their Second Amendment rights in San Diego and Yolo Counties. The case made national news on February 13, 2014, when a three judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the “good cause” requirement, finding it in violation of the Constitution. The panel explained that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense, and that it is a sufficient cause both inside and outside of one’s domicile.
The Ninth Circuit was then petitioned to revisit the case and hear it en banc. The court agreed to do so and, on June 9, 2016, reversed the original ruling by upholding the “good cause” requirement and declaring that Americans has no right to carry a concealed handgun outside the home for self-defense. Judge Williams Fletcher wrote, “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Open carry........
Better wait fir Gorsuch.
Now if we can just get the new judge confirmed to the SCOTUS!
With good luck the Supreme Court will rule that the prejudice against concealed carry in the early years of the Republic was just as irrational as the prejudice against open carry is today.
From a practical standpoint, most people who could bear arms two hundred years ago would have owned a long gun. The fact that its concealment was impractical should not deprive us today of being able to conceal a handgun if that is our preference.
Excellent. That should help Maryland too
and New Jersey
* * *
The idea back then was that a gentleman would openly carry, indicating he had nothing to hide and meant no harm. Only a crook would try and hide a weapon because he wanted the element of surprise.
exactly,
open carry was legal in CA until about 7 years ago.
Says right to bare arms, not that I have to spell out a reason
“From a practical standpoint, most people who could bear arms two hundred years ago would have owned a long gun.”
200 years ago or 100 years ago, the only reason hand guns were carried as apposed to a long gun was to always have it with you.
It is too hard to work while carrying a rifle, so hand guns afforded one to always be armed against animals and those that might do them harm.
150 years ago it was too late to run to your house/horse for a gun when a snake/bad guy caught you by surprise.
Nothing has changed today to reduce the need to be armed against those who would do us harm.
Bear, not bare.
The plaintiffs have only launched the appeal.
It is very uncertain whether the Supreme Court will accept the case.
It absolutely discriminates by career, etc. It makes the more affluent more likely to "qualify" because they have more of what others might crave....Why should a jewelry store owner/store manager who takes proceeds to the bank have more rights than the average Joe?
From a practical standpoint, most people who could bear arms two hundred years ago would have owned a long gun. The fact that its concealment was impractical should not deprive us today of being able to conceal a handgun if that is our preference.
Laws against concealed carry were upheld after the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, in 1833.
After that, states changed their state Constitutions to allow the regulation of concealed carry.
It was not uncommon to conceal and carry weapons. While small pistols were not as common as muskets and rifles, they were available. Sword canes were fairly common. Knives and daggers had been common as long as man had existed.
I have never found a federal law banning concealed carry.
Wouldn't bare arms be open carry...... :^)
In 2012, the California State Assembly passed a bill, signed into law, prohibiting open carry.
This law, combined with the good cause requirement for concealed carry, gives the government the ability to all but deny California citizens their 2nd Amendment rights.
Has it been challenged in Federal court yet?..................
Yes. This case...................................................................................
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.