2nd Amendment Does Not Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Guns, Federal Court Rules - Polidicks

[quote]A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee the right of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places, upholding a California law that imposes stringent conditions on who may be granted a concealed-carry permit. The 7-to-4 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overturned a decision by a three-judge panel of the same court and was a setback for gun advocates. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon, like working in a job with a security threat — a restriction sharply attacked by gun advocates as violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms. “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court said in a ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher.[/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/second-amendment-concealed-carry.html[/url] As someone pro-gun, I think this is fair. Permission to own something and permission to take it wherever you please are separate things.

I wish more people understood that having a right doesn't make everything regarding it right to do. So this is totally reasonable.

Does this only apply to Cali?

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;50524915]Does this only apply to Cali?[/QUOTE] Essentially west coast, the states that are covered by the circuit.

I think this contradicts supreme court rulings that forced Illinois to enact CCW laws, because IIRC the SCUS declared it a right to own a gun for protection and declared Illinois' prohibition of CCW unconstitutional. I can't see the SCUS agreeing with this circuit's decision, and I can also say that coming from Cali this decision is no surprise.

I still think that the whole court case this came from is bullshit to begin with. A lot of Californian Judges don't issue CCW permits at all (like in NY) just out of principle. You have to show "good cause" in order to carry a concealed firearm. So basically the judge can set what they see as 'good cause' which is usually an incredibly narrow and short list. For example, "Self Defense" is not good cause. But if you're have a history of violence committed against you. That is. So basically they're saying that you can't have a gun to defend yourself until you've been victimized. At that point you might as well write "revenge" on it because you've already become a victim. But there are a lot of bullshit reasons to deny you. You can read the court case online. Everyone is always in favor of stricter gun controls, background checks and so on. But at some point they can warp the system to work against you. Judges who are anti-gun will just not issue permits. Period. It's happened in NY and I'm sure it's happening in California too. D.C. made the news recently too because out of hundreds and hundreds of applicants less than 10 were approved for 'good cause' when I think defending your life is 'good cause' enough assuming you have a clean record.

[QUOTE]“This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection,” Chris W. Cox, the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement[/QUOTE] Well I mean, you pay taxes to fund a group of people who serve as public servants for this type of stuff... they're called the police.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50525030]Well I mean, you pay taxes to fund a group of people who serve as public servants for this type of stuff... they're called the police.[/QUOTE] When your life is on the line the police are only minutes away. I had a CCW on me during a blackout and some guy tried to rob me. He figured out I was armed and took off. I called the police but since it was a blackout and things in my ghetto-ass town are bad enough when the lights are on it took them thirty minutes to show up. Which is honestly impressive because on good days the local PD don't show up at all or show up hours late. And like, trust me I am friends with my local PD I know half of them by name. They're all great guys and I know they'd come running if they could but sometimes you can't even call them, much less rely on them to show up. The fact they don't show up to half their callouts (or show up very late) isn't on them, they just don't have the money to hire enough officers and in a situation like a blackout where there are robberies, car accidents and whatever else going on you cannot rely on them to be there when you could potentially die without immediate intervention. And god help you if you need the police during shift change. It's not going to happen.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50525039]When your life is on the line the police are only minutes away. I had a CCW on me during a blackout and some guy tried to rob me. He figured out I was armed and took off. I called the police but since it was a black out and things in my ghetto-ass town are bad enough with the lights are on it took them thirty minutes to show up. Which is honestly impressive because on good days the local PD don't show up at all or show up hours late. And like, trust me I am friends with my local PD I know half of them by name. They're all great guys and I know they'd come running if they could but sometimes you can't even call them, much less relay on them to show up. The fact they don't show up to half their callouts (or show up very late) isn't on them, they just don't have the money to hire enough officers and in a situation like a blackout where there are robberies, car accidents and whatever else going on you cannot rely on them to be there when you could potentially die without immediate intervention. And god help you if you need the police during shift change. It's not going to happen.[/QUOTE] And here you have the perfect example of why people need to be ok with paying more taxes

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50525030]Well I mean, you pay taxes to fund a group of people who serve as public servants for this type of stuff... they're called the police.[/QUOTE] Police can't be posted every 10 feet though. If you see a patrol car drive by where you work every 5 minutes, it's not that there's a lot of police patrolling the streets, it's the same unit projecting presence. They do that on purpose. Take Nashville as an example. A population of nearly 700,000. Metro has 1300 officers. Divide the 1300 into 3 because 3 shifts, and you get 430. Go ahead and shave that number down to about 380 because of vacation time, sick leave, and injuries means not all 430 are working. Then there's accidents where officers get stuck filling out paper work for, directing traffic around, which can take hours on its own. So not all 380 are even available to go on calls 380 officers for a city of 700,000. The police are great and all, but making a phone call takes time, the police actually arriving takes more time. Some cases you don't even have time to draw your gun if you have one, let alone call and wait for help. Everyone should be able to have the means to protect themselves if they absolutely have to, and not be forced to rely on someone else. Ultimately, the moment your life becomes in danger, the only person available and near by that very second to help you is you My mother lives in a city where the fucking police department CLOSES after 9PM. So even calling for help isn't an option. (I think 911 calls go straight to the chief's house after 9, actually) Small towns, what you gonna do Having a CCW doesn't mean you get to play police and run INTO a situation, either

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50525067]And here you have the perfect example of why people need to be ok with paying more taxes[/QUOTE] More taxes won't put a policeman in my bedroom to protect me if someone breaks in.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50525067]And here you have the perfect example of why people need to be ok with paying more taxes[/QUOTE] Regardless what the reason is for them not being able to hire enough officers. It doesn't help me if I get carjacked tomorrow and the guy decides he doesn't want a witness. More officers doesn't solve the underlying issue with crime though which is they're not magically going to appear when you need them at the scene of an active crime. You have to call them and wait for them to show up. Police respond to crimes, they rarely prevent it. And if the crime is a murder I need someone to prevent it not [i]respond[/i] to it.

So you still have a right to a firearm, you just cant carry it around or use it 90% of the time where it would actually be useful for defending yourself. Wow, that's great. Like the argument I hear from people who "don't want to take peoples guns away" and yet think we should ban all semi-automatic weapons (which account for 90+% of the guns available) If you can't get a constitutional amendment passed to overturn the second amendment, might as well water down and dilute the interpretation of law til it means nothing anyways. Nothing new to the US justice system, not even remotely.

I think the opposing sides in the article make a good point though, what about those who carry for self-defense? That is a real issue and a big reason gun rights are an important issue. Especially if you live in the dangerous parts of California, making it hard to not have a weapon seems like a bad idea. I imagine it would be quite dis-empowering to those who carry a gun to feel safe, perhaps more so for certain groups of people (women, LGBT, disabled, etc).

When they say "can't carry a concealed gun", does that mean you can still carry it out in the open in a holster or something?

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;50525138]When they say "can't carry a concealed gun", does that mean you can still carry it out in the open in a holster or something?[/QUOTE] Absolutely not. You cannot open carry in the State of California or my State of New York either. A lot of states have no open carry laws and to be entirely honest, I do not want to open carry. If I take my gun in my holster into a McDonalds all it's going to do is scare people. Whereas if I have it concealed than no one knows, no one cares. I like Open Carry laws because you can use them appropriately to keep yourself from getting put in jail for trivial things or accidents.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50525039]I had a CCW on me during a blackout and some guy tried to rob me. He figured out I was armed and took off.[/QUOTE] But what if he decided to shoot [i]because[/i] you were armed? Alternatively, do you think he would've shot if you [i]weren't[/i] armed? It's a case by case scenario, that argument means absolutely nothing. There's too many what ifs.

[QUOTE=Segab;50525151]But what if he decided to shoot [i]because[/i] you were armed? Alternatively, do you think he would've shot if you [i]weren't[/i] armed? It's a case by case scenario, that argument means absolutely nothing. There's too many what ifs.[/QUOTE] Yeah, no one knows. He [i]could've[/i] had a knife and if he had decided I was an easy victim he [i]could've[/i] tried to stab me and I [i]could've[/i] shot him before he harmed me. He was asking me questions like if I had a car, the keys to the store than asked me if I had angel with me that night. He [i]could've[/i] been fucking with me or he [i]could've[/i] been planning to force me at gun point to let him into a store during a blackout if he thought I was going to go along with his plan. All I know is it's my life and I want to do with it what I think is best. I want to decide my own destiny. I don't want lawmakers I've never met to decide it for me.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50525089]More taxes won't put a policeman in my bedroom to protect me if someone breaks in.[/QUOTE] But isn't this about concealed carry and being able to carry a concealed weapon for self defense? Pretty sure you don't need concealed carry license to keep a gun on your nightstand.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;50525089]More taxes won't put a policeman in my bedroom to protect me if someone breaks in.[/QUOTE] Well the quote is about public spaces, not your house...

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50525165]Well the quote is about public spaces, not your house...[/QUOTE] yeah but you were talking about the -much- more general topic of more taxes = more cops (not necessarily even true, by the way)

Open Carry is amazing, and better than Conceal carry. Not because you can or should open carry, but because when you conceal carry and it accidentally sticks out of your shirt when you bend over or something, it won't be considered improper exhibition of a firearm. In a conceal carry only state, if that happens and some flake calls the police and they show up, it's going to be up to the officer if it was exhibition or not. You might get some by the book anti-gun rookie that'll take you to the CJC, or it might be some seasoned officer who laughs about how a dummy called the police over nothing with you after asking you some questions Open Carry makes conceal carrying a lot easier by being less stressful, basically

From what I hear this court's decisions are turned over quite often.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50524997]I think this contradicts supreme court rulings that forced Illinois to enact CCW laws, because IIRC the SCUS declared it a right to own a gun for protection and declared Illinois' prohibition of CCW unconstitutional. I can't see the SCUS agreeing with this circuit's decision, and I can also say that coming from Cali this decision is no surprise.[/QUOTE] I was under the impression Illinois changed their laws before it went to the supreme court which lead to a decision on the matter not being made.

Can California just secede from the union already? They clearly don't want to be here.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50524880][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/second-amendment-concealed-carry.html[/url] As someone pro-gun, I think this is fair. Permission to own something and permission to take it wherever you please are separate things.[/QUOTE] However, IIRC the supreme court ruled that banning both concealed AND open carry is an infringement on your right to bear arms. That's why most states have concealed carry at a minimum so that they can regulate who can and can't carry in public.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50525378]Can California just secede from the union already? They clearly don't want to be here.[/QUOTE] I don't think the Union wants California either.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50525030]Well I mean, you pay taxes to fund a group of people who serve as public servants for this type of stuff... they're called the police.[/QUOTE] No, I pay taxes to fund a group of people who serve as public servants to chase down the perpetrators after I've already been victimized. They have [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia]no obligation to protect me[/url] and rarely arrive before a violent crime is committed. My safety is my own responsibility and no amount of increased funding will change that.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;50525067]And here you have the perfect example of why people need to be ok with paying more taxes[/QUOTE] Paying more in taxes for a service doesn't always guarantee that the service will be improved at all.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50525547]However, IIRC the supreme court ruled that banning both concealed AND open carry is an infringement on your right to bear arms. That's why most states have concealed carry at a minimum so that they can regulate who can and can't carry in public.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I would think having one or the other should be mandatory, but both are unneeded. However, if I read it correctly, this ruling mostly influences where you can take a gun [public spaces] as opposed to having it concealed or not which is what I'm more interested in rather than concealed vs open. I don't think people need to carry a gun [I]everywhere.[/I]