Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+13 more 
posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   


So holds today’s Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014) (2-1 vote). The court concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns — with no “shall-issue” licensing regime that assures law-abiding adults of a right to get licenses, but only a “good cause” regime under which no license need be given — “impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.” The Ninth Circuit thus joins the Seventh Circuit, and disagrees with the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits. (State courts are also split on the subject.)

Ninth Circuit holds Second Amendment secures a right to carry a gun

Well golly, and I thought that the Ninth Circus was completely lost.

Californians, you guys just won a major battle with this court ruling changing CA law from "may issue" to "shall issue".

This is a great and huge step back to legality of how the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone.




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I think this is awesome, however I don't think the "Republic of California" citizens will feel "ok" with this.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


I highly doubt the large percentage of people there agree with the current law structure. CA is governed largely by 2 cities, and basically voids the rest of the state's wants/needs.

But, they did elect and keep electing morons like de Leon, Pelosi and so on.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


All they're doing is reading the constitution and ruling on it. As long as the second amendment is in it, there is no question that fair judges will rule this way. I don't post on gun threads, but see this as a constitution thread. It's like Hugo Black and pornography, when he said the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of speech or of the press, and since when does no law translate into "some law". The thing I don't understand is how hunting got tied-into the second amendment, but that's another topic, and is usually why I don't post on these threads. Yay for the trusty 9th Circuit though, one of the good ones.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


I am surprised because they are the most notorious at creating law from the bench. They have cited crap like International laws, social justice, that they felt the law should be reflective of how they ruled and so on.

But, they did get something right.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You know, Compton, LA , Vegas etc.... really need it, not to mention the rural communities dealing with Cartels and Salvadorian gangs. I never understood why there were "may issue" states.

"Even though you have no felonies and have never been adjudicated as mentally ill, I still say no to your permit because I want to charge you for defending yourself because I just personally don't like you. Even if the shooting is justifiable, you need to do a year for carrying a gun."

That's just gubernatorial, Arnold.
edit on 13-2-2014 by FreeWillAnomaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


The amazing thing is that this is the most liberal federal court in the land!!

Of course, it is hard to argue sensibly against "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's the AND that clinches it...the Supreme Court has, in the past, ruled that "keep" means to keep arms in your home, as in for self defense. That pretty much narrows down what bear is...since there is no legal logic to bear referring again, to possession in your home.

I have been waiting for this case to come up for some time now.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by macman
 


Yay for the trusty 9th Circuit though, one of the good ones.



What? What? One of the good ones?

They have a looong record of the wackiest rulings ever in the whole of the US. You can trust them, right, to rule in such a way that you just scratch your head and go wtf?

This is one of the very very few rulings of theirs that bucks traditional liberal views and actually runs with the constitution instead of attempting to legislate from the bench.



"Judges in the circuit's nine Western states are more liberal than the high court justices, who reversed or vacated 19 of the 26 decisions they examined for the last term."

"Although the proportion of reversals was relatively in line with past years and other appellate circuits across the country, the 9th Circuit was often out of step even with the high court's liberal justices, who joined with the conservatives in 12 unanimous rulings."




posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I have to remind myself at times that the entirety of the problem with these challenges comes from outside the American people.

It seems silly that so much money and effort be applied to the notional ideal of no guns means no gun crime. I find it mildly repugnant that the talking heads and sanctioned press apply their skills to seize the narrative to more suit their opinions this such a notion is true.

Criminals don't apply for licenses... and if they do successfully .. the failure belongs with the bureaucracy... not the legislation. Also, criminals don't buy guns where they can be identified... obviously. So let's see...., there is an incredibly profitable black market for small arms .... hmmm... I wonder where they get their guns?

But rather than expose this.... our leaders debate whether we should "be allowed" to have guns at all... as if we somehow "caused" the problem of gun crime.

So here we have a side-show presented to us by the judicial branch in general.... and I can't help but get the idea that they actually collaborate with those who simply can't accept that the government cannot "take" the power to unilaterally designate that they can "compromise" on our rights because of their fear.
edit on 13-2-2014 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Have you guys read Piers Morgan twitter after the ruling? I hate to say it but he's really butthurt about the whole thing but I do get a good laugh at how he praises England's strict gun control laws as a shining example of gun control yet claims to be a supporter of the 2nd amendment. It seems that there are plenty of gun control advocates who are for stricter gun control then they may let on, so maybe those paranoid gun owners might be on to something haha.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
 


Piers Morgan is so far left he must have watched The Rocky Horror Picture Show a number of times and just kept "jumping to the left".

He is so far to the left that you would have to swing the camera 90 degrees just to get him in the picture.

He is so far to the left that he has 2 left feet...

Ok..lol I will stop...




edit on 13-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I agree the weird thing is I never watched him but the first time I did I remember thing he was a moderate Republican because he kept bashing Liberal actors and talking about his faith, wow how wrong was I haha. I always see using England's gun related statistics yet he claims he only wants moderate gun control, so he really should be using a country with similar gun laws as the one he claims to publicly want.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
The ninth circuit court misunderstands the second amendment. The supreme court ruled a person has a right to bear arms to defend their home but not the right to carry a gun. That right belongs only to a well regulated militia.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

If people want to exercise the right to carry arms they just need to form a militia.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


I'm betting that every one of those judges on the 9th circus court has at least one gun in their vehicles in the hope that they can make it home safely at night - and they realize that a lot of people know this about them....

Really ugly expose' on hypocrsicy averted.

It's really beginning to be "every man for themselves" at this point in the downfall of america.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



If people want to exercise the right to carry arms they just need to form a militia.

No.
They just need to carry them.
That is all.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   
While this judgement is a positive for gun ownership rights, it highlights the risk that the believers in unrestricted gun ownership rights in America need to be paying attention to.

By putting all their eggs in the 2nd Amendment "basket" they are believing that the 2nd Amendment will never be subject to change, like many other key parts of the Constitution already have experienced.

In essence, relying on the 2nd Amendment to keep your personal weapons safe is a dangerous practice. A change in the law can - and has - fundamentally changed the Constitution overnight in the past.
edit on 13-2-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Leonidas
While this judgement is a positive for gun ownership rights, it highlights the risk that the believers in unrestricted gun ownership rights in America need to be paying attention to.

By putting all their eggs in the 2nd Amendment "basket" they are believing that the 2nd Amendment will never be subject to change, like many other key parts of the Constitution already have experienced.

In essence, relying on the 2nd Amendment to keep your personal weapons safe is a dangerous practice. A change in the law can - and has - fundamentally changed the Constitution overnight in the past.
edit on 13-2-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)


The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. A law passed by Congress can, technically, never supersede the Constitution. Unless you are talking amendment (which would be ratified by Democratic Process) the above statement is inherently false.

Given that an amendment would be brought forward and pass we could, indeed, lose 2nd amendment rights.

Anything other than that is just plain unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   

bbracken677

Leonidas
While this judgement is a positive for gun ownership rights, it highlights the risk that the believers in unrestricted gun ownership rights in America need to be paying attention to.

By putting all their eggs in the 2nd Amendment "basket" they are believing that the 2nd Amendment will never be subject to change, like many other key parts of the Constitution already have experienced.

In essence, relying on the 2nd Amendment to keep your personal weapons safe is a dangerous practice. A change in the law can - and has - fundamentally changed the Constitution overnight in the past.
edit on 13-2-2014 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)


The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. A law passed by Congress can, technically, never supersede the Constitution. Unless you are talking amendment (which would be ratified by Democratic Process) the above statement is inherently false.

Given that an amendment would be brought forward and pass we could, indeed, lose 2nd amendment rights.

Anything other than that is just plain unconstitutional.


You agree with me. You have reaffirmed my point.

The Constitution can be amended. Has been amended. Could be amended again.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


The US Supreme Court disagrees with you, Buster.


Held:

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.


The 9th is reading it precisely right, as this all came from the landmark case that set the precedent.

It directly addresses your examples, as a matter of fact. By specific citation.


(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. Pp. 47–54.
Source: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (2008)

According to the Court, neither case contradicts the reading of the Amendment as individual right to own and bear arms. The overall Heller case determined it is absolutely an individual right and without any connection to a militia of any form. Until the Supreme Court takes up the case again, that's the law of the land now...and just in time, as it happened to be. I do say.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


As a responsible adult US citizen, I am a militia of one and can be Constitutionally called forth and armed by the Congress. However, since it is essential to the freedom, security and protection of rights both enumerated and not enumerated; it is very important that I can self arm and even self activate without waiting to be called forth by Congress to protect those rights from both foreign and domestic enemies.

Protecting life, liberty and property from those that would remove it can't always wait on a bipartisan committee to reach an agreement...especially when often times the biggest debate is how heavily they should personally invest in companies in what would otherwise be considered insider trading.






top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join