2nd Amendment, Issues

9th Circuit strikes down right to bear arms

8

Under California law, personal safety is not described as a good enough reason to carry a concealed weapon in public, so county sheriffs aren’t allowing people to have them. While this may seem like a gross violation of the Second Amendment which clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seems to disagree.

The Court has officially ruled in Peruta v. San Diego that the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon in public places, rather leaves guidelines for permitting carry to the states discretion. This court effectively made the constitutional right to bear arms a privilege which states can choose to provide.

What other rights can be turned into privileges in the states under this new doctrine? So much for 14th Amendment incorporation.

As the court opinion released on June 9, 2016 writes “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.”

Judge William Fletcher, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, states that the precedent set in Heller v. DC provided the idea of a limit on the ability to carry a concealed gun, and this ruling simply solidifies that limit. However, this is a gross misinterpretation of the Heller decision, which plays a critical role in explaining why this ruling is unconstitutional.

As explained in the dissenting opinion written by Judges Callahan, Silverman, and Smith, Heller and McDonald v City of Chicago, another prominent gun law case involving individual states gun laws, both explain that individuals have the right to protection from both public and private violence. Therefore, they write, these cases “indicate that the right extends in some form to location where a person might become exposed to public or private violence.”

The 9th Circuit ruling clearly violates the protections of the second amendment. If the goal of carrying a concealed weapon is protection, all this ruling does is ensure people cannot keep themselves safe.

As Frank Miniter notes writing for Forbes.com, the law which was upheld is a California law requiring those carrying a concealed weapon to adhere to three criteria: 1) be a resident of their respective city or county, 2) be of “good moral character”, 3) have “good cause” for such a license.

However, the definitions of these vague terms are completely subjective to the city or county which is instituting the ban. While in some counties “good cause” can be proved by showing a need for self-defense, while the San Diego Sheriff’s Department License Division describes the “good cause” as “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.”

This provides local governments with the liberty to remove an individual’s Second Amendment rights simply because they do not feel a person’s life is imminently threatened, but as the 9th Circuit judges fail to realize, life can be threatened at any point.

Moreover, it might reduce the risk of gun-related violence. A 2000 book “More guns, less crime” by John Lott found that following the passing of the Florida right to carry law registration of weapons grew exponentially, meanwhile gun-related crime decreased significantly, with a vast majority of cases involving self-defense.

A 1996 oped in the Los Angeles Times by Independence Institute research director David Kopel found, “After Florida enacted such a law in 1987, starting a national trend, the homicide rate fell sharply, the handgun homicide rate even more so. Florida went from being a state where people were 40% more likely to be murdered than the national average to a state about equal to or slightly safer than the national average. Florida’s rates for other violent crimes, already the worst in the nation, continued to increase, although at a slower rate than the national rate of increase.”

Kopel continued, “Research comparing crime trends in states with concealed carry laws with trends in demographically similar states without such laws has found strong support for the hypothesis that they reduce homicide and weaker but still positive support for a reduction in aggravated assault and robbery.”

Concealed weapons are not a driver of crime but an alleviator. The 9th Circuit ruling undermines the ability for an individual to provide self-protection by infringing on the constitutionally provided right to bear arm without government intrusion. And it does this without any consistency in its enforcement, so individuals in some counties will carry concealed weapons while a town down the road this right would be denied from a comparable individual.

Fortunately, as the dissenting opinion notes, this harmful ruling may just be an anomaly. Drake v. Filko recognized “the Second Amendment’s individual right to bear arms may have some application beyond the home,” Woollard v Gallagher was fought based on the assumption that “the Heller right exists outside the home,” and Moore v. Madigan found “to confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense.”

Consistently courts have asserted that the right to carry a concealed weapon outside of the home is not to be infringed upon, and despite haven been proven in Florida that carrying these weapons is good at ensuring security and self-defense, the 9th Circuit court has directly violated the rights of citizens throughout their region. This ruling then becomes not just unconstitutional, but lethal.

This is a guest post by Natalia Castro contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.
  • Charlie

    In all actuality the judge sitting on Our bench has no right to be sitting on Our Judicial bench . This judge by imposing restrictions on the Second Amendment is breaking his oath to Our Constitution . How is applying restrictions on Our Constitutional Natural Rights preserving / protecting and defending Our Constitution ? Again this judge should be removed from behind Our Judicial Bench that he sits serving We the People .

    • Susan P

      The case was held en banc which means there were 14 judges. The vote was 11 to 3, so it is not just one judge who should be removed from the bench, but 11 of them.

      • Charlie

        Like your correction . Thank-you for the information .

  • Duane A. Fisher

    This is nothing less then “TREASON” and a Political move against the peoples God given right to Self protect & Self Determine. The Fore Father’s warned of court that become Political. And now with “GAYBAMA” bringing more of his TERRORIST BUDDIES here to kill us. Americans need to be armed more then ever.

  • Nightflyte

    What do you expect out of California??? They elect people to public office like Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi. This exactly why we can not permit Obama from making anymore Supreme Court justices. If Hillary is elected, our society will never be able to return to more rational times.

  • David Laws

    They only decided that there is NO RIGHT to carry concealed weapons. They did not render an opinion on carrying period. If you want no restrictions, then take us back to muzzle loading black powder muskets and bayonets for everyone.

  • RLTMLT

    The NRA continues to be 100% correct, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws (and an oppressive government) will have guns” !

  • ROHBAR

    The one world order elitists those who pushed the marxist/communist/socialists created these idiot systems also pushed dictators so they could push depopulation, wars, and would use any natural resource to create a war! They use in countries, nations the Hegelian dialectic create a PROBLEM with a predetermined outcome but making the public or masses to some way accept the staged events and the way of taking liberties and freedoms away at the price of safety. Then REACTION, public outcry, created by psychological trauma, emotional, physical trauma were the masses will want some relief, the media drills the problem with propaganda! Then the manufactured SOLUTION, by the elitists remember predetermined crisis to form a resentment, fear, or something not getting done. Agenda of the owned media of the globalists or if you prefer elitists! Then the masses or public accepts the predetermined SOLUTION! More regulations, laws, restrictions, taxes, what ever limits the power of a society! We have a bunch of leftists commies, Marxists who want to destroy the Constitution and a lot of these shootings are planned because the one world order does not care about human life!

Sign up for our FREE newsletter!

Name:
Email:
Sign up to receive daily updates, political news, action letters and additional messages from Conservative Republican News

View our Privacy Policy

Join our FREE Newsletter!