72
ASSOCIATED PRESS
In this Feb. 27, 2013 photo Hank Johnson displays his handgun, in Springboro, Ohio.
SAN FRANCISCO » Dealing a blow to gun supporters, a federal appeals court ruled today that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.
In a dispute that could ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said local law enforcement officials can place significant restrictions on who is allowed to carry concealed guns.
By a vote of 7-4, the court upheld a California law that says applicants must cite a “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry permit. Typically, people who are being stalked or threatened, celebrities who fear for their safety, and those who routinely carry large amounts of cash or other valuables are granted permits.
“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,” Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.
The ruling overturned a 2014 decision by a three-judge panel of the same court that said applicants need only express a desire for personal safety.
In a dissent, Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan said the ruling “obliterates the Second Amendment’s right to bear a firearm in some manner in public for self-defense.”
Three other federal appeals courts have ruled similarly in the past, upholding California-like restrictions in New York, Maryland and New Jersey. In addition, another federal appeals court struck down Illinois’ complete ban on carrying concealed weapons.
The 9th Circuit covers nine Western states, but California and Hawaii are the only ones in which the ruling will have any practical effect. The others do not require permit applicants to cite a “good cause.” Anyone in those states with a clean record and no history of mental illness can get a permit.
The National Rifle Association called the ruling “out of touch.”
“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,” said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.
The New York-based gun control organization Everytown hailed the decision as “a major victory for public safety.”
The California case began in 2009, when Edward Peruta filed a legal challenge over the San Diego County sheriff’s refusal to issue him a permit. Peruta said he wanted a weapon to protect himself, but the sheriff said he needed a better reason, such as that his occupation exposes him to robbery.
Peruta, who is known as something of a legal gadfly, said he is neither a hunter, collector or target shooter but challenged the law because he believed it violated the Constitution. The NRA joined him in fighting the law.
The San Diego Sheriff’s Department said today that since the 9th Circuit tossed out the law two years ago, it has received 2,463 applications from people seeking a concealed-weapon permit without having to show good cause.
Sheriff’s lawyer Robert Faigan said the department hasn’t processed those applications and will continue to hold on to them while it waits to see what the Supreme Court does.
Hahaha, all you 2nd amendment revisionist and embellishers. Moreover, the single best indicator of whether the Supreme Court would take up a constitutional issue was there was a split among district courts. “Without a split in the circuits, the Supreme Court is less likely to take up the case,”
NRA panties in a bunch much??? Further, with court divided, because Rs are wussies and not meeting their obligations of the Senate, they 4-4 split, will prevent this from being overturned. Hahahahahaha…..
Watching the video yesterday in the news of an old lady getting punched, dragged and robbed in her condo parking lot seems like justification for a conceal carry gun for her. Unfortunately the HPD/California standard would require her to get beat up and robbed before she could have the right to defend herself. Catch 22? Psychic permit applications? Ha, Ha, Ha! Criminals 1 – Victims 0. Same outcome all the time. Victims always lose in this conference. Looks like a classic definition of insanity, expecting a different outcome when the criminals know all victims are defenseless.
You can be sure that even after the assault the chief wouldn’t give a carry license as ordinary victims are nothing more than a crime statistic…..the cops believe that only them and no else should be able to carry…..
Manoa Fisherman, the robbery was too quick for that woman to have had any chance to withdraw a handgun. Even when she got to her feet, she was in no condition to pull a weapon and use it properly, as she was staggering around senseless. The only outcome from her having a weapon, would be the robbers taking her phone AND her weapon, and possibly shooting her with her own weapon.
You make the common erroneous assumption, that had she had a gun, all would be ok. The fact of the matter, as data proves out, guns, per se, don’t prevent a crime. Further, Mor often than not, a family member is hurt than actually subduing a criminal assailant. See: http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html
Facts, not pithy platitudes…..
silent on open carry?
Question. If one gun is Ok are two guns better? What about 10 guns? What could replace machines designed and built to kill? What if the right to bear arms was actually referring to biceps [with or without ink]? What really serves the highest good and best interest of the largest number of people in America? Personally with all of the wackos out there I feel safer when I am not around guns.
Then compel all criminals with guns to turn them in. Furthermore, anyone with a terroristic threatening or assault charge on their record needs to get locked up for life without parole. I am not threatened by being in the presence of guns owned by law abiding people. i am more threatened by criminals and those who prey on the defenseless. An armed society is a safe and polite society. Living in gunless Hawaii, I see that a disarmed society is neither safe nor polite.
Absolutely uneducated, unresearched and putative remark. We lead the world, on a per capita basis, on the incidents of gun violence, and it’s not even close….see:http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/
Replace gun violence with other kinds of violence against others and it all evens out. Except more people get hurt and only the criminals have guns. Anyone can cherry pick statistics, but fact remains banning guns does not decrease crime.
Where did you get that simpleton logic?! And furthermore, even if I was to accept such pillock (look it up) logic, you would need to form a data based nexus between correlation and causation, i.e. One things does necessarily mean the other……
Could it be that we have more criminals and violent people than other countries?
Leino – You said “Personally with all of the wackos out there I feel safer when I am not around guns”. That doesn’t seem logical – if there are a lot of “wackos out there”, don’t you think that you might need to protect yourself? And you aren’t going to be able to protect yourself against a wacko with a gun with a pocket knife, unless you are Rambo (who, by the way, carried a lot of guns).
What about the wackos that have no hesitations about beating people to death? Such incidents happen all to often in our supposedly safe gunless utopia. Punks think twice about pulling people out of cars over a traffic mistake or even laying hands on total strangers in a state that allows CCW. The majority of gun deaths are a result of criminal activity with illegally obtained firearms. I have nothing against those with an aversion to guns, as long as they recognize all the practicalities and ramifications of banning guns.
Pu$$y culture– a gun does not make you a man. That’s a coward crutch.
Neither does continually flaunting imagined superiority.
Haha, are you really citing Rambo as a good example?
It’s the image of Rambo, not the movie person, that I am using as an example. You’re free to provide better examples if have one.
“I’d say those who predicted shootouts at four-way stops need to apologize to the rest of us,” said Jerry Patterson, the former state senator and Marine fighter-jet pilot who wrote the 1995 Texas concealed carry law. SOURCE: http://www.staradvertiser.com/nyt/licensed-to-carry-more-than-a-million-handguns-in-texas/
What’s really sad is many here still assume concealed carry will lead to shootouts. Only wish we had bold enough politicians to follow the footsteps of Texas because we all know that criminals don’t care about laws and will always be armed!
As soon as I saw the ruling I knew it had to be the ultra liberal Ninth Circuit. They need better balance on the judges even though I know you liberals would fight it. Courts are not to reflect one point of view but to provide fairness and justice!
Yes, you certainly know a lot about the law. Your comments definitely show that!
Which of the judges on the Ninth Circuit do you claim have made a mistake, and what mistake did he or she make?
Those are rhetorical questions, of course. You have no clue. Zero.
Lucid and cogent. He would not know a balanced decision if Learned Hand gave it to him personally…..
Pretty much the decision you would expect from the 9th circuit.
Yes no surprise here
“’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,’ said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.”
Really? Is this what we’ve become as a society? It’s accepted buy some in our community that we should carry concealed weapons to deal with sheriffs with whom we don’t agree? Sad. Fear of others will be the end of us. Man up (excuse the sexism) people!
They just arrested a deputy sheriff in Honolulu for sexual assault.
My mind is boggled with how this got twisted into carrying a gun to confront the police. CCW has nothing to do with this. It is about an individual’s right to own and carry. If this is not a right in all 50 states, might as well amend the Constitution rescinding the 2nd.
Hey, he asked so I brought up the recent incident. Don’t get too uptight about comments here.
License to carry should be given to all who submit by and pay for an extensive annual examination by judges, physicians , Psychiatrist or such also involving what the neighbors say. All others should be locked up if they violate the law and felons for life.
Tell the guy in the picture to get his finger off of the trigger. Sheesh.
A few years ago when the 2nd came under attack I wondered if an overly armed America was indeed causing our problems. From a simplistic perspective, a gun grab ought to logically reduce gun murders. Then I found this study, which I took the time to find again, “http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf”, which compiled relevant statistics and extrapolated quite a different conclusion.
Concealed carry should be permitted, but only with a pretty reasonable need demonstrated, and the inherent qualifications obtained and maintained. Regardless, taking a Diane Feinstein attitude or a Charlton Heston one misses the true challenge of this issue, namely why are we growing ever more willing to kill each other?
Gun grabs have been done in England and Australia. Crime has not decreased in either case. In Australia, for example home invasion robberies went way up. It is also not safe to be out at night in either country. Taking away guns did not lead to a safer society.
That isn’t true of course. Mass murders in Australia have stopped completely.
Why would you make this up?
More BS from you. 1) Australia confiscated all guns. So, according to you and the PC crazies there should be no more violent crime or death, because according to you only”guns” do that. Fact: the highest violent crime city=Alice Springs, Aus. No guns, but on a daily/nightly basis death and severe injury from: knives, machetes, axes, spears, clubs etc. Violent HUMANS create violence!
2) Most mass killings .everywhere , have not been with guns, but with bombs.And….before you say Paris; all the post forensics say if security and/or citizens had had guns most of the people would not have been shot.
3)All the shootings, even this week, in detroit, chicago etc, were not done with legal registered weapons, but with illegal and black market weapons. Where are the ATF and FBI? Oh, I’ sorry these are same people who, under Holder-DOJ gave automatic weapons and machine guns to the Mexican Mafia!
I’ll assume by “kill” you mean murder as those are two distinct terms; the former permissible (as in war) and the latter of course prohibited. My answer to your question would be the degradation of morals and the absence of moral absolutes in society which ultimately leads to chaos.
The degradation of morals is exactly why gun bans will not improve much. From what I understand, crime rates in localities with restrictions equivalent to bans are very high. As I said above, I will believe in gun bans when criminals are disarmed and physical violence against another person is treated as a criminal act. Some people with a lack of morals think it is acceptable to physically harm others, no gun required. Look at what happened to that unfortunate person in Kalihi. No gun was used but he is still dead.
Getting into the differences morality wise between killing and murder is another subject, but in this instance I was referring to both.
What is interesting is that a lot of states (around 25 but not Hawaii) allow open carry of firearms without a permit or license to open carry. I believe that they do require a permit or license to own the firearm.
Ok. I don’t understand the logic. As a law abiding and qualified citizen (no felonies, not on any terror /criminal watch list, not been involuntarily hospitalized for mental illness/drug use), I must show cause to obtain a conceal carry permit AND at the whim of the chief of police EVEN after approved training and background checks? All the while, dangerous, violent, deranged and criminal elements have NO PRACTICAL deterrents to conceal carry illegally amongst the general population AND in EVERY environment (i.e. gun free zones). Nope. I prefer to answer to a jury of 12 rather than being carried by 6 pallbearers!
the headline in the paper today is wrong. this court decision says nothing about open carry.
Nothing wrong with the headline. The headline and the article are concerned with concealed weapons.
the headline in the paper is wrong and misleading.
the headline in this on line story is correct.
All of the John Wayne and Dirty Harry-wannabes, getting panties in a bunch, and weeping that they can’t have their little pew pew pews. Where do you live, or what do you do, why do you live in such fear, that carrying a gun will magically make you feel secure in life? Bunch of Barney Fifes will shoot themselves in the foot, if they ever had to draw a weapon.
That’s exactly the truth of the matter. Most people think they would turn into a sharpshooter if they had a gun…..the truth is, most would not. Stats prove this out……and a wife that is a ER doctor, and a host of horror stories of people either shooting themselves or a loved one, tell me all I need to know.
Please refer us to the stats you’re basing your observation upon. Specifically those that prove most gun owners believe “they would turn into a sharpshooter”. Thanks.
People think they would be able to react and properly use a weapon in criminal situations. A very simple Google search with “accuracy of using gun in tense situation,” will produce many sites stating how wrong those people are.
Anyone who has trained extensively understands the degradation of capability under extreme conditions. Sites that confirm this obvious fact are not answering the pertinent question. The commenter stated that “most” gun owners expect to consider themselves “sharpshooters”, but actually fall more into a Barney Fife type characterization. My question sought substantiation of that assertion, suspecting none exists. If indeed my suspicion bears out, then the comment becomes simply an opinion rather than an effective point. I would, however, not be surprised to learn that not very many gun owners seek defensive training, however, without that advantage, using a weapon depends entirely on the natural mental and physical abilities of it’s user, and I tend to give more credit to the general population than you, but that would also simply be an opinion.