Peruta En Banc Opinion - Concealed Carry Lost

[dlh]

I am not surprised as this opinion comes from the notorious ninth circuit...

Note at the end of the opinion the court said even if a constitutional right were invovked they would agree with the concurrence that the test to be used is one of "intermediate scrutiny" and they would still uphold the "good cause" requirements imposed by the authorities. I find it incredible that a court would engage in that kind of dicta. I prefer the "strict scrutiny" test imposed by the panel in the fourth circuit overturning Maryland's ban on the AR-15 rifle. Sadly that panel decision was overturned when the fourth circuit decided to hear the case before the entire court. Last I checked that was still pending.

In my opinion this area of the law is a total mess. It does not get any better with Scalia's death and the certainty of Hillary (if she wins) appointing anti-second amendment justices to the scotus. She might even consider one of the judges from the ninth circuit (laughs).

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, this is the defendant's appeal of the earlier 9th circuit's 3 judge panel decision which protected concealed carry?

In any case, don't Heller and McDonald supersede any 9th circuit decision?

Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment is doomed if Hillary is elected, but what happens at the state level? Can a leftist-packed SCOTUS vacate state carry laws for states like Texas, which manifestly approve of at least licensed carry, or Constitutional Carry states like AZ or VT?

I ask not because I'm willing to concede a loss of the 2nd Amendment nationally, but because I want to know that my local rights are preserved no matter what madness reigns in DC.

Congress need not address state laws directly, if Heller is overturned. It can ban all handguns, thus precluding both open and concealed-carry. They can and likely will attempt to ban so-called "assault weapons" and this will follow England's lead such that anything other than a single shot shotgun is an "assault weapon."

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Monday's release of Texas Firearms Coalition Podcast #15 will have the Peruta case as the In the Crosshairs topic. I'm reading and analyzing the opinion now, but I'm going to present in layman's terms to the greatest extent possible. Please let your friends and family know about this Episode, if you or they never listen to another one. Peruta is limited to the 9th Cir., but the majority's absurd and intellectually dishonest analysis and holding is vindictive of the importance of a conservative, constitution-respecting Supreme Court.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

Charles, this is the defendant's appeal of the earlier 9th circuit's 3 judge panel decision which protected concealed carry?

In any case, don't Heller and McDonald supersede any 9th circuit decision?

Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

I agree that the 2nd Amendment is doomed if Hillary is elected, but what happens at the state level? Can a leftist-packed SCOTUS vacate state carry laws for states like Texas, which manifestly approve of at least licensed carry, or Constitutional Carry states like AZ or VT?

I ask not because I'm willing to concede a loss of the 2nd Amendment nationally, but because I want to know that my local rights are preserved no matter what madness reigns in DC.

Much of the jurisprudence with respect to federal criminal statutes relating to firearms is based on the Commerce Clause in Article 1, not the 2nd amendment. That's what NFA '34, GCA '68, AWB '94 (since expired), and "Brady Law" as well as GFSZA 1996 rely on (had to get that in there). Frankly all of the above are pretty weakly related to interstate commerce, especially GFSZA which was found unconstitutional in Lopez, then re-passed with a few more words added.

Criminal restrictions on possession and carry are generally state issues in which the federal government has limited authority to intervene. Until MacDonald the 2nd amendment was not held by SCOTUS to apply to the states. If we get a Hillary SCOTUS justice, they'll undoubtedly find an excuse to reverse Heller and MacDonald, but any additional restrictions on states would require a federal law to be passed and upheld. Obama couldn't even get universal background check (i.e. federal registration) through the Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi congress in '09 & '10.

Like Obama, Hillary will no doubt attempt to Federalize everything and weaken the states further through executive orders and loony SCOTUS appointments. More reason to vote in the down ballot elections even if you hate Trump so we can keep the Senate pro-2nd and block outrageous SCOTUS appointments.

[TXBO]

.....

Criminal restrictions on possession and carry are generally state issues in which the federal government has limited authority to intervene. Until MacDonald the 2nd amendment was not held by SCOTUS to apply to the states. If we get a Hillary SCOTUS justice, they'll undoubtedly find an excuse to reverse Heller and MacDonald, but any additional restrictions on states would require a federal law to be passed and upheld. Obama couldn't even get universal background check (i.e. federal registration) through the Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi congress in '09 & '10.

Like Obama, Hillary will no doubt attempt to Federalize everything and weaken the states further through executive orders and loony SCOTUS appointments. More reason to vote in the down ballot elections even if you hate Trump so we can keep the Senate pro-2nd and block outrageous SCOTUS appointments.

1) You're assuming a SCOTUS that respects the limited authority of the Federal government.

2) If you think Obama's executive orders were an over-reach of his authority, wait until you see what Hillary accomplishes with the help of a SCOTUS that doesn't respect the constitutional limitations of the executive branch.

[TexasJohnBoy]

I'm going to second Charles here, for whatever weight my voice adds to the comment...

Vote for Trump. Deal with it.

If you abstain, if you vote third party, then that is a vote for Hillary.

[suthdj]

"We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."

The 2nd does not give us our right they are given by our creator the 2nd is supposed to protect that right.

Or did i mess something in history class

[Abraham]

Trump gets my vote.

When Ronald Reagan was President, the world respected/feared us.

It'll be the same with Trump.

No world leader respects (Assad, if you cross this red line...) Obama.

Putin quite literally sneers at him.

He's a laughingstock on the world stage.

No doubt Trump's a vulgarian, but so's Putin and no one is laughing at him...

[ScottDLS]

.....

Criminal restrictions on possession and carry are generally state issues in which the federal government has limited authority to intervene. Until MacDonald the 2nd amendment was not held by SCOTUS to apply to the states. If we get a Hillary SCOTUS justice, they'll undoubtedly find an excuse to reverse Heller and MacDonald, but any additional restrictions on states would require a federal law to be passed and upheld. Obama couldn't even get universal background check (i.e. federal registration) through the Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi congress in '09 & '10.

Like Obama, Hillary will no doubt attempt to Federalize everything and weaken the states further through executive orders and loony SCOTUS appointments. More reason to vote in the down ballot elections even if you hate Trump so we can keep the Senate pro-2nd and block outrageous SCOTUS appointments.

1) You're assuming a SCOTUS that respects the limited authority of the Federal government.

2) If you think Obama's executive orders were an over-reach of his authority, wait until you see what Hillary accomplishes with the help of a SCOTUS that doesn't respect the constitutional limitations of the executive branch.

I agree with you, but I was trying to address TAM's question of what a Hillary Presidency would mean for state level gun rights. For example, GFSZA 1996 should not be Constitutional under any realistic reading. The previous SCOTUS threw out the 1990 version in 1995. So why hasn't the original gone up again to possibly get upheld by a Hillary court? Because it's useless as far as primary enforcement goes. There aren't ATF agents posted in school zones looking for off duty cops or out of state LTC holders. I'm sure that Hillary would like to do that, but not likely to make it through Congress. Even in NY and CT there has been widespread civil disobedience re: their restrictive State level gun laws. A Hillary presidency would be a very bad turn for gun rights at all levels, but many of the victories won by NRA and gun rights advocates have come at the state level where the federal government is less relevant. We'll be back to there as we have been since 2009. As much as I dislike Trump, I'll probably vote for him just to keep Hillary out, though I haven't seen any indication that he's much of a Constitutionalist when it comes to respecting the power of the People and the States over the Federal government.

Time for a Convention of the States like Gov. Abbott suggested....He was on Mark Levin's radio show recently talking about it and Levin wrote a book about it.

[Mavs00]

I just went from a guy that was gonna "vote" for Trump, to a guy that might actually CAMPAIGN for him. Scary stuff right there.

[vjallen75]

I just went from a guy that was gonna "vote" for Trump, to a guy that might actually CAMPAIGN for him. Scary stuff right there.

[Hoodasnacks]

What in the world does "shall not be infringed" mean? Did that pesky part of 2A even come into play?

[Pawpaw]

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.Chas.

Absolutely. Whatever others may think, I find the prospect of a Trump presidency depressing. I think he will do damage both domestically and internationally. But I can't conceive that he'll be worse than Hillary or whoever else the Democrats may put up (there's still a faint possibility of prosecution). My plan, however much I lament it, is to vote for the arrogant vulgarian. The male one.

The problem is that today, after 8 years of Obama, anyone who truly tries to set things right will HAVE to "do damage" to get there. Ronald Reagan himself could not straighten out this mess without breaking some eggs.

Note: I am in no way comparing Trump to Reagan because there is no comparison. I'm just trying to put things in perspective and explain what a monumental task it will be to fix this mess, both foreign and domestically.

[ELB]

.... So why hasn't the original gone up again to possibly get upheld by a Hillary court? ....

Because, in the eyes of the SCOTUS, the second GFSZA remedied the defect of the first one: it included the magic words (or jurisdictional element) "interstate commerce." Presto! Constitutional!

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

This jurisdictional element was challenged up to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled it was sufficient to make the GFSZA constitutional. The current GFSZA has been challenged up to the Circuit Court level several times, but never held to be unconstitutional. The only time a conviction under it is overturned (that I know of) is when the government failed to prove someone knew he was in a school zone, or the person had a state carry license or permit.

[TXBO]

I agree with you, but I was trying to address TAM's question of what a Hillary Presidency would mean for state level gun rights. For example, GFSZA 1996 should not be Constitutional under any realistic reading. The previous SCOTUS threw out the 1990 version in 1995. So why hasn't the original gone up again to possibly get upheld by a Hillary court? Because it's useless as far as primary enforcement goes. There aren't ATF agents posted in school zones looking for off duty cops or out of state LTC holders. I'm sure that Hillary would like to do that, but not likely to make it through Congress. Even in NY and CT there has been widespread civil disobedience re: their restrictive State level gun laws. A Hillary presidency would be a very bad turn for gun rights at all levels, but many of the victories won by NRA and gun rights advocates have come at the state level where the federal government is less relevant. We'll be back to there as we have been since 2009. As much as I dislike Trump, I'll probably vote for him just to keep Hillary out, though I haven't seen any indication that he's much of a Constitutionalist when it comes to respecting the power of the People and the States over the Federal government.

Time for a Convention of the States like Gov. Abbott suggested....He was on Mark Levin's radio show recently talking about it and Levin wrote a book about it.

State level gun rights are relevant because of constitutional protections limiting the authority of the federal government. A Hillary SCOTUS would not respect the limited authority of the federal government. Additionally, a Hillary SCOTUS, that doesn't respect the words of the constituion, would allow executive orders to become law completely bypassing congress.

A SCOTUS that doesn't respect the words of the Constitution of the United States nullifies rule of law. There are then no limits to government and no liberties left. We become little more than a monarchy.

At that point, only a constitutional convention, civil disobedience or both will restore liberty. Both of those options don't come without a price.