>Firearm owners have no constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public, a divided U.S. appeals court in California ruled on Thursday, upholding the right of officials to only grant permits to those facing a specific danger.
>The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a victory for gun control advocates which sets a legal precedent in western states, was seen as unlikely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future.
>The San Francisco-based court, in a 7-4 decision, found California's San Diego and Yolo counties did not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms, when they denied some applicants a concealed firearm license.
>"We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public," Judge William Fletcher wrote in a 52-page opinion.
>Sheriffs in the two California counties had limited their permits to applicants showing "good cause" to be armed, such as documented threats or working in a wide range of risky occupations.
>The ruling places the 9th Circuit Court in line with other U.S. appellate courts that have upheld the right of officials in the states of New York, Maryland and New Jersey to deny concealed carry applications in certain cases.
>The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, in the middle of a raging national debate on guns, declined to weigh in on whether firearm owners have a constitutional right to carry concealed guns.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-guns-idUSKCN0YV2B1
>>49052
why the don't conceal their fucking guns in their darm arses, for fuck's sake.
>>49052
GG. Even our own constitution is even misinterpreted.
Well, it's hard to argue with that. I, however, don't see any point with restricting people from concealing weapons and a concealed weapon is hidden. "Bad Guys" don't follow the law anyways.
Is this an Open Carry movement? I'd gladly join, just gime a gun to carry and I'd tote that thing to hell and back again, in plain view.
>>49078
This. Open Carry is the solution. That would deter more crime anyway.
>>49083
If it doesn't encourage crime rampages from triggered liberals
>>49115
Likely true. Even talking to them about the potential unintentional consequences of Marijuana in Colorado triggers them into interrupting you before you finish your thought.
>>49052
So what about small weapons like daggers or swords?
That is the approach I would take to challenge the courts, Open Carry. While undoubtedly I would be arrested I would start to open carry citing that their decision is limited only to "concealed" weapons and by openly carrying the firearm that I'm in no violation of their opinion.
Of course they would cite some sort of "public disturbance" bullshit to take my gun, then I'm a convict and can never legally own one again.
>>49118
huh?
>>49072
>>49078
>>49083
>>49115
>>49239
You fucking idiots. There is nowhere in the cobstitution where you are given the right to a concealed firearm. It could even be interpreted to mean that the right to bear arms only includes weapona such as knives and swords, banning guns wouldn't even be unconstitutional.
>>49413
But the First Amendment sure as hell has adapted to protect the free speech of people on the internet so why is it different for the Second Amendment?
something something well reulated militia sometthing something shall not be infringed blah blah
>>49425
You don't have the rights to own nukes, do you? Thats an armament. What would be your argument as to why people should be kept from purchasing nukes, then you could aptly apply the exact same argument to why people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns and you have your answer.
>>49436
You just compared a concealed sidearm with thermonuclear warheads. You are an idiot.
>>49441
Not even a concealed sidearm. The point is that they are both highly dangerous in the hands of any citizen, and although their capacity to kill may differ they can both do the same job in the wrong hands.
>>49436
If you have the means to purchase, safely store, and upkeep, then why not? Also you're an idiot, the Constitution was written in a time where firearms of all shapes and sizes existed. Yes, that's right fireARMS. Stupid ass eurocuck, what the fuck is a cobstitution.
>>49447
No, they cannot. A gun cannot do what a nuclear missile can do, regardless of how your scared little liberal mind thinks these devices work.
>>49447
> dangerous in the hands of any citizen
Same could be said for the goverment bud.
>>49447
You're the kind of guy that wears clear lensed ironically oversized glasses, aren't you? With a little tape in the middle. Perhaps you enjoy being anally raped by the government. Perhaps you enjoy giving money to everyone while the amount you get to give to your own family dwindles. Fair enough.
You're trying to argue that, of the hundreds of millions of gun owners, we all should lose a hobby, protection device, a pastime, a sport, simply because our guns could kill you. You are living in fear of the wrong thing, and you are a prime example of why I hate liberals with the entirety of my being. I'm sure you spout the same bullshit about wrapping a the arm of a knife wielding attacker with your coat, calling the police if someone is breaking in with a gun, and how shooting isn't a sport. An opinion is a great thing to have, but a burning desire to eradicate the hobby of millions because of your personal feelings is about as childish as wearing skin tight jeans and shirts that say 'yolo.'
With that said, I am not a perfect republican. I hate the very thought of religion, and push for legalizing marijuana whenever it comes up. However, extremist liberals like you destroy any desire of mine to vote Democrat, and as long as a single liberal antigun extremist like you is alive, I will vote republican.
>>49436
Nukes can't really be used for self defense
Nukes have way too much collateral for anyone to be fucking around with them
>>49052
For all the autists.
"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."
This mean the force of equal measure enough so that the state will not chain the people with a tyrannical system. It allows us to purchase military surplus vehicles. You can even buy fighter jets. While no, it says nothing about concealed firearms. It does allow fully automatic weapons to be carried in broad daylight through New York parks. So long as there is reason for militia to be there. Which we saw occur during the occupy protests. The second amendment has not yet been infringed. Except for the ban on automatic weapons.
>>49413
>Right to bear arms only includes weapons such as knives and swords.
This has to be bait, nobody is this fucking retarded
You do realize that concealed carry has been around since the invention of firearms right? And the Constitution of written around the time rifles were completely replacing swords and such?
>>49480
Do you understand how commas work? There are 2 parts of the second amendment, both of which aren't to be violated
>>49480
I can make it real simple for you. Who are the people? Does it say 'the people of a militia?' and where exactly is this militia? The minute men where a militia, a group that banded together when the need came about. If there was a group of unofficial militia members today called the minute men, you'd mock and berate them, wouldn't you?
>>49413
>You fucking idiots. There is nowhere in the cobstitution where you are given the right to a concealed firearm.
Yeah, I pointed that out in my response. Good to know you can't read.
>>49548
militias still exist?
>>49441
Which one kills more every year?
It's really quite sad that gunfags have to hide behind ambiguities in the constitution to justify what is really just a love for guns and the power they think it gives them.
>>50575
Or they like them because they are fun to shoot at targets and look pretty.
I'll just leave this here...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Police are not here to protect citizens, according to Washington DC high court.
>>50586
>woman calls in and complains her house has been burglarized
>police knock on door and leave after five minutes
>meanwhile the women get raped
>but cops have no duty to protect anyone!
And the sad thing is that conservatives will defend this
>>50595
No but liberals will
Because apparently we should just reply on cops to defend women from not getting raped instead of letting them defend themselves :^)
>>50597
I think a better case to use is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
>Police chief is best friends with a wifebeater
>He tells his cops they can't enforce the restraining order on him.
>The wifebeat KILLS his ex and his daughter
>but cops can't be sued for corruption!
Jesus christ what do cops do? They literally don't protect us, they let 40% of murderers escape prosecution, and make like 100k on average. It's like the no show jobs the mafia used to have
>>50599
Live in a better county?
The last sheriff to abuse that around me got fired in 2 weeks or less.
>>49083
Maybe, but if the criminal is dead set on committing his crime, you are suddenly a priority target to get rid of because he knows you're carrying something that could kill him
>>50793
It also includes nuclear weapons.
>>49458
It's the reason I converted from Democrat to Republican. My parents and grandparents voted Dem their whole lives until gun control became big in the 80's and 90's.
Like you, I think I'm more of a libertarian with my views about many things like religion and marijuana, but I'll be damned if I won't do every legal thing in my power to keep any Democrat out of office so long as they side with the anti-gun crowd.
>>50543
Did you sign your draft card? Congrats, you're in a militia.
>>49458
Are you me?
>>50816
Theres nothing left to say. Go ahead and defend guns all you want, just know no one is behind you. I just can't believe it took this much killing before the public finally realized where we should stand with regards to guns. Just know that any time your out in public, at the gas station, the bar, wherever, you are in danger. Nothing is stopping you from being the next victim of gun violence and the only thing you have time to blaim before the first bullet goes through you is your own damn pride.
>>51339
No one got murdered in Paris last year because the French have strict gun control laws. Oh wait...
>>50804
nukes weren't created as weapons m8
Constitution overrules all these shitty lawsuits, doesn't matter what any appeals court says
The issues at hand have been ruled on hundreds of years ago and can't be changed by some sjw faggot in california
>>51342
>No one got murdered in Paris last year because the French have strict gun control laws
Correct.
>>49506
>concealed carry has been around since the invention of firearms right?
Uhh did you just go full retard? How the fuck do you conceal a musket? Even when the handgun was developed it was still too large to carry concealed in an effective manner (as in not making a bulge in your jacket at the time people wore jackets) for centuries. Nobody bothered with concealed firearms except assassins until cities and towns banned firearms starting after the Civil War when peace officers were coming to bring order to the Wild West, and much later, cops had to crack down on city gangsters who got especially good with guns after WW1. THAT was the origin of citizens employing concealed carry, dumbass.
As a matter of self-defense it would have been a natural response to the rise in crime, media-hyped fear, and gang activity starting in the early 20th, and of course ordinary city-goers would rather not show off themselves with a revolver on their hip -- especially not the increasingly-independent female.
>the Constitution of written around the time rifles were completely replacing swords
Wow your history is shit. Swords made up a good percentage of war casualties up through the Civil War, primarily as an officer's weapon during bayonette charges and as the primary weapon after pistols were expelled during a cavalry charge..
>>49052
>The San Francisco-based court, in a 7-4 decision, found California's San Diego and Yolo counties did not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms, when they denied some applicants the right to bear arms...
>>51727
kek. I don't give a fuck about gun control, but your post caught my attention, because it is fucking terribly stupid.
>Pretends to be an expert on law despite having no clue how the court system works. This case was an en banc session, meaning 11 judges were on the panel that decided this case not one.
Read a fucking book anon. You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>51727
>hundreds of years ago
Not until District of Columbia v Heller, had the supreme court of the united states ever interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean an individual right to carry or own firearms.
Even now, in Scalia's majority opinion in Heller, scalia reminds us that many types of gun control laws are still constitutional.
>concealed carry
>omg you're a terrorist I wanna know who has guns!!!!
>open carry
>omg you're terrorizing people by walking around with a gun!
libtards. these are the same people who legitimately worry about being shot in a mass shooting (statistically less likely than being struck by lightning) while eating themselves to death and teaching their ugly kids their grotesque lifestyle.
>>52295
That because the supreme court had never ruled on the issue.
Its not as if this is a new interpretation either.
>>52321
your incoherent ramblings make you look like a child.
>>49413
>this entire post
I seriously want to fucking strangle all of you anti-gun pricks.
>>49458
>this entire post
You're a true nigga, anon
>>51339
You are aware that millions of people a year are saved by guns, right?
You are aware of the millions of people saved from murder, theft, and rape thanks to guns right?
Of course not. You would much rather have millions hurt each year as long as you're comfy, you fucking waste of oxygen.
>>52343
>>51339
You both are delusional and neither of you cite any evidence to go along with your rhetoric. Both of your posts are completely worthless and no actual information into the discussion.
But don't feel bad most of /news/ is nothing but dipshits screaming "common sense" things are each other.
>>50586
They lost on public duty in asserting that the officers were negligent, but I thought they could have sued the dispatcher/service and won, because they never dispatched the second 9-1-1 call.
Anyway, disturbing as fuck, but what are you gonna do, have malpractice insurance for police? Presumably all cops learn about this case now, at least.
>>51339
Here is why I joined the NRA today. Fuck, do I hate giving money to rich people, but you gave me a reason.
To anyone else who stands firm against gun control, thank you. Please continue to protect what rights we have left.
The right to bear arms is described in the second amendment as such: Shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia, being vital to a free state is a reason why we have this right. Do not waver when the clueless masses look at you with distain.
Sorry to get preachy, but it's time.
>>52371
you joined the NRA because of an obvious troll on 4chan? Anon, you probably shouldn't make life decisions based on this board where no one is honest about anything. Also, using the media as barometer of public opinion probably isn't the best thing to do.
According to Gallup the US today is much more (hand) gun friendly that it was in late 1950s.
Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?
In 1959 60% of Americans said, "Yes there should be.
In 2015, only 27% said, "Yes there should be."
In 93 only 42% of households said guns made it a safer place.
2014 63% did.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
The media does not do a good job of representing reality. It just makes sensationalist headlines to get the masses excited.
>>52371
Having a few mosin nagants in your basement is not a well regulated militia.
>>52398
I don't think you understand.
1. Clinton has said multiple times she wants so wither away the second amendment as much as possible, and at some point wants to ban pistols
2. People are already calling for the ban of semi-automatic guns because fuck you, fuck your hobby, fuck your hunting, how many more bebbehs have to die?
>>52371
>implying the government is ever going to consider gun control
Do you know how much trouble it would cause if the government forced their own people, hundreds of millions of people armed with rifles and ammo, to give them up? Do you understand how much shit that would cause and how much it would fuck up the world's natural order?
The government fears its people too much to actually take them head on. They know what would happen if they tried.
>>52404
>Clinton said multiple times
Can you link us anon?
Google brought up the following quotes:
“I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them"
“I do support comprehensive background checks, and to close the gun show loophole, and the online loophole, and what's called the Charleston loophole, and to prevent people on the no-fly list from getting guns"
we should “do everything we can to make sure the irresponsible and the criminal and the mentally ill don't get guns.”
More than 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. It’s time to act. As President, I'll take on the gun lobby and fight for commonsense reforms to keep guns away from terrorists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals—including comprehensive background checks and closing loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands.
None of these quotes seem to on the extreme end of the gun control debate. They obviously aren't what pro gun owners want to hear, but it doesn't sound like they are what the super anti-gun minority want to hear as well.
Also, does anyone have any idea why guns were less popular in the late 50s?
>>52398
Social media, family, and random anons who have no reason to lie. These are good starting points.
>>52411
Are you joking anon? I'm not certain if you are serious or if you are joking. Social media might be the worst form of media.
1) It is filled with people who often have no clue what they are talking about.
2) We all live in specific social networks. None of our networks are representative of the American population.
3) it is filled with people who have no clue what they are talking about. Bill and uncle Buck don't know anything and are probably just echoing some crap that they saw on their social media.
>>52409
>Can you link us anon?
Not the same anon but read this if you want some quotes.
>Hillary Clinton on Gun Control
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
>>52405
That's why they make threads like this anon.
bumbling this post for the prevent of further reposting. that is all.
>California
Just leave already if you hate freedom so much, holy shit. Blow the fault and make your own laws on your own shitty island.
>>52424
>http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm
Good link, but the closest any of her quotes get to "banning" guns is not allowing them on school campuses. Unless there is one that I missed it doesn't look like she is out to ban guns.
>>49441
>infringing my right to nuclear tipped ammunition for my conceal carry pistol
move to canada already you faggot TRUMP 2016
>>51719
>Emperor Wu Di of Ancient China’s Han dynasty (156-87 B.C.) wanted to live and rule forever, so he ordered his Taoist alchemists (the religious scientists of his empire) to research and discover a potion or elixir for eternal life. The alchemists mixed together all kinds of compounds, heating them to high temperatures to transform them. Two of the ingredients they experimented with were sulfur and saltpeter. Of course, they never discovered a way to make anyone immortal, but they did discover some very interesting properties about these two materials. Today we know saltpeter as potassium nitrate. Saltpeter and sulfur are two of the key ingredients in gunpowder.
smart people are rarely ever attempting to make weapons
>>49425
>m.muuh second ammitment
>>52405
maybe only does parchused after 2000
I believe in concealed carry should be something earned through proper training and background check with local law enforcement, not just given out to anyone.
>>51789
Correct me if I'm wrong but he said that the guns were replacing swords and such. They were, even though swords were used. Also pistols existed back then along with the blunderbuss. Those could easily be hidden within a coat
>>51336
>Orlando
You say that like it has any significance. As unfortunate and tragic it is, it is simply another in a string of instances. Why is this one any more special?
>>49052
>conceal carry is not guaranteed by the second amendment
True
>California doesn't allow conceal or open carry
This is textbook infringement
>>52973
4chans strong opinions but lack of knowledge never ceases to surprise me. At least know what you are talking about before you start trying to use fancy legal terms.
1) carrying concealed weapons is still allowed in California as a whole. All this decision did was say someone does not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons. (This does not mean that someone should NEVER be allowed to just that there are circumstances where it doesn't need to be allowed.)
2) There were two counties (or cities) that asked citizens who wanted to obtain a concealed carry permit why they wanted one. Someone didn't answer with a response the city liked and denied the applicant. And the applicant sued and lost.
3) Today, that same applicant could move 10 miles into a different city (county whatever) and obtain a concealed carry permit.
The 11 judges of the 9th district did NOT take away the ability to have a concealed weapon, instead it upheld the decision that the local gov can decide.
Concealed carry is still legal in California, but the local governments can deny individuals the opportunity to carry concealed weapons.
>>52986
When you have to state a reason and the state can deny it with no recourse that's infringement. They could legally deny every single application, and infringe on 2A all they want. This is what makes it unconstitutional.
>>53055
Good point.
>>49078
>"Bad Guys" don't follow the law anyways
This is the most stuid argument of all time. Yeah why even have laws at all! Criminals won't follow them anyway!
>>53072
Not to mention the sensible people who will ignore laws like that.
>>53072
It's not stupid, it's just underdeveloped. Arbitrary bans are useless if no one enforces them, if they're riddled with loopholes, and if the root of the problem (why crime happens in the first place) isn't addressed.
>>53055
>didn't read the basic details about this case
>doesn't have any legal background
>still tires to present an "legal" opinion like he knows what he is talking about.
the state is not denying or allowing anyone to do anything in this case, it is the local governments that are allowing or denying individual applications.
your arn chair lawyering without knowing the details of the case (or having any legal expertise) is embarassing. Until you actually have some idea what the effects of this case are your opinion means nothing.
>>53079
>Anonymous
>Appeal to expertise.
The same applies to you, so why don't we all just stop commenting and consume media passively.
>doesn't realize he is on an anonymous forum.
Hell, this is a text based board. I couldn't legitimately prove my legal expertise if I wanted to, however...
>any governing entity, local/state/federal, that manufactures a method whereby all people could be denied arms without due process, or deny people the legal means to bear arms without due process is an infringement on the second amendment.
>>49118
>unintentional consequences.
CO resident here. Nonsmoker.
You mean more money for schools? Yeah that was unprecedented. What shit are you pulling out of your ass about "consequences"?
>>53099
not listening to someone who doesn't understand the basic facts of the case is not an appeal to expertise... it is the rejection of incompetent voices
>>53136
>HURR YOU ARE UNQUALIFIED.
neither of us could prove qualifications.
>2A and the subsequent supreme court decisions are not difficult concepts to understand.
Instead of shouting about qualifications why don't you post a coherent rebuttal?
>>53150
>>53136
>infringement?
>not infringement?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/11/peruta-v-san-diego-analyzed/
article explains the majority and minority opinions. The majority side argues it the ability to deny concealed carry is ok as decided in previous Supreme Court rulings and the right to open carry as another question for a different court to decide.
Dissenters argued that because of the recent law against open carry the court should have looked at the case broadly rather than the specific question is concealed carry ok or not. they argue that the court should have looked at the case broadly rather than specifically.
