Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling Angers Gun Lobbyists

On Thursday June 9, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the Second Amendment does not apply when it comes to weapons that are concealed. This means that states can keep people from carrying concealed firearms and can restrict them however they so choose.

This decision was brought to light because the plaintiffs decided to challenge the State of California’s gun law, which says that in order to get a license to carry a concealed weapon, you must have a reasonable or good cause (deemed reasonable or good by the State of California).

They were particularly concerned by the San Diego and Yolo County gun laws that were denying people the right to concealed-carry who were using self-defense as their reason for wanting to obtain a license.

The court voted 7-4 on this case and ruled that the California restrictions on concealed-carry weapons were constitutional. They also ruled that Second Amendment rights do not extend to those wishing to concealed-carry.

Judge William Fletcher did research on the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and went all the way back to 16^th century law to formulate his opinion. He says that based on his extensive research, the Second Amendment does not explicitly give concealed carry weapon carriers the same rights as regular gun users.

The court also referenced several Supreme Court rulings in the past couple of years that helped inform their decisions. One of those decisions, Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, was headed by the famous “right-wing” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia, in his ruling, made the claim that the public has the right to have guns, but that the right is not binding or 100 percent. Justice Scalia made reference to concealed carry weapons as one of these non-binding rights and this ruling was referenced by the Ninth Circuit Court.

Gun rights advocates are shocked by this ruling because they feel that it raises dangerous questions that the Supreme Court will probably have to answer. While the court’s decision was decidedly specific, many feel that rulings such as these will open the door for other cases concerning gun rights and the right to carry different types of weapons.

This case takes on added importance because of the four-to-four party split between Supreme Court Justices. While the Supreme Court does not necessarily have to take this case, they are expected to decide on several gun rights issues over the next couple of years.

And Judge Merrick Garland is viewed, by Republicans, as having a very liberal stance on gun issues. While he is touted as being a centrist judge, Republicans feel that his past history on gun rights will swing these types of rulings in favor of Democratic views.

Proponents of this concealed carry ruling, feel that it is a win because the safety of the American people is being prioritized over the feelings of gun lobbyists and the NRA.

By allowing the State of California to choose who can and cannot have the right to concealed-carry, many are feeling that this will keep guns out of the hands of people who do not necessarily need them.

Baltimore defense attorney Seth Okin commented, “Views on gun control notwithstanding, the practical application of this case illustrates that people need to be aware of the gun laws in the state where they live and especially where they would travel, should they decide to carry a handgun or other type of firearm.”

It also allows people the freedom to know that the people who are carrying a concealed weapon are considered to be responsible human beings and are not endangering people in any way, shape, or form.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login