Good news from the Ninth Circuit Regarding Concealed Carry in California

[bobabode]

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016...oncealed-in-CA

[bobabode]

En banc opinion here. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20webcites.pdf

[icenine]

Just another of many good reasons to live in California Bob.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by icenine

Just another of many good reasons to live in California Bob.

You betcha!

[mpholland]

You do realize that the Ninth Circus Court is the most overturned court in the country. One way or another it will end up before the SCOTUS eventually and Cali will either become an open carry or "shall issue" permit state.

[icenine]

I think the Supreme Court has decreed states can regulate firearms. It may allow open carry but I don't think it will ever force states to mandate it like say gay marriage. I doubt it will take away a state's legislative right to make laws concerning firearms. Besides the GOP is nominating unelectable candidates for the Presidency.

[mpholland]

I believe they will continue to let states regulate firearms to the point where it becomes unconstitutional. To not allow open carry and to restrict concealed carry to the point they have in Cali kind of infringes on the word "bear".

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I believe they will continue to let states regulate firearms to the point where it becomes unconstitutional. To not allow open carry and to restrict concealed carry to the point they have in Cali kind of infringes on the word "bear".

The whole 2nd has been misinterpreted from day one. If you read Madison's notes on the development of the Constitution it was all about militias and the Founding Fathers abhorrence of a standing army.

[donquixote99]

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is the militia act. Coupled with Article 1 Section 8, that limits army appropriations to two years duration, the Constitution was designed to insure the militias was superior in combination to the standing army.

It was assumed that with the House of Representatives being elected at two-year intervals, no majority that voted the ruinous cost of a large peacetime standing army would survive the next election. This scheme worked too, until after the Korean War.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The whole 2nd has been misinterpreted from day one. If you read Madison's notes on the development of the Constitution it was all about militias and the Founding Fathers abhorrence of a standing army.

Having armed militias available for national defense is the first of the three English constitutional rights the second covers. Those three bear arms rights are no longer part of the British constitution. The militia right is not presently a part of ours because the central government is funding the militias and a standing army.