Court Says No 2nd Amendment Right To Carry Concealed Gun

Any rule that a state can come up with as a condition for carrying a concealed weapon in public is perfectly fine, said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday in a ruling that has alarmed supporters of the Second Amendment.

Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, noted, “The ruling misrepresented our complaint. We never argued that there was a right to concealed carry. Our complaint was that there is a right to carry, and the law in question did not allow it in any form. The court ignored what this case was really about to get around the challenge we raised.”

In fact, a summary of the decision said, “The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry – including a requirement of ‘good cause,’ however defined – is necessarily allowed.”

Firearms Policy explained the case was brought by people who live in San Diego and Yolo counties in California.

They had wanted permits to carry, but were denied permission.

“Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, ‘good cause’ to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” the group explained.

The actual opinion was blunt, “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.”

A panel of the court earlier had held the opposite, prompting the state of California to intervene and pursue an en banc ruling after local sheriffs had given up.

The decision noted that “good cause” means “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.”

It left few options for those who legitimately want to be able to defend themselves or others.

“Simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause. This criterion can be applied to situations related to personal protection as well as those related to individual businesses or occupations,” the ruling said.

The Second Amendment states, “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.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that means states cannot ban the possession of handguns in homes, nor require that any lawful firearm be “disassembled” or locked, rendering it inoperable, at all times.

The opinion said, however, that prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional.

Judge Consuelo Callahan, however, disagreed, stating, “The Second Amendment is not a ‘second-class’ constitutional guarantee. … Any fair reading of Heller and McDonald (recent Supreme Court precedents) compels the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond one’s front door.

“Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, this right is indisputably constitutional in stature and part of this country’s bedrock.”

The dissent continued, “In the context of present-day California law, the defendant counties’ limited licensing of the right to carry concealed firearms is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Thus, plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights have been violated.

“While states may choose between different manners of bearing arms for self-defense, the right must be accommodated.”

The opinion noted that Supreme Court precedent protects a right to defend against violence both in public and private, ‘indicating that the right extends in some form to locations where a person might become exposed to public or private violence.”

An additional result?

“Open carry is now effectively prohibited,” the dissent said.

Source: WND