Not Good! Ninth Circuit Hands Down a Judgement on Concealed Carry

3
Share

 

The Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco ignored the Constitution and ruled that no one has the right to carry a concealed weapon without “good cause”. Self-defense is not “good cause” they found. This should make clear how all Second Amendment decisions will go if we lose the Supreme Court.

“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,” Judge William Fletcher wrote in the majority opinion.

This is clearly judicial activism. They are rewriting the Constitution.

The dissenting opinion in the Heller decision included the statement by Justice Stevens that the Second Amendment was notable for the “omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense” which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.

Once retired in 2012, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said your right to self-defense in your own home should be limited to a cellphone “at your bedside.”

As the guest speaker during an Oct. 15 2012 luncheon hosted by the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, Stevens offered a suggestion to millions of Americans who legally keep a weapon in their home for self-defense.

“Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using,” he said to laughter, according to an Oct. 16 article by Reuters.

The left does not believe Americans have the inherent right to self-defense.

The Amendment is very clear:

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.

No matter how much the left tries to say this is ambiguous, it is not.

People have the right to “bear arms”, period. There wis no limitation on how someone bears them.

Our constitutional rights are inherent and no government has the right to take them away.

The Ninth Circuit ignore the Constitution and wrote a new law.

“Once again the 9th Circuit showed how out of touch it is with mainstream Americans,” C.D. “Chuck” Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association – one of the plaintiffs in the case — said in a statement.

“This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection.”

They do this as unvetted illegal immigrants, drug cartels, refugees from terror nations flood our borders and are released into our neighborhoods by our own government.

Bloomberg’s Everytown called the ruling “a major victory for public safety,” while California Attorney General Kamala Harris hailed “a victory for public safety and sensible gun safety laws.”

Wait until anti-gun Hillary serves as president.

This is tyranny and a travesty of justice.

SOURCE

Share

3 COMMENTS

  1. If you love your freedom, you better vote to protect our Supreme Court nominees. !! That means Trump not the Progressive/Communist Democrat.

  2. Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using,” he said to laughter…
    Hey stupid, if you have a car,you presumably know how to drive it..
    if you have a gun,you better damn well know how and when to use it

  3. How much of the gun must be showing in order for it to not be “concealed”? in other words, if it is in a holster, is it ‘partially concealed’? Is that a violation? In order for it not to be concealed at all, one would think the owner should be carrying it in his hand for everyone to see. Boy, wouldn’t that create panic in the streets.
    If it is stuffed down the front of your pants, with only the very back end of the grip showing, is that “open carry” or “partially concealed carry? If you’re wearing a holster but you put your jacket on, are you in violation?
    Whole lot of Hollywood elites now going to be in violation, aren’t they? We’d better set up scanners on the Red Carpet

Comments are closed.