(ModernSurvival.org) – The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled on Thursday that people don’t have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public. This came in a sweeping decision likely to be challenged by gun-rights advocates.
California law allows Police Chiefs and County Sheriffs to issue a license to carry a concealed firearm if the following requirements are met:
- Upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character
- That good cause exists for the issuance
- The applicant is a resident of the county or city to which they are applying (or the applicant’s place of employment is within the city or county)
- The applicant has completed a course of training (16-24 hours)
In 2014, there was a ruling made as a result of a case in which a sheriff in San Diego County required concealed carry applicants to show supporting documentation like a restraining order to get a permit. The applicants no longer needed to provide such documentation. Stating that it was a person’s Second Amendment right or for self defense were sufficient enough to show “good cause”.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the 7-4 ruling, upholding a state law requiring applicants to show “good cause,” such as a fear of personal safety, to carry a concealed firearm. The panel of judges also stated that a right to carry a concealed weapon was not contained in the Second Amendment.
“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
Arguments Against the Ruling:
Judge Consuelo M. Callahan did not agree with the ruling, saying that the restrictions were basically an infringement of the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
This is what the Judge Callahan stated:
“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. Because the majority eviscerates the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms as defined by Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald, I respectfully dissent.”
Also, attorney for the residents, Paul Clement argued to the panel that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Critics have long charged that the 9th Circuit has a history of liberal-leaning decisions. If challenged, it could set up a Supreme Court battle.
Should Americans be allowed to carry concealed weapons under the 2nd Amendment? You decide.
~Here’s to Your Survival!
Copyright 2020, ModernSurvival.org