On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 7 to 4 that the “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

To accomplish this they had to ignore the text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights, misinterpret the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and cite English laws going back to 1299.

As you’ll see, this court’s ruling is not just nonsensical and unconstitutional, but also nonsense.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights says, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” As used here, the word “bear” is a synonym for “carry.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled as much in Heller: “[a]t the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ means to ‘carry.’”

The justices on the Ninth Circuit can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court; it is their job to follow Supreme Court precedents. When questions haven’t been resolved by the high court, it is their job to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to dismiss language so plain any dictionary could have set them straight.

So U.S. citizens clearly have the right to carry firearms in public. This ruling found they don’t have a constitutional right to carry concealed in public. When writing this majority opinion, these 7 justices disregarded the fact that citizens in California also can’t carry a handgun openly in California without a permit. According to Penal Code 26350, the open carrying of both loaded and unloaded handguns in public is illegal.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/06/10/why-the-ninth-circuits-concealed-carry-gun-ruling-is-nonsense/#50d2300938b9

...the 9th circuit has a reversal rate of 77%!!!!!! Okay let me say it again %77 reversal rate, almost 4/5th of decisions are reversed. Wow, just wow. Again, I figured to share this here because this demonstrates the bias or incompetence within the 9th circuit.

You are probably misinterpreting this figure. It probably means to say that 77% of all 9th circuit decisions that are later reviewed by the Supreme Court are reversed. So 77% is not necessarily a high number, it is to be expected. Remember that the Supreme Court only accepts 1% of all cases that request a review.

The justices on the Ninth Circuit can’t overrule the U.S. Supreme Court; it is their job to follow Supreme Court precedents. When questions haven’t been resolved by the high court, it is their job to interpret the language of the Constitution, not to dismiss language so plain any dictionary could have set them straight.

(I realize your entire post is quoting the article, so I'm just responding to the article, not to you). Technically, the 9th Circuit can do whatever it wants. They are supposed to follow precedent but they diverge all the time when their personal prejudices compel them to. They've even dared to issue rulings explicitly stating that they abolish or modify the 1st or 2nd amendment. Unless the Supreme Court reverses those decisions, they stand.

Sort of similarly, juries can also do anything they want, even though they aren't supposed to. If they want to, they can let a murder that has been recorded on video go unpunished, etc. The term for that is apparently "jury nullification."

I am not misrepresenting the figure, that figure is straight from the Governor here in Arizona. Link to PDF:

http://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/governor/documents/9thcircuitletter.pdf

That governor's description is not clear. Here's a slightly better link:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

The 9th Circuit is indeed the worst out of all the circuits, it's just that the 80% number doesn't quite mean what you think it does.

I am not misrepresenting the figure, that figure is straight from the Governor here in Arizona. Link to PDF:

http://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/governor/documents/9thcircuitletter.pdf

I'm not defending the Ninth Circuit in any way, but the "reversal rate" (includes "vacate" decisions) only applies to the cases adjudicated by the Ninth Circuit that are appealed to SCOTUS, and that SCOTUS grants cert to (i.e. agrees to hear arguments and rule on). That number, the percentage of which you cite as reversals, is precisely because those cases granted cert are most likely the ones that the court suspects may have been wrongly decided. As we just saw with Peruta/Richards, the vast majority of the cases the Ninth Circuit votes to take en banc (similar to SCOTUS granting cert) are taken in order to reverse them. Did anyone think chief judge Thomas, after writing the dissent in the original three judge panel Peruta decision, asked for an en banc vote in order to uphold a ruling he vehemently opposed? The other federal circuits have "high" rates of reversal at SCOTUS as well. The rates of reversal for the various circuits range from a couple at around 56% to most in the high 60% to low 70% range. Given those numbers, the Ninth reversal rate is "only" about 10 to 40% greater (range 55.3 to 75%).

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

None of this has any bearing on the preposterous "reasoning" in Peruta determining that there is no right at all protected by the Second Amendment to bear arms concealed in public... as if they'd find a right protected by the Second Amendment to bear arms openly in public. That ain't gonna happen... unless they say "Yes, there is a Second Amendment protected right to bear arms openly in public but that right is not infringed by requiring licensing with so many hoops and expenses that it is de facto a ban on open carry". I guess we'll have a chance to find out in the fairly near future (that in "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals time", of course) as Nichols finally gets heard.

Here is a video of sheriff Mims of Fresno County (shall issue upon declaration of "self protection" as "good cause") giving her take on the Peruta decision. One thing I noted was that she stated that she hoped the department, by next year, would have the complete CCW application process online "so you wouldn't have to come in". Can you get any further away from Hawaii than that? (When I wrote a detailed letter of inquiry to the Hilo PD asking for the specific rationale justifying why various federal and state government agencies mail my passport, birth certificate, social security card, drivers license, etc. and private corporations mail credit cards, etc. but I have to drive all the way to Hilo between 9Am and 3PM Monday through Friday to pick up my annual long gun permit when it is ready, the well-thought-out answer I received was "It's always been done that way". Thanks for that "explanation of the reasoning supporting the policy".)  :wtf:I also noted that she used the (now) politically incorrect term "criminal element". Perhaps she's ignoring the Obama Justice Department memo forbidding that word in favor "justice system involved individuals".

Here is a video of sheriff Mims of Fresno County (shall issue upon declaration of "self protection" as "good cause") giving her take on the Peruta decision. One thing I noted was that she stated that she hoped the department, by next year, would have the complete CCW application process online "so you wouldn't have to come in". Can you get any further away from Hawaii than that? (When I wrote a detailed letter of inquiry to the Hilo PD asking for the specific rationale justifying why various federal and state government agencies mail my passport, birth certificate, social security card, drivers license, etc. and private corporations mail credit cards, etc. but I have to drive all the way to Hilo between 9Am and 3PM Monday through Friday to pick up my annual long gun permit when it is ready, the well-thought-out answer I received was "It's always been done that way". Thanks for that "explanation of the reasoning supporting the policy".)  :wtf:I also noted that she used the (now) politically incorrect term "criminal element". Perhaps she's ignoring the Obama Justice Department memo forbidding that word in favor "justice system involved individuals".

It is a chicken  shit answer to you law abiding citizens. The real answer the dept. wants to give is that "We don't want you to own any guns so we make it as hard as possible so that we can deter firearms ownership amongst law abiding citizens."
They forget who the criminals are.

Here is a video of sheriff Mims of Fresno County (shall issue upon declaration of "self protection" as "good cause") giving her take on the Peruta decision. One thing I noted was that she stated that she hoped the department, by next year, would have the complete CCW application process online "so you wouldn't have to come in". Can you get any further away from Hawaii than that? (When I wrote a detailed letter of inquiry to the Hilo PD asking for the specific rationale justifying why various federal and state government agencies mail my passport, birth certificate, social security card, drivers license, etc. and private corporations mail credit cards, etc. but I have to drive all the way to Hilo between 9Am and 3PM Monday through Friday to pick up my annual long gun permit when it is ready, the well-thought-out answer I received was "It's always been done that way". Thanks for that "explanation of the reasoning supporting the policy".)  :wtf:I also noted that she used the (now) politically incorrect term "criminal element". Perhaps she's ignoring the Obama Justice Department memo forbidding that word in favor "justice system involved individuals".

sad...... Some places in California is actually much better than the state and counties of Hawaii for law abiding citizens.  Too bad this State continues to side with CRIMINALS and keep it's population under boot heel.  Best thing to do is to VOTE this November, and VOTE for candidates who will restore your RIGHT to armed self defense.  Please contact the runners and your current representation, and ask them if they will ACTIVELY pass "SHALL ISSUE" laws in the next legislative session.  If they will not, then let them know they WILL NOT GET YOUR VOTE!