Dreams dead 

As expected, but still disappointing -- Peruta v. San Diego Decision from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc review:
"[W[e conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public."
"The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. 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 en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: 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 by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered
that question.
The en banc court granted the motion to intervene by the State of California, which sought intervention after the San Diego Sheriff declined to petition for rehearing en banc following the panel’s decision. The en banc court held that under the circumstances presented here, California’s motion to intervene was timely."

Only other way now is Trump for President!

I guess they didn't want to take a chance on some randomly-selected district court judge ruling otherwise, so they didn't remand it down for a "do over".

Now that we know that concealed carry isn't a protected right (Hawaii "no issue" is perfectly Constitutional... you can "bear arms" in your house... same place you "keep" 'em), I can hardly wait for a million years until they decide if open carry is or isn't protected by the Second Amendment. Is anyone in doubt what that answer will be? [A hugely long string of swear words have been deleted.]

Oh, and a big thanks to the lawyers from NRA, SAF, etc. (Gura and Clement, et. al.) for agreeing in court that open carry can be banned or regulated to the de facto point of a ban and derailing the open carry cases (see Charles Nichols website).

We are still alive. In both Young and Baker we asked to carry either concealed or openly

Baker was based on this case standing so since it is killed off we are also. Let's face it we all know if we won they will still block it. Saying there is no training certificate for this so till we make one up no can do. Or some other BS.

We are still alive. In both Young and Baker we asked to carry either concealed or openly

When are you expecting what sort of ruling or movement on those cases?

A post from someone on the calguns forum who I believe is a California resident of a county with a de facto "no issue" policy:

I decided about a year ago that I was going to live by the motto "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". The ruling is a disappointment, as expected, but it won't change my daily routine.

When are you expecting what sort of ruling or movement on those cases?

A few weeks I am going to file a brief in Young in the next few days to show the difference between the two. 

If you want your rights to armed self defense, you better vote for people that will protect those rights.  These are the people who appoint these judges.

If you don't vote for 2A politicians, or you don't vote at all, you make this happen.  Get in the fight. Get active.  Do something.  Sitting around waiting does nothing to protect your freedom.

REMEMBER THAT.

Reading the opinion, there's about 8 pages referring to English law.... fucking amazing.

Credit to: yme2

Ninth District  in San Francisco the court of Nuts and Fruits where illegals get sanctuary and citizens get screwed.

Sad but I'm not surprised, it is the 9CA after all. Considering the 4-4 split on the Supreme Court, requesting cert won't do any more harm than this ruling has already done. Might as well as go for broke, because that is the ONLY way we here in Hawaii will EVER get shall issue concealed carry. Our Democratic super majority legislature will ensure that any "shall-issue" legislation absent a court ruling is dead on arrival.

Reading the opinion, there's about 8 pages referring to English law.... fucking amazing.

Not just English law, but 300, 400, and 500 year old English law. I don't see them quoting any of that stuff when they rule for gay marriage and "rights" for transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice. Go figure. It's almost as if they're cherry-picking when to use what where. You know, in order to uphold their oath to defend and protect the Constitution. 

When we will see a Hawaii county chief of police ever write a letter like this one from Fresno County sheriff Margaret Mims?



I'm sticking with my estimate of one million years.

Why is it closed? Can't it be taken to the supreme court?

Why is it closed? Can't it be taken to the supreme court?

Unless president elect appoints some judges that will actually uphold the constitution, get ready to surrender your firearms.

Why is it closed? Can't it be taken to the supreme court?

It can but the problem is SCOTUS is 4-4 right now, so it will just get sent back to the lower courts decision.

Unless president elect appoints some judges that will actually uphold the constitution, get ready to surrender your firearms.

I think you mean get ready to use your firearms

What impact does this ruling have on pro gun states within the 9th circuit? Arizona, Alaska, Guam, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Washington State all fall under the 9th. Thanks!

What ruling are you talking about?