U.S. Court of Appeals Upholds Concealed Carry Restrictions

Interesting portions highlighted in bold.

Appeals Court Upholds ‘Concealed Carry’ Restrictions
Federal court in California says Americans have no guaranteed right to carry concealed guns in public
By JOE PALAZZOLO
Updated June 9, 2016 5:11 p.m. ET

Americans have no Second Amendment right to carry concealed guns in public, a federal appeals court in California ruled on Thursday in a significant blow to gun-rights activists and gun owners in a large swath of the Western U.S.

The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 7-4 ruling, upheld a California law requiring residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun.

Under the California law, personal safety alone doesn't qualify as good cause, which is defined by county sheriffs. The plaintiffs, gun owners seeking licenses to carry their weapons concealed, said the policies in San Diego and Yolo counties where they live violated their Second Amendment rights.

“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,” wrote Judge William A. Fletcher, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, for the seven-judge majority.

Lawmakers are free to enact “any prohibition or restriction a state may choose” on the carrying of concealed guns, Judge Fletcher said.

A Second Amendment right to carry a firearm openly in public may exist, but the Supreme Court hasn't answered that question, Judge Fletcher wrote.

In dissent, Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, said the Second Amendment demands individuals be permitted to carry a weapon in self-defense under the Second Amendment, either openly or concealed.

With some exceptions, California law bans people from carrying guns openly, she wrote. She was joined in her dissent by three colleagues.

Taken together, the concealed-carry policies and the open-carry ban “obliterate the Second Amendment’s right to bear a firearm in some manner in public for self-defense,” she wrote.

The Ninth Circuit encompasses Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. The ruling aligns the court with three other regional appeals courts that have upheld good-cause requirements: the Second, Third and Fourth circuits. The Chicago-based Seventh Circuit ruled in 2012 that the right to bear arms “implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”

Many gun-law experts, Second Amendment scholars and others expect the law on concealed-carry outside the home ultimately will be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has so far turned away several opportunities to take up the issue.

The ruling Thursday comes on the heels of a May 16 ruling by the Ninth Circuit recognizing that the Second Amendment protects the right to buy and sell firearms, as well as the right to keep and bear them.

Thursday’s ruling marked a reversal for the Ninth Circuit. In 2014, a three-judge panel of the court held that the Second Amendment “does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”

But the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case, with more judges participating, upon the request of California Attorney General Kamala Harris. That rehearing before 11 judges led to Thursday’s 7-4 ruling.

The plaintiffs in the case include Edward Peruta of San Diego County, who was denied a concealed-carry licenses in 2009 for failing to show good cause.

The county defines the term as “a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way,” according to an affidavit filed by a county official in the case.

Mr. Peruta, a spot-news videographer based in Connecticut, said he hoped the ruling would draw attention to the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy at stake in the presidential election, as well as future ones.

“This ruling could not have come at a better time,” said Mr. Peruta, who described himself as a part-time resident of San Diego.

Ms. Harris said in an emailed statement that the ruling“ensures that local law enforcement leaders have the tools they need to protect public safety by determining who can carry loaded, concealed weapons in our communities.”

Yolo County has no definition of good cause but offers applicants examples of who may have it, such as a victim of documented threats of violence or a business owner who carries large sums of cash or valuables.

The Ninth Circuit majority traced concealed-carry licenses to 1299 England, when King Edward I told his sheriffs to prohibit anyone from “going armed within the realm without the king’s special licence.” The court also cited restrictions on carrying concealed weapons that several American colonies adapted from English law centuries later. After the U.S. Civil War, at least five state constitutions explicitly stated that the right to carry concealed weapons could be prohibited by the legislature.

“The carrying of concealed weapons was consistently forbidden in England beginning in 1541; was consistently forbidden in the American colonies; and was consistently forbidden by the states,” Judge Fletcher wrote.

Thursday’s decision inspired dueling narratives from the country’s largest gun advocacy groups, both of which filed briefs in the case.

Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said the ruling revealed the Ninth Circuit to be out of touch with mainstream Americans and could endanger Californians in counties with “hostile” sheriffs, he said.

“This decision will leave good people defenseless,” he said.

Elizabeth Avore, legal director for Everytown for Gun Safety, called the ruling “a major victory for public safety” and praised the Ninth Circuit for moving in step with at least three other federal appeals courts.

“The decision is well within the legal mainstream,” she said.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-carry-restrictions-1465483920

Overall, I think this is a great step. I always thought that concealed carry of firearms without having any more tangible reason than "because" is stretching the 2nd Amendment unreasonably far. Just like we have reasonable limits on our other rights (e.g. free speech, alcohol), so too must there be reasonable limits on carrying tools of destruction.

Sorry for California. Georgia doesn't give a fuck! Ans South Carolina is voting on (or maybe already passed) laws of repricocity saying Georgia concealed carry permit holders can be allowed to concealed carry in their state, mainly to appease people in SC who work in Georgia and vice-versa. Sorry to piss on your parade Chad - but thanks for playing! BTY only a very small percentage of concealed-carry holders commit crimes.....but....(wait for it) criminals packing guns under their shirts commit crimes 24/7. So this law will solve nothing of course.
Damn you anti-gun people are some deluded arrogant little crybabies!

You say this, but from a foreigner's perspective, it seems to be the gun owners who make the most noise. The second there's a gun thread on here you can pretty much guarantee all the pro-gun members will post in it and all will offer a variation of "don't take our guns" for several pages.

It's not that I think individuals seeking concealed carry permits are would-be criminals. Rather, I don't think that adding more concealed guns in public places is necessarily a good thing, especially when there is no standardized regiment of training or safety standards (i.e. the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment) that concealed carriers must go through as police go through.

Uh, as far as I know there is. It varies state by state for what the standards are, but then the same could be said for police training and testing.

How does this 'showing of good cause' work in practice? Do you need to show it to get a license of some kind, or prove it on the spot when caught with a weapon, or at some later point?

It's amazing how many of us so-called gun grabbers would be quite satisfied with current rules if only there were a training requirement. But that's an undue burden, slippery slope, naked attempt to grab guns, so it will never fly.

Most states that I'm aware of do have a training requirement.

For concealed carry, yes. I want it for any kind of gun purchase.

Is that correct that there are US states that have continuously banned concealed carry?

It probably depends on what is meant by that claim. A quick search finds that the first banning of concealed carry may have been in Louisiana in 1813. Most states passed such laws by the end of the 19th century. It really only became a thing in the past 20 years or so, as many states have rescinded restrictive laws in favor of "shall issue" which means in most cases the permit is available to anybody who complies with paperwork requirements.

I don't think that would be a horrible idea in theory, but the devil would be in the details. For instance, how much would the training cost? How many hours of training would be required? Would you have to have separate training for handguns and rifles? How often would you be required to re-take the training, etc.

you honestly think criminals are going to wail and weep and complain about the law?
really?
when one of those laws stop criminals from getting guns, keeping guns, using guns, then maybe those gun members will be silent

^^^
Shoes:

Yes, lots of details, something that legislative committees are excellent about figuring out. The process would be hearings, expert testimony, etc., but it's not impossible to develop some best practices. The goal isn't to keep people from buying and holding guns, but to make sure the gun is secured, used safely, etc.

Most Wordforge gun owners could probably write the list of best practices. It shouldn't be hard for a Congressional committee.

Do they make you retake your drivers test periodically?

No.

And motor vehicles crashes in the U.S. (virtually all due to driver error or negligence) kill more people annually and over the long term than firearms ever will.

One of the problems for me with this is that banning concealed carry eviscerates the deterrent value of firearms. With concealed carry, a criminal can never be sure a citizen may or may not have a firearm and be capable of lethal self defense. Thus they will be more likely to avoid direct confrontations with citizens.

Exactly right. Both activities should require far more training and re-testing. For example, I find it scandalous that there are licensed drivers who don't realize a hit and run is a felony.

About half of California (geographically) is effectively shall issue. You need a 'good cause' for a license, but sheriffs in many counties will accept 'personal self-defense' as a good reason. If you live near the coast, and you're a regular person, you won't get a license unless you're rich or well-connected. The 'good cause' requirement is, effectively, whatever the sheriff wants it to be. No chance for corruption there, eh?

The Supreme Court will ultimately decide it. But, even if the decision is ultimately that there is no right to carry (hard to explain the 'bear' part of the 2nd if there isn't some way to do so), most states will still make it legal to do so.

Incidentally, this SAME COURT, ruled in favor of the plaintiff and in favor of concealed carry rights a while back, in a 2-1 decision. The chief judge of this court arranged to have the earlier result thrown out and have the case reheard by the whole court. They retried it until they got the results they wanted.

Some states do, actually. Texas is one of them, IIRC from a few of my fellow sailors, and maybe @evenflow or @Aenea can confirm this.

And people don't see it as some sort of violation to enforce stricter guidelines for driving. Thirty years ago, you could drive piss ass drunk with no seatbelt for you and and your children and no insurance and it was all fine. Not the case anymore.

We also send problem drivers to safety courses when they fuck up, something that no sates, including the ones with some measurable restrictions on ownership require when a gun goes off at random.

Where was it you could drive drunk with no insurance in 1986?

Publishing contentious or incorrect ideas is dangerous, regardless of what the First Amendment says. It is the duty and responsibility of the states and/or the Fed to insure that all writers are properly trained, licensed, and kept track of in a database. And most ordinary citizens have no compelling need to publish anything, so they won't be able to get a license.

Hmmm . . . the argument seems less appealing that way, doesn't it?

Not really. It seems like a case of false equivalence.

My concerns aren't so much about how we'll figure out what the best practices are, as at what point do the requirements become so expensive/time consuming/frequent as to become onerous for would be gun owners.

If you have seriously -- not in training, but for actual need -- used your gun as often as your keyboard today, then your argument is spot on and utterly convincing.

Only because you don't value the right to keep and bear arms in the same way you do free speech.

I'm an Okie...just not from Muskogee.

Oklahoma does not have to retake the drivers test.

A quick Google search seems to be saying unless you are over 79, you do not have to retake the test in Texas.

Now if your license is completely out of date you have to pay a fine, but I'm not sure you even have to take a test then.


Edit: And as for my conceal carry license, I just have to pay every ten years for a new one.

I'm not sure if we ever passed the open carry, but I never would. That's just crazy to advertise to me.

For all my posts in this discussion, I'll refer you to all my posts in all the previous discussions on this topic. Carry on.

Both cases involve a Constitutionally protected right considered basic to the American experiment. You can't exercise prior restraint on either one.

Of course. But then one right is pretty much universally positive, while the other has both fewer uses and far more serious drawbacks.