9th Circuit Court says that the 2nd Amendment Does Not Protect Concealed Carry!

It’s happened in our lifetime. This may be the most serious attack on the 2nd Amendment that our nation has ever seen, and it has, of course, been ivered to us by the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It’s happened in our lifetime. This may be the most serious attack on the 2nd Amendment that our nation has ever seen, and it has, of course, been delivered to us by the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 9th Circuit opinion in Peruta v. San Diego (read the opinion here) was split 7-4, with the majority agreeing with the despotic state of California that the city of San Diego can indeed place almost limitless restrictions on the right of American citizens to protect themselves. The problem was a clause in the city’s decision-making process that forced citizens to supply “good cause” for requiring a permit. What is “good cause” you may ask? Whatever city officials say it is. Such a standard meant that for the vast majority of San Diego’s residents, a concealed carry permit was impossible.

This week’s ruling reinforces the government’s fascist grip on Californian’s 2nd Amendment RIGHT. Judge William Fletcher, writing for the majority said, “We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” The shocking ruling (which overturns a lower court ruling) means that the city of San Diego need not ever again issue a concealed carry permit.

Fletcher’s written opinion flies in the face of the lower court opinion, which found San Diego’s position untenable. “In California the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table,” the lower court argued. Speaking for the dissenting minority, Judge Consuelo M. Callahan agreed with the lower court ruling saying, 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,” Callahan argued.

Trending: The Jesus was a Socialist Lie

2ndIf nothing else, this ruling highlights that age-old argument for why conservatives should vote for a Republican: Judges. This case will likely be appealed, which will of course send it to the Supreme Court where the current court would like split 4-4 on the issues (meaning that the 9th Circuit opinion would stand). A Clinton appointed judge would definitely side with the liberal 9th Circuit and hand fascist gun grabbers a victory. A Trump appointee, however, might side with conservatives and the 2nd Amendment. If there is an argument for conservatives to give their vote to Trump… this is probably it.

If this ruling is affirmed by the Supreme Court it would open the door for similar anti-gun measures to pass across the country, leaving millions of Americans defenseless and stripped of one more of their God-given rights.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend