9th Circuit Court Strikes Major Blow to 2A, Upholds CA’s ‘Good Cause’ Requirement

Carrying concealed. (Photo: Hegshot 1987)

Carrying concealed. (Photo: Hegshot1987)

American citizens have no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in public, according to the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court.

The Court on Thursday upheld California’s “good cause” requirement, which gives county sheriffs discretion to determine if a concealed carry applicant has “good cause” to carry a firearm. Personal safety does not qualify.

“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we 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,” Judge William A. Fletcher wrote for the majority.

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

The suit was originally brought by Edward Peruta, a journalist who says he needs to carry a gun to protect himself. He—along with several additional plaintiffs—said the “good cause” requirement violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit initially upheld Peruta’s suit, striking down the “good cause” requirement. But then, as Breitbart reported, under pressure from State Attorney Kamala Harris, the court announced it would re-hear the case with all 11 judges present.

The full court upheld the California law 7-4, striking a major blow to gun-rights activists fighting state and local laws they believe (and we believe) violate the Second Amendment.

In her dissent, Judge Consuelo M. Callahan said the Second Amendment demands individuals be permitted to carry a weapon in self-defense under the Second Amendment, either openly or concealed. California’s ban on open carry, she argued, effectively eliminates the ability of California residents to carry firearms for self-defense.

According to the Wall Street Journal, gun-law experts, Second Amendment scholars, and others believe the constitutionality of concealed carry laws will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has so far turned away several opportunities to take up the issue.

If, however, an anti-gun president is able to appoint another anti-gun justice and the court does decide to take up the case, the 9th Circuit’s decision sets a worrisome precedent for the future of concealed carry.

A 5-4 decision against gun rights would enable anti-gun state legislatures to pass laws that ban the possession of weapons outside the home. It would strip Second Amendment protections on the carrying of firearms for self-defense, and enable state and local authorities to continue to erode all other firearms rights.

“The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here,” Fletcher concluded. “We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas joined Fletcher’s lead opinion, along with Judges Harry Pregerson, Susan Graber, Margaret McKeown, Richard Paez and John Owens.

Judge N. Randy Smith, Judge Carlos Bea, Judge Consuelo Callahan and Judge Barry Silverman dissented.

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over four years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco. Follow him on Instagram @bornforgoodluck and email him at jordan@gunsamerica.com.

{ 57 comments… add one }
  • spatin July 29, 2018, 3:17 pm

    Let’s get Judge Kavanaugh on the bench first. Then take this issue to the Supreme Court. I think I know how it will come out.

  • Patriot September 24, 2016, 7:58 pm

    The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court always has an asinine opinion on matters pertaining to guns and the reason for that is the fact that most members of the court are biased Democrats. Being in California, the court is obviously biased by radicals such as Gov. Brown, politicians Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer who make ludicrous, rediculous statements about the Second Amendment and should be VOTED OUT!!! Other idiots such as Bloomberg who contrived with news anchor Katie Couric to present the news in a way that would make pro gun people seem to be confused and stupid, Soros who is a friend of Hillary and a gun control comrade, Attorney General Maura Healey of Massachusetts who dictated that some common guns are illegal, Sen. Harry Reid of Arizona who was Democrat Senate Majority Leader and refused to hear Republican legislation, Gov. Brown of Oregon, and of course, Tim Kaine who was selected to be the Vice President candidate by Hillary, Obama, Hillary, Billy and Chelsea.

    I have never understood why the people of California elect idiots such as Gov. Brown, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. Maybe they like having their Constitutional rights taken away by idiots and the obnoxious members of the Court. Maybe someday the people of California will see the light and elect people who believe in the Constitution and Second Amendment !!!

  • noduty2submit June 13, 2016, 11:51 am

    “American citizens have no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in public, according to the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court.”

    Of course that’s TRUE! We have the RIGHT TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS!!! (not “carry”)

    Carry? I’m not carrying anything!

    That Glock 17 in my pocket is the side-ARM that I lawfully, and Constitutionally BEAR. I don’t have a contract to “CARRY” or to engage in the actitivies of a “CARRIER.”

    A nurse — nurses, a plumber — plumbs, an accountant — accounts, so a CARRIER — CARRIES. And the ALL NEED LICENSES!

    But the man that lawfully BEARS his ARMS is protected by the CONSTITUTION.

    IT’S TIME TO KNOW THE TRUTH: They didn’t take your rights! You gave them away! Now given them back their privileges and take back your rights!


  • Jay June 12, 2016, 9:23 am

    “We The People” is clear and concise, it says what it says and does not say anything else! The American government has been working hard for many years useing the oldest and most note worthy war tactic of all time, Divide and Conquer. We are seeing the result of years of work on it today. The amendments in the Our Constitution repeatedly reiterates “the people” making it even more clear to those who would say of think otherwise. The same people will scream from the roof tops for their rights of free speech, religion etc…. as an individual right but when it comes to the second amendment it does not pertain to “the people” as an individual right, even though it again says, “the people”. No one has to be some make believe scholar to understand the US government is anti constitution because it is the only thing that limits their power and keeps Americas control in the hands of the people. Unfortunately Apathy has brought us here and sadly it will probably take as Jefferson said:”The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” If gun sales since obama was elected says anything, looks like many citizens are getting ready!

  • Ross Walters June 11, 2016, 9:40 pm

    Let’s lay the blame squarely on the people responsible – the police.
    They are the ones who are denying law-abiding citizens their 2nd Amendment rights by refusing to issue carry permits.
    The Courts are simply backing them up. Hey…they’re all part of the same criminal-justice system ala…mi amigos.
    And yes, you can move to a gun-friendly state. Or you can carry anyways and take your chances with the law.
    But that doesn’t change the fact that when government (cops/courts) can and will deny our rights merely on the supposition we will abuse those rights we have become the founding fathers worst nightmare.
    Even in a case like this where majority of other states are shall-issue states and virtually zero problems have been encountered from the lawful CCW crowd the police refuse to be reasonable because, because, because – well because they can.
    I’m not a cop-hater (really) but I know who the opposition is.

  • Kurt June 10, 2016, 11:22 pm

    The attorney’s seem to continue tripping over the same points. In the end the opinion of a few individuals (judges) sets the course for millions.

    I see advertisement after advertisement regarding class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies for negligence. Where are the advertisements to sue the law enforcement agencies and government bodies for the same?

    By limiting an individual’s ability to protect themselves they implicitly or explicitly take on the responsibility for the safety of all individuals. Anyone who has been robbed, assaulted, or lost friends or family due to the failure of law enforcement to maintain safety for all has a case and needs to find an attorney immediately!

  • scpatriot June 10, 2016, 10:32 pm


    Guns America should fire you for even hinting that the ruling was semi-Second Amendment, using language of “good cause.” If they keep you, you should change your name to “Guns California.”

  • darrenp1976 June 10, 2016, 7:35 pm

    I am so worried and almost afraid that Hitlery May actually get in. It’s obvious the elites do not want Trump in they may just appoint her. This act of the 9th circuit court is EXACTLY what she (Hitlery) needs as a firm stepping stone for her next act. With the open spot on SCOTUS and her agenda for the 2nd amendment We all should be worried my friends. This is no good. Pray for OUR COUNTRY.

  • Ernesto Rodriguez June 10, 2016, 6:56 pm

    Let\’s just avoid liberal California!!!

  • ej harb June 10, 2016, 4:32 pm

    So how does a appeals court trump 2 scouts rulings on 2a? Maybe we need to find a appeals court to overturn gay marriage and baby killing ?
    This toilet of a nation really needs flushing!

    • Methadras June 10, 2016, 6:48 pm

      @ej harb,

      the 9th circuit is the most overturned circuit court in the country. This will go to SCOTUS and they will overturn this ruling. They know it and simply do not care.

    • Mark N. June 15, 2016, 2:58 am

      This decision does not “trump” the two SCOTUS decisions to which you impliedly refer, as neither of those two decisions talked at all about concealed carry, or for that matter bearing arms outside the home–that was left for the future. So this new decision is not even on the same page. Further, if you’ve read Heller, you will find discussion in Scalia’s majority opinion about historic bans on concealed carry dating back to the early 19th century, all of which were found to be, by each of the state supreme courts in question, to be lawful and constitutional, since none of those laws forbade the open carry of handguns and long arms. These old cases may fall into Scalia’s “presumptively lawful” restrictions on the 2A.

      What the Ninth Circuit failed to do–as demonstrated by the lead dissent– was to consider the question in the broader context of California’s gun control laws, and in particular the state-wide ban of open carry of firearms, loaded or unloaded, in all incorporated cities and towns (with a long list of exceptions for police, blah blah blah blah). Instead, and in order to reach the conclusion we all knew was coming a year ago, the court narrowly drew the question it was to answer, which they decreed was whether a “good cause” limitation on the issuance of a CCW, standing alone, was unconstitutional. Given Heller, and the apparent constitutionality of concealed carry bans, it had no difficulty in so finding.

      But this is not a major blow to the 2A as the article assumes, as it opens the door to an attack on the open carry ban. The old cases were quite clear: CC bans were allowed as long as there were still ways that citizens could exercise their second amendment rights. Californians are now barred from doing so, at least if they live in those counties that are “no issue” or “essentially no issue” (meaning the well connected and those who carry large amounts of cash get them, but not anyone else). Under California law, CCWs are not issued by the state, but by the sheriff of the county where one resides; and many rural sheriffs, as well as the sheriff of Sacramento County, are “virtual shall issue” who accept “self-defense” as good cause for issuance. And of course, those CCWs are valid state wide. But for SF and LA, good luck, and thus most are barred from exercising their rights. The 2A cannot be read as guaranteeing the right for some but not most.

      And if the open carry ban is stricken, the vehemently anti-gun Legislature will be stuck with allowing open carry everywhere or changing the CCW issuance policy to allow all law-abiding citizens to exercise their 2A rights. Now THAT will be an interesting occasion.

  • Erick June 10, 2016, 3:32 pm

    Not sure why my comments aren’t showing up. Website glitch (maybe on my end?) or moderator deleting them? I most certainly am not violating any posting rules, or even holding an anti-2A opinion….hmmm weird. Will try again later.

    • Erick June 10, 2016, 6:16 pm

      Gah, well NOW my comments show up. Maybe it’s my slow internet.

  • David June 10, 2016, 3:28 pm

    I’m intrigued by the language of the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public.” Let’s place the same reasoning into the first amendment: “The FIRST Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to MAKE A SPECIFIC UTTERANCE in public.” Or alternately, “The FOURTH Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to BE FREE FROM RANDOM SEARCH in public.” Or even, “The SIXTH Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN UNDER CRIMINAL CHARGES.”
    In any or all of the above, like the 2A argument made by this court, safety is the controlling issue. Recently, the mayor of San Jose suggested Donald Trump is culpable for violent responses of anti-Trump protesters in his town. Using the 9th’s reasoning, the Trump campaign or the Clinton campaign or even the Johnson campaign reasonably could similarly be banned from San Jose under color of local ordinance, or even executive fiat, as was the root issue in the subject case.
    I guess for now, the word ‘freedom’ as conventionally understood by the founding fathers is now replaced by de facto government’s superseding interest of public safety.

    • Mark N. June 15, 2016, 3:07 am

      Well, gee, the First Amendment has long been held to be subject to “reasonable regulation” as to time place and manner of expression, and it is still a crime to foment riot or to conspire to commit a crime. Hate speech may be banned, as can taunting. So try again. You are generally free from random search, but that is not what the amendment says: it says we have a right to be free from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. That word “unreasonable” puts some pretty serious limitations on the right. Strike two. The due process clause is not found in the Sixth Amendment, although there are some due process rights afforded, such as the right to trial by jury in criminal (but not civil) cases, and to require live testimony of witnesses against you, plus the power of subpoena to bring in any witness you choose, and a right to be informed of the charges against you. Not much meat there. Strike three. And Justice Scalia stated quite clearly in his majority opinion in Heller that the second is sbject to some restrictions, such as the loss of the right by felons and the mentally ill, a ban on carry in federal buildings, and assorted undefined “other” restrictions.

  • Erick June 10, 2016, 3:24 pm

    With this (moronic) logic concerning the Second Amendment, why stop there? Apply this (il)logic to all the other rights too.
    After all, the First Amendment contains no words of “individual” or “individual right(s)” in it….so lets require people to have a “Good Cause” for these rights too. We must remember that people may say offensive things which can cause others to go berserk and riot!
    Are you speaking out against government with ‘good cause’? NO? You didn’t have a proper permit or license for disagreement and dissent?? Well, sorry sir, please shut up and be timely on your court date b/c you’re not meeting the requirements!
    Due process? Speedy trial? Fifth Amendment? Must have a ‘good cause’ for that too, b/c after all, most people accused of crimes are guilty! We must prove our innocence….how dare we uphold a principle of accusers proving guilt! They don’t need those petty protections that the Fifth Amendment provides unless there is a “good cause” for it!
    Oh, I would make a fantastic dictator….just like some of those Black Robed Tyrants sitting behind the benches.

  • FRED BATTLEY June 10, 2016, 2:34 pm

    Since in the “Kommunist State of Kalifornia” you can’t concealed carry and it’s illegal to open carry and you can only have a weapon in your vehicle while traveling to or from a gun shop,gun range or to a hunting location this is and out right ban on possession of a firearm out side of your home !!!!! We can only hope the “big one” hits soon and knocks the 9th Circuit and it’s Cult like follower’s into the Pacific !!!! LOL

    • Mark N. June 15, 2016, 3:12 am

      Umm, not true. You can get CCWs in this state, just not in the Bay Area, LA, San Diego, and for some unknown reason Imperial County. Some counties arebdifficult but not impossible, and quite a few are “virtual shall issue.” You can open carry loaded in pretty much all state and federal forests and lands, which is just about 90% of the state. The only thing that is true is that without a CCW you cannot legally carry in any incorporated city or town.

  • Scott Syverson June 10, 2016, 1:53 pm

    If citizens have no rights to carry concealed weapons, by extension, they have no rights to open carry. Therefore, citizens have no rights to carry any weapon. The ridiculous reasoning offered by the court says we have no right to defense outside the home. So how then, does one obtain a legal weapon for home defense? How then does one transport a weapon purchased for home defense from a vendor to the location of home defense? What this reasoning implies is that its okay for you to have a gun on your premises, but the police can confiscate it at any point until you get it home because you are either illegally caring a weapon in your control concealed (in a car trunk for instance) or openly. So you can buy guns, you just can’t have them in possession in public. Are FFLs making home deliveries after purchase in California? That’s the only way this new legal reasoning will work.

  • Tommy Barrios June 10, 2016, 1:43 pm

    This is WHY the next POTUS is SO IMPORTANT!
    The next POTUS will appoint at least two new judges to the US Supreme Court and maybe five in total!
    Even though in a perfect Federated Republic this should not make a difference, the past illegal legislative actions of the SCOTUS have shown a proclivity to ignore the law and the Constitution and rule on personal emotion and ideology, which the Founders warned against vehemently in tomes of writings!

  • ReasonableVoice June 10, 2016, 12:40 pm

    Second Amendment right “does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public”.
    Replace “general public” with “people’s militia” and it is a whole different story.
    And the people’s militia is not required to be “well-organized” like the state militias (or rather portions of which) may be called to service by the Federal government. Read Heller.

    Ever since Heller, attorneys seem to ignore militia purposes in favor of self-defense purposes. Switch and bait.

    • DocLoch June 13, 2016, 7:15 pm

      You’re right! And worse yet! The Heller v. D.C. is not going to help in this instance. People actually think that there are still good people in government. The late Antonin Scalia was not that. In his majority decision he states: “The second amendment is subject to reasonable restriction.” Even if the other amendments are, this amendment plainly states “shall not be infringed.” Thus it is exempt from ANY restriction whatsoever! Therefore, either Justice Scalia was either grossly ignorant (and thus had NO business being a supreme court justice) or he was Knowingly traitorous and thus a criminal to these United States and still not fit to be a justice just like the rest of them. That statement in Heller v. D.C. will be the final blow to the defense against tyranny. Call it a prophecy if you will!

  • Donald Ajello June 10, 2016, 12:16 pm

    If the Law is Changed a d our right to Carry is taken away, What do u think Will happen. I believe the people will take to the streets in Protest, And Civil Unrest will, And possible Civil War. The People Will Not Let This Happen. Mark my word. You Law Makers Watch What U Wish For!!!!!!!!

    • Chris June 12, 2016, 12:13 am

      Won’t happen because people are too lazy to do anything about it. Who’s gonna protest?!? The illegals or the fucking idiot liberals. Any firearm company doing business in California shoold be boycotted against

  • Grant Stevens June 10, 2016, 11:43 am

    The Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land. Any law, judicial ruling, executive order or bureaucratic regulation that infringes upon the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms is null and void. And until we the people begin holding our “public servants” to their oath of office, our hard-won Constitution will continue to be eroded away. There can be no “reasonable” compromise on this unalienable right, and no quarter given tyrants who seek to disarm the American people. The tree of American liberty is in dire need of refreshing.

  • ron June 10, 2016, 11:43 am

    .As soon as I heard about this I thought “Well that’s the end of all the gun violence in Chicago.” Now none of the gang members will be able to carry concealed.
    Is this a great country of what? How can these morons even be allowed on the bench?

  • ampat June 10, 2016, 11:33 am

    the good cause is dumbass politicians for are in the pockets of those foreign entities who want America destroyed. that ladies and gentlemen is why the 2nd amendment is where it is. our founding fathers knew the dangers a democracy faced when people became dependent on the government. stupid people elect stupid people who have no principals.

  • Gordo June 10, 2016, 11:32 am

    There should be a nationwide campaign by gun owners, gun clubs and other pro gun organizations to get out the word that “if you own a firearm, do not vote for a Democrat for any level of office.” If Hillary gets elected, she will probably nominate Kamilla Harris for the Supreme Court.

    • Damon June 10, 2016, 5:03 pm

      You wish we would be so lucky for HRC to nominate Harris. What is far more likely is that she would nominate Obama.

  • Eric Stevenson June 10, 2016, 11:03 am

    First off I have to say that I’m more than just disappointed with this ruling but I just can’t for the life of me understand why we would want to let people with gender identity issues in restrooms of the opposite sex but now we can’t even arm ourselves for protection from the ones that have serious mental issues. Now I’m sure MANY will disagree with what I’m about to say but I still have to say it, as a responsible gun owner I see NO PROBLEM with requiring background checks for EVERY gun sale including private sales and here is why. 1. It releases me of all responsibility if a crime is later committed with that weapon. 2. I have the piece of mind knowing I didn’t sell it to a person that according to the law is NOT allowed to own or possess firearms and their by allowing me to keep my right to keep and bear arms. I really hate to say this but I foresee a time in the possibly near future that we might have a new internal war in the United States that will change our country forever. We have become so government run and controlled and this is the exact reason that the second amendment even exists in the constitution. It allows the people to rise and save this country from oppression and a communist state. However, this brings into light the real issue and that is that we are no longer a United set of states and once we allow some states to violate the highest laws and founding principals that established the United States of America we have opened a door that cannot be closed. To question the Constitution also pulls in the Bill of Rights and Civil Rights and allows the lines to become so blurred that we cannot see the true nature and reason these laws where even implemented to begin with. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue once and for the 9th Circuit Court to try to enforce something else is unconstitutional. I think we should all join together and file a class action law suit against the entire state of California for violating the rights of it’s citizens and every other law abiding citizen that choses to arm and protect themselves under the 2nd amendment.

    • Victor June 10, 2016, 11:18 am

      I agree and this is well stated.

    • Chris June 10, 2016, 2:34 pm

      The major problem with full background checks is that it is completely unenforceable. And will not stop those with no criminal background who intend on violence. The left wing radicals know this and when it fails they will demand complete gun registration. Then they will demand liscenses for all, mandatory insurance, ammunition background checks. Basically the idea is to bury the right in soo much red tape it becomes a burden to own and carry firearms. Confiscation by legislation. Is it not alreay enough that its against the law to sell to a fellon? I dont agree that complete background checks are worth the effort on gun owners part.

    • Rick June 11, 2016, 7:41 am

      The 2nd amendment says nothing about any license to carry concealed or open, nor does it say you have to pass a background check and be databases. If you’re so willing to give up your privacy unwarranted just to buy a weapon, how about you post all your credit card numbers here along with you DL, Dob and Social security number… JJ

  • Bisley June 10, 2016, 10:49 am

    This is a result of Democrat presidents and senators packing the federal courts with leftist political hacks who impose their political ideology on us as law (and using every unscrupulous tactic available to prevent any other sort of judges from being confirmed) — and the failure of the Republican leadership to either oppose the nominations of these unfit judges, or fight for the confirmation of good ones. The leadership establishments of both major political parties need to be broken — these corrupt idiots are destroying the country in the attempt to maintain and expand their power.

  • frog June 10, 2016, 10:29 am

    Before getting our collective panties in a hopeless wad it is useful to remember that the 9th is the most commonly overturned circuit court of appeals . However, any hope disappears with a Hillary victory.

  • Tom Reigle June 10, 2016, 10:12 am

    I wonder why this same level of concern is not applied to such subjects as:
    1. The unreasonably high cost of gasoline and the arbitrary fluctuation of gasoline prices which usually coincide with such annual events as vacations, holidays, and other events which would merit a higher purchase of gasoline to maintain our inbred need for “convenience” and “instant gratification” matter what the cost. Is it not the judgement of the Almighty Oil Industry to decide for us how much and for how long do we pay for their profit margins??
    2. The same argument for consumables such as food, clothing, and shelter, things which we all need but we all DON’T need in the mega-millions of dollars of cost over the long run. I am living in a 700 sq. ft. cottage rental which, for my present requirements, suits me fine. I am living in an area of the country where the price of land, with or without improvements are gauged in so many dollars per sq. ft. !! I buy according to my budget, a well balanced diet of food from the stores offering the lowest prices when I need their services. I also buy clothing when I NEED clothing, not when the styles change or some new fad dictates that I swap out all of my otherwise good clothes to meet the new demands on “chic”. We seem to wallow in the waste that we create for the sake of style and glamor, gals, no matter what you buy or how much you have to pay for it, you will still be AS FAT AS YOU ALLOW YOURSELF TO BE, AS BEAUTIFUL AS YOU ALLOW YOURSELF FOR BE BOTH INNER AND OUTER BEAUTY, AND YOU WILL STILL LOOK GOOD IN WHATEVER YOU PLACE ON YOUR BEAUTIFUL BODY NO MATTER IF IT IS IN STYLE OR NOT!!! …….. THIS APPLIES TO MEN ALSO IN EQUAL TERMS!!!
    3. Not to belabor the “high cost of” tagline, but the cost of keeping all of us healthy. I wonder what the overall health of this country would be like if we still tilled our own little gardens in the summer and raised a few chickens and kept a cow for milk?? Yeah, it wouldn’t be all that good because we have left our “health” up to the Supreme Pharma and its influence on our government to plan and maintain with mind altering and body altering drugs which, on the surface, may minimize the damage done by some virus or other microbe but, the alternate options, as stated in the “don’t take this drug if you suffer from (insert a dozen different maladies here) or are exposed to (insert a dozen different conditions here) or have a tendency to (insert a dozen different causal effects on your body including addiction, sickness from the effects of taking the drug, or death here)! They as much as tell us up front that you may well die as a result of taking this high priced drug for your migraine or allergy and people flock to their drug stores to buy this poison!!

    People squander untold millions of dollars on such irrationally inflated odds of personal gain as the LOTTERY. I can get more personal satisfaction out of “blowing” my paycheck each week if I donate it to a local food bank and then sign up for a food allowance through that bank. PLUS, a few other people who really need help would realize some level of benefit by my “senseless squandering” of my hard earned pay in this manner.

    I quote from the article above, “Fletcher concluded. “We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”” OK, so maybe that is true in the very strictest of interpretations, but I contend that, in the same level of interpretation, there is no place in the 2nd Amendment for members of the general public to NOT carry firearms in public! If the voting public will get back to using their God given right to rationalize the situation and to use their COMMON SENSE in reaching a conclusion to a problem instead of “leaving it up to someone else to decide”, we may well be in a much better place that the one in which we find ourselves now.

  • Chuck June 10, 2016, 9:55 am

    You can bet this will spread all up the left coast. These libtard, commie SOB’s never quit. Hopefully when Trump gets into office he will appoint some decent judges to the Supreme Court and stop this crap.

  • Parts Ed June 10, 2016, 9:40 am

    I wonder how this will play out here in Oregon and Washington-both run by Demcocrat Governors. Will they have the foresight to still allow conceal carry or will they just fold like a cheap tent and go along with what the 9th circus court ruled.

  • Tom Benton June 10, 2016, 9:37 am

    Does any rational individual think that a Court in San Francisco could objectively rule on a constitutional gun issue.
    The fore fathers never envisioned a country that would allow localities to foster rulings involving the entire nation
    counter to the Constitution. The Nation is now severely divided. San Francisco is the bastion of liberal socialism.
    They demand voting rights and free healthcare for ILLEGAL ALIENS. They defy federal law by proclaiming themselves
    A Sanctuary City for illegals. Did anyone think this ruling would not be against our rights. If this brazen disregard for the Constitution continues there will be a battle and the first shot will be fired with the Presidential Election. Clinton refused
    Last week to answer the question of whether Americans have the right to own firearms. She evaded the answer as she usually
    does. Does any supporter of the Constitution believe she will uphold firearms rights as President. Does anyone believe she will submitt an objective Supreme Court nomination. Choose your side wisely. If you do not vote for your rights in November you
    will have to fight for them.

  • William Martin June 10, 2016, 8:57 am

    The 9th Circuit Court is not a court of the people but a court of the power hungry ruling elite. They have time after time proven that their hearts are not with the people but with the ruling class in Washington. I’ll give you and example of how they would prefer that the common man not understand what they are doing. Take their use of the latin term “vel non” rather than the English term “or not”. It means exactly the same thing but when the common man reads it, he or she doesn’t understand it. It is impressive and obscure.

    Another example of the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court not being in the best interest of the general public is their ruling that the exposure standards set by The American Conference of Governmental Hygiensits (ACGIH) were too low. So, they caused the lower, more protective standards to be returned to the earlier, and less protective higher exposure limits. I ask you, is that in the interest of the workers or in the interest of the legislators who are receiving large sums of money from the industries who benefit from not having to spend money on the protection of their workers.

    If you expect the corrupt 9th Circuit Court to act in the best interests of the common man, you are deluding yourself.

  • rappini June 10, 2016, 8:46 am

    It’s the 9th Circuit what did y’all expect. We had better start praying the Trumpster gets to be POTUS. At least for a good appointment to SCOTUS and to keep Thunder thighs away from the White House.

  • Mark June 10, 2016, 8:43 am

    “A federal appeals court in San Francisco just ruled that people do not have the right to bear arms in public”

    Where else would one “bear” their arms other than in public? One doesn’t bear arms in their living room or bedroom, one “keeps” arms in those places. The Constitution States both keep AND bear. Obviously they are not the same thing. And it says that we have a right to both those things! Not one or the other.

  • Fedup June 10, 2016, 8:12 am

    I’m shocked!

    • GunFlint1 June 10, 2016, 8:28 am

      A pure Constitutional violation….Is California still part of the United States ? If not Good-bye, good riddance, we won’t miss you.

  • Ed June 10, 2016, 7:20 am

    As mentioned earlier, first no open carry, now controlled concealed carry. I teach CCW classes and CCW holders are not a threat to society. In fact, conflict avoidance is one of the most important parts of most lesson plans. Our Attorney General claimed this decision to be a great step for public safety. Actually the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment were the original documents for public safety. I feel now is the time to give up my home, let the bank have it. I will request political asylum in a free state. If only people knew history. This entire scenario looks like a scripted version out of the book. Gun Control and the Third Reich. Nothing good will come of this

    • Mike June 10, 2016, 8:58 am

      What you said is all true. The problem is California (and other gun grabber states) are not interested in public safety- Their only goal is to ban and confiscate guns. So any opportunity to add restrictions is taken regardless of public safety.

  • Edward June 10, 2016, 6:07 am

    Let me say at the start that I am not a lawyer. However, I have had to work with enough lawyers in my business that I’ve picked up a few nuggets of information from them. Here’s one: The San Francisco Court of Appeals is not surprisingly one of the most liberal courts of appeals in the nation. More importantly, their track record for having their ruling upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court, is one of the lowest in the nation. I mention this in case there is great concern over the recent ruling on concealed carry. One last nugget of information, their opinion is only applicable within the district over which the court has jurisdiction. In other words if you’re in Colorado, Kansas, Ohio, Texas, etc. you are not affected. In all likelihood the Court of Appeals ruling will be appealed to the Supremes.

    • Jon June 10, 2016, 7:57 am

      Some tidbits are true. The 9th Circuit Court is the most liberal and most overturned court in the nation. Personally, if I was on the 9th Circuit bench I would be very embarrassed. Anyhow I digress and that is a whole other issue. The decisions of the 9th Circuit are far reaching and applicable to every inch of United States territory the moment the Chief Justice of the Court puts his pen to paper. Meaning it is applicable to law enforcement entities (Cops Local and Federal, DA’s, Judges, etc) in all 50 states and all territories and can be used in all legal arguments and enforcement actions. Now, does this ruling really mean anything? Short answer is, No. Why? Well right off the bat the Court’s ruling is flawed on many levels but just to name one…The Court stated something to the affect that the 2nd Amend did not contain any guarantee of a “right for the common citizen” to carry concealed. So working on that logic where does the 2nd Amend give that “right” to law enforcement; 2nd) Although the decision is now the Law of the Land it has to be enforced. As we have seen in a whole host of issues facing America, obumer and his appointees can pick and chose to enforce or ignore our laws as can local law enforcement entities. Most jurisdiction are heavily pro or con on 2nd Amend issues already so the DA and Sheriff (highest elected official in every County of the US and therefore the top dog) will simply choose or not choose to add it to their calculations. 3rd) This will go before the Supreme Court. Since any good student of law enforcement issues knows this is likely they will be opposed to doing allot of work to incorporate changes based on the 9th Circuits decision that they might have to change again after the Supreme Court issues either their decision not to hear the case and let the ruling stand or they enjoin the case and hear arguments and eventually issue a decision pro or con. Although other cases have been petitioned to the Supreme Court they have not had such far reaching and broad discretion over the 2nd Amend. Just my thoughts after 30 years of law enforcement and this is just off the top of my head at 0530 hrs without coffee so I think with some good lawyers the 9th Circuits decision will be overturned and we can concentrate on the next attack on our liberties.

  • Ken June 10, 2016, 5:59 am

    That’s smart! Your taking our right to carry guns away from law abiding citizens so the bad guys will only have guns now! You can’t even pass one smart gun law to pass to make sure background checks are done 100% . This just shows our leaders stupidity!

  • Chief June 10, 2016, 5:24 am

    Did these appointed judges not swear an oath to the Constitution ? What do they not understand about .”Shall not be infringed upon”..The founders wrote it in easy to understand language so even complete morons such as these could understand it .Molon Labe!

  • Grumpus June 10, 2016, 5:09 am

    So, no open carry was already in place, and now no concealed weapon either. Does this not count as infringement? Of course it does. What can Californians do about this? NOTHING!

    • Mike June 10, 2016, 9:06 am

      What can Californians do? Stop voting for these gun-grabbing politicians. Kamala Harris was voted into office. All politicians are voted into office. Your county Sheriff is also an elected official.
      The problem is a majority of Californians are perfectly fine being victims and don’t have any plans to take responsibility for their own protection. Which leaves the rest of us in danger from both criminals and the State.

      • ReasonableVoice June 10, 2016, 10:22 am

        What can Californians do? OPEN CARRY.
        When actually exercising the right to bear arms in self defense (ie., aim and fire), that exercise necessarily requires open
        carry of a loaded firearm. “Constitutional rights protect the necessary prerequisites for their exercise.” 578 U.S. ____ (2016) Luis v. United States, No. 14–419.

        • Mike June 10, 2016, 9:55 pm

          Try open carry in California, you are going to have a bad day. It used to be legal to open carry an unloaded firearm in California. When some citizens began exercising that right, the state banned it. They got tired of paying out lawsuits when untrained police didn’t know how to handle a citizen who was acting legally but carrying an unloaded firearm.

  • OMCHamlin June 10, 2016, 4:19 am

    Well, okay then, there you go. Now, everybody make sure you keep screeching “Never Trump”, stay home on election day out of “principal” and/or go put a write in name as a protest (or just plain flat out go on and VOTE for Hillary!), so we can make sure we get a nice “Living Constitution” Liberal on the Supreme Court, so we can all cry, wail and lament about our new England/Europe style gun laws, m’kay???

    • Ed June 10, 2016, 7:22 am

      Your totally right.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend