Carrying concealed weapons in public is not a 2nd Amendment right, says 9th Circuit ruling
..a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense. -- AP Mercury News
Of course some conceal carrying commenters from around the country are demanding to know, "What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE don't these people understand?!" They will follow that with how happy they are they don't live in California. (I'm happy you don't live here too Shootie McGlockface)
The people who are really happy with this development? The gun makers and the NRA. They are probably shooting the corks off of American sparkling wine tonight. This is good news for them.
The NRA will purposely misinterpreted this court's decision and combine it with the possibility of Hillary Clinton as President. It will become this quarter's hot PR campaign to sell more guns.
"Hillary Clinton and the activist judges in California are trying to take away your guns--and your 2nd Amendment rights. We must stop them! Send us your money now! Also, Obama is evil."
You see even though Obama didn't take away their guns, they still need to work that fear--it drives sales. Even the NRA admits it: “Obama Really Hasn’t Had The Opportunity To” Confiscate Guns"
With every comment by Hillary or a new tea leaf reading of a possible Supreme Court nominee, the NRA will pitch their standard story to the news media hoping for the headline they really want. "Gun sales are booming!"
They will use this 9th Circuit decision to get supporters in other states to say, "We don't need no stinking reasons, permits or even training like those Californians." or "We're doing just great with our no-permit, no-training conceal carry policies. Just use the measurements of success we want you to use."
Most people don't know how poorly trained and inexperienced some concealed gun carriers are. In 25 states people aren't even required to show they know how to shoot a gun to get a permit. In eight states, no permit or training is required at all to carry a concealed gun.
California officials have pointed to why allowing just about anyone to carry guns in public is a bad idea, they say it, "threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public."
The New York Times piece makes an important point.
The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to possess a weapon in their home. Thursday’s ruling centers on the next frontier in the gun-control debate.
“Probably the most important battleground of the Second Amendment has been whether there is a right to carry guns outside the home, and if there is, to what extent can states and localities regulate that right,” said Jonathan E. Lowy, the director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Carrying guns inside the home is considered fine, so the gun lobby went about redefining entire states as a gun toters' home castle.
They started with extending castle laws by making it legal to carry guns in new areas in public, as if those areas are equivalent to someone's home. Now they are removing the need for responsibility, competence, accountability and liability for concealed gun carriers walking out in public in these states.
This ruling upholds the states' ability to put restrictions on concealed carry, if a state doesn't have those rules now, the state can add them. Going forward we can compare what we learn in the grand experiment. What happens in states that have removed any standards for issuing permits or required training?
The NRA will start pushing stories where having and using a gun outside the home heroically saved the day. They will cite bogus statistics about all the cases guns were used for self-defense. "I opened up my jacket and showed him my gun and he ran away!" Not the accidents and misuse, "While waiting for my heroic day I opened my jacket and shot myself in the leg."
We know about numbers of tragic accidents with guns in the sanctity of people's homes, what about accidents and incidents with concealed carried guns out in public? What do we see from that data?
Time for some Gun Violence Archive searches!
Next, what do to with proof of the problems when more guns are legally put into the hands of non-criminal people without good reasons to carry, no knowledge of the law and no requirements for training in the use of a gun?
By the way, I'm not talking about the concealed carriers who have good reasons, who have trained with their guns, proved their competency and know their responsibilities. They are the kind of people who would do the right thing and more even without state requirements. They know that it is dangerous and stupid for states to get rid of these requirements. Now they will be lumped in with an entire new group of untrained, ill-prepared people who can now legally carry concealed guns.
It's one thing when they screw up with a gun in the sanctity of their home or car and injure or kill themselves. It's another when they are out in public, where my life is endangered while I'm out shopping, at the movies, having dinner, going to church etc. I'm sick of it.
Next week I'll look at why the costs of gun accidents and incidents out in public are downplayed or ignored.
