Support NeoGAF

[WonkyPanda]

Didn't see it posted; shoot me if old.

[T]oday’s Ninth Circuit decision in Peruta v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014), concludes that California’s broad limits on both open and concealed carry of loaded guns “impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.”

The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/

And

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/

The links have a great analysis of the the case itself, and the, appropriately so, pink elephant in the room known as Heller.

For the more legally inclined, here is the case itself: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf


I imagine an en banc hearing on the matter. However, i'd bet heavily that the SCOTUS will grant a writ of certiorari on the matter. The Circuits are all over the place on the actual contours of Heller.

 

[timetokill]

Seems like the correct ruling, thanks for posting the articles along with it as well. It will be interesting to see what actions the state takes in response.

 

[WonkyPanda]

Seems like the correct ruling, thanks for posting the articles along with it as well. It will be interesting to see what actions the state takes in response.

I think it'll be interesting how it pans out. Heller, in and of itself, is a very controversial ruling, and we're just now starting to see the boundaries of that decision take shape.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Seems like the correct ruling, thanks for posting the articles along with it as well. It will be interesting to see what actions the state takes in response.

No it doesn't

This is a ruling building on a new conservative reading of the 2nd amendment that did not exist previously.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

No it doesn't

Yes it absolutely does.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes it absolutely does.

The second amendment doesn't say states shall give you the right to carry weapons in public.

This ruling does. Its a crazy reading of the law

 

[Madness]

The second amendment doesn't say states shall give you the right to carry weapons in public.

Eh, that's the point of trying to view these laws, amendments, rights within modern day lenses no? People always have broad readings of the laws. It's why every decade or so, there's always new rulings, new challenges.

As it is, gun control or gun laws won't get anywhere unless it's at the federal level and applied uniformly to all states.

 

[Ripclawe]

The second amendment doesn't say states shall give you the right to carry weapons in public.

This ruling does. Its a crazy reading of the law

But it doesn't say that. The court said the state decide which way people can have guns (open or concealed) but not make it impossible not to bear arms. You already have the right, the state can't say no guns for you flat out.

 

[antonz]

The ruling is in fact the correct one but this isn't so much a ruling on California as a whole. This was more a ruling against the City of San Diego and its interpretation of the vague "Good Cause" clause.

"Good Cause" What is that? I bet you get 850 different answers from 900 people. It was a creative way for anti-gun activists to try and get a defacto ban on the books because they get to decide what is good cause.

Vague terms and such when inserted into laws are always trouble and are inserted for the express purpose of being exploited. It is good the court took a stand.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But it doesn't say that. The court said the state decide which way people can have guns (open or concealed) but not make it impossible not to bear arms. You already have the right, the state can't say no guns for you flat out.

First of all I think the state and impose restrictions that disallow certain guns and certain people from owning guns.

Secondly this decision says stated must allow either concealed or open carry. Its doesn't allow a state to say you can't carry in public

I also believe its contra heller (which I maintain was an incorrect decision) which said states can prohibit concealed carry

Eh, that's the point of trying to view these laws, amendments, rights within modern day lenses no? People always have broad readings of the laws. It's why every decade or so, there's always new rulings, new challenges.

As it is, gun control or gun laws won't get anywhere unless it's at the federal level and applied uniformly to all states.

I don't disagree we need federal law but the 2nd doesnt preclude state law limiting federal law.

 

[Dude Abides]

vague terms and such when inserted into laws are always trouble and are inserted for the express purpose of being exploited. It is good the court took a stand.

Yeah, like "unreasonable" search and "probable cause." The fuck are those supposed to mean?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah, like "unreasonable" search and "probable cause." The fuck are those supposed to mean?

The court says the word bare in the 2nd means 'to confront'.

They're reading what the want into the law

 

[Dead Man]

The second amendment doesn't say states shall give you the right to carry weapons in public.

This ruling does. Its a crazy reading of the law

It says what the state may not do, not what any person or state may do. I don't like the second as it is written, but trying to say it isn't saying what it says is a bit silly.

 

[remist]

The court says the word bare in the 2nd means 'to confront'.

They're reading what the want into the law

This court is only deferring to the Heller opinion(and also Ginsburg).

The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also
to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us
the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court
already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as
now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the
ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry
groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a
particular purpose—confrontation.” Id. The “natural meaning of ‘bear arms,’”
according to the Heller majority, was best articulated by Justice Ginsburg in her
dissenting opinion in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998): to “‘wear,
bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose
. . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (quoting Muscarello, 524 U.S. at
143 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.
1998)); see also id. at 592 (concluding that the Second Amendment “guarantee
the individual right to . . . carry weapons in case of confrontation&#8221.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It says what the state may not do, not what any person or state may do. I don't like the second as it is written, but trying to say it isn't saying what it says is a bit silly.

Well ignoring the first clause is an easy way to make the second amendment comport with the NRAs legislative goals.

 

[remist]

I'm at page 38 in the decision and it seems pretty solid. Heller does allow the ban of concealed carry, but it doesn't touch on whether state restriction of both concealed and open carry is an overreach. But all the cases Heller cites to justify the view that the second amendment is an individual right also take the view that the second amendment includes a right to carry outside the home in some manner. I encourage anyone criticizing this ruling to read the decision. The cases cited are pretty clear. I know some disagree with Heller itself, but given that it is a reality, this decision is a good one.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm at page 38 in the decision and it seems pretty solid. Heller does allow the ban of concealed carry, but it doesn't touch on whether state restriction of both concealed and open carry is an overreach. But all the cases Heller cites to justify the view that the second amendment is an individual right also take the view that the second amendment includes a right to carry outside the home in some manner. I encourage anyone criticizing this ruling to read the decision. The cases cited are pretty clear. I know some disagree with Heller itself, but given that it is a reality, this decision is a good one.

You have a link? On my phone.

I'm in disagreement with heller though but I'd love to read the reasoning.

I also disagree the Constitution guarantees the right to carry a weapon in public. Beyond the house.

 

[Dead Man]

Well ignoring the first clause is an easy way to make the second amendment comport with the NRAs legislative goals.

Ignoring the first clause? You mean the simple explanation of their intention? Doesn't do anything to change the statement of rights in the second part. It is written very broadly, intentionally I think. To get any binding change, it needs to be changed, which isn't going to happen.

 

[remist]

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ignoring the first clause? You mean the simple explanation of their intention? Doesn't do anything to change the statement of rights in the second part. It is written very broadly, intentionally I think. To get any binding change, it needs to be changed, which isn't going to happen.

I think the first part of the amendment clearly states they were attempting to prevent a standing army not grant a universal unassailable right to guns for all citizens

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf

Thanks I'll have a look tonight

 

[BuggyDClown]

Ugh. This sucks, I love walking around not seeing people carrying weapons on their hip, or worse not even knowing.

 

[Dead Man]

I think the first part of the amendment clearly states they were attempting to prevent a standing army not grant a universal unassailable right to guns for all citizens

Thanks I'll have a look tonight

Yep, that may have been their most pressing concern, but what they wrote after that is not just addressing that. If they wanted only that, they could have said just that. You can't use the writers intentions to ignore what was actually written, it just makes for fucked up rulings on every law if they are trying to discern intention rather than actuality.

 

[FLEABttn]

Yep, that may have been their most pressing concern, but what they wrote after that is not just addressing that. If they wanted only that, they could have said just that. You can't use the writers intentions to ignore what was actually written, it just makes for fucked up rulings on every law if they are trying to discern intention rather than actuality.

The second part exists because of the first part. You can't use use what isn't written to ignore what is actually written.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yep, that may have been their most pressing concern, but what they wrote after that is not just addressing that. If they wanted only that, they could have said just that. You can't use the writers intentions to ignore what was actually written, it just makes for fucked up rulings on every law if they are trying to discern intention rather than actuality.

Um. You look at their intent to see what the right actually guarantees

There are more ambiguous passages like the 14th which do change with the times.

 

[Dead Man]

The second part exists because of the first part. You can't use use what isn't written to ignore what is actually written.

I would say that would be what someone is doing if they think it doesn't mean the right to bear arms is pretty protected in almost every setting. You cannot use what isn't written about their intention to change what they did write.

Um. You look at their intent to see what the right actually guarantees

There are more ambiguous passages like the 14th which do change with the times.

Legally they may be able to all sorts of shit, but logically, if laws are interpreted based on intention it is a doomed enterprise. Write the shit to be exactly what you mean. Otherwise someone else will come along in a couple years and reinterpret it in a way you don't like and both of you will be arguing about bullshit that isn't what was written.

Edit: In the case of ambiguous language, courts may have no choice but to try to determine intent, that doesn't seem to be the case to me in the second. If somebody wrote a law saying 'In order to decrease road deaths, the national speed limit will be increased to 100mph' that wouldn't mean the speed limit wouldn't be 100mph when more deaths inevitably occurred. Very poor example, it's Sat and I'm hung over, sorry

 

[TAJ]

Welp... this is possibly the most disturbing news I've ever read.

 

[FLEABttn]

I would say that would be what someone is doing if they think it doesn't mean the right to bear arms is pretty protected in almost every setting. You cannot use what isn't written about their intention to change what they did write.

If being in a militia isn't important to bearing arms, I don't see why other amendments don't have similar restrictions.


It's an amendment that explicitly tells you why it exists, yet that's ignored.

 

[Dead Man]

If being in a militia isn't important to bearing arms, I don't see why other amendments don't have similar restrictions.


It's an amendment that explicitly tells you why it exists, yet that's ignored.

The why it exists is not describing WHAT exists though. It is a justification for the right that is stated afterwards. It doesn't change what is stated after, it simply provides part of their reasoning.

 

[FLEABttn]

The why it exists is not describing WHAT exists though. It is a justification for the right that is stated afterwards. It doesn't change what is stated after, it simply provides part of their reasoning.

Why be explicit in the what if it's not the why? The latter exists because if the former.

It's not a justification. It's the justification.

 

[boiled goose]

I dont disagree with the ruling on the specifics, but broadly the problem is that we do need regulation and are not getting any because of NRA lobbying. ie the right to bear arms doesnt mean you get to own a tank or a bazooka (or 100 round clips, not have background checks, or bullet ids, etc.).

Additionally, since when are were being strict about the constitution huh? the NSA is shitting all over the 4th amendment as is law enforcement.

Why is every ruling pro corporation, pro government power?

 

[Dead Man]

Why be explicit in the what if it's not the why? The latter exists because if the former.

It's not a justification. It's the justification.

Even if it is the only justification, it doesn't change the what. The latter may exist because of the former, but it is not the same thing. One is the reason for the thing, the other is the thing. A bad or narrow reason doesn't change the thing.

There are plenty of examples of the justification for a law not being the actual result of the law as it is written. In cases where the language is ambiguous, intention is important. In cases like this, it should be avoided as much as possible. Because situation X, we grant right Y. It doesn't matter what situation X is after right Y is stated and granted unless you are amending the law or right.

Fights over the semantics will lose, the energy would be better used getting some support for amending the fucking thing. That would take decades anyway, but these fights of the semantics will not result in long term success.

 

[Yaboosh]

Wait, the 2nd Amendment was never incorporated was it?


Just looked it up, guess it happened in 2010. Crazy.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Good. From what id heard of this, it sounded ridiculous.

 

[FLEABttn]

Even if it is the only justification, it doesn't change the what. The latter may exist because of the former, but it is not the same thing. One is the reason for the thing, the other is the thing. A bad or narrow reason doesn't change the thing.

There are plenty of examples of the justification for a law not being the actual result of the law as it is written. In cases where the language is ambiguous, intention is important. In cases like this, it should be avoided as much as possible. Because situation X, we grant right Y. It doesn't matter what situation X is after right Y is stated and granted unless you are amending the law or right.

Fights over the semantics will lose, the energy would be better used getting some support for amending the fucking thing. That would take decades anyway, but these fights of the semantics will not result in long term success.

Context always matters. If we're given the later because if the former, that's why we're given it. It's limited. The right doesn't state were given X, it states we're given X because Y. If fights over semantics will lose, why argue anything? If you have to be 18 to vote, why ever argue over the semantics over what or who makes you 18? You have the right to vote, 18 be damned apparently.

 

[Dead Man]

Context always matters. If we're given the later because if the former, that's why we're given it. It's limited. The right doesn't state were given X, it states we're given X because Y. If fights over semantics will lose, why argue anything? If you have to be 18 to vote, why ever argue over the semantics over what or who makes you 18?

There is no argument over when you are 18, or what 18 means though. So no semantics to argue.

Again, if a law was written where the justification for the law was not the only thing the law allowed, it wouldn't change what the law allowed. The correction for a poorly written law is to amend it, not try and make it say something that is a debatable interpretation. A clear law will endure, one that has been reinterpreted will be re-reinterpreted later.

And it doesn't state we are given x because y, it states because of x, y. Different things. But even if it did say that, it doesn't change y.

 

[remist]

Why be explicit in the what if it's not the why? The latter exists because if the former.

It's not a justification. It's the justification.

That argument cuts both ways. Why doesn't the amendment explicitly say "the militias have the right to keep and bear arms"? Instead it uses the phrase "the people", which used the 1rst and 4th amendments very clearly refer to individual rights.

 

[WonkyPanda]

That argument cuts both ways. Why doesn't the amendment explicitly say "the militias have the right to keep and bear arms"? Instead it uses the phrase "the people", which used the 1rst and 4th amendments very clearly refer to individual rights.

Yes, however, the Majority in Heller somehow uses that rationale to then make a "carve-out" to have the broad interpretation of "the people" to be shoehorned into a limited subset of "law-abiding citizens;" a subset that is never derived or seen in the historical context or judicial application of the First and Fourth Amendments.

Thus, they basically argue that the same version of "the people" from the First and Fourth is used in the Second, but somehow then interpret it to apply to a more limited set of people.

 

[FLEABttn]

There is no argument over when you are 18, or what 18 means though. So no semantics to argue.

Don't tell Asia that. There is an argument over age there. Context matters.

Again, if a law was written where the justification for the law was not the only thing the law allowed, it wouldn't change what the law allowed.

The justification impacts the law - or the law results from the justification.

The correction for a poorly written law is to amend it, not try and make it say something that is a debatable interpretation. A clear law will endure, one that has been reinterpreted will be re-reinterpreted later.

It's not a correction. The reason for the right is stated before the right. It's explicit. "People" is literally plural.

And it doesn't state we are given x because y, it states because of x, y. Different things. But even if it did say that, it doesn't change y.

There's no reason to mention x if y doesn't depend on it. There's no x on the first amendment.

That argument cuts both ways. Why doesn't the amendment explicitly say "the militias have the right to keep and bear arms"? Instead it uses the phrase "the people", which used the 1rst and 4th amendments very clearly refer to individual rights.

The people are a collection. "People" is literally plural.

 

[WonkyPanda]

The people are a collection.

No, not in the Fourth. However, that fact weakens the argument that the First and Fourth Amendment use the same reasoning for "the people." It's apparent that there is a collective use of the term "the people" in the First.

 

[No Love]

Thank god. Seriously would make me feel so much better to carry concealed here in LA.

 

[kame-sennin]

If being in a militia isn't important to bearing arms, I don't see why other amendments don't have similar restrictions.


It's an amendment that explicitly tells you why it exists, yet that's ignored.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first clause only justifies the second. That's not the same as saying that you need to be in a militia to own a gun. It's the second clause that makes the first clause possible. Think about it logically; if the people can not keep private weapons, how would they be able to raise a militia in a time of crisis? In modern English, the amendment reads more like this, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state'.

Also, if we're debating what the framers intended, there's ample evidence that at least some of them favored personal firearms ownership:

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[106][108]

The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[106][109]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I'm totally open to the argument that gun ownership is a bad idea, but I don't think you can use the constitution to ban personal ownership.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

So how long till it's like the Wild West and people are just duelling in the streets.

 

[kame-sennin]

Yes, however, the Majority in Heller somehow uses that rationale to then make a "carve-out" to have the broad interpretation of "the people" to be shoehorned into a limited subset of "law-abiding citizens;" a subset that is never derived or seen in the historical context or judicial application of the First and Fourth Amendments.

Thus, they basically argue that the same version of "the people" from the First and Fourth is used in the Second, but somehow then interpret it to apply to a more limited set of people.

Yea, the second amendment is both poorly written and poorly thought out. There's no restrictions in the constitution on the mentally ill carrying firearms. The reality is that even ultra right wingers are more than willing to ignore the full implications of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Oriel]

You know what needs to be done America, abolish the Second Amendment altogether and join the rest of the civilised world. Guns are the problem, not the solution.

 

[Shard]

Not the biggest fan of guns but given what I have read here this is the correct ruling as it does come across as trying to enact a de factor ban on guns.

 

[sooperkool]

So how long till it's like the Wild West and people are just duelling in the streets.

Good. An armed society is a polite society.

 

[B-Dubs]

So how long till it's like the Wild West and people are just duelling in the streets.

Actually the Wild West had stricter gun laws...

 

[Balphon]

The Supreme Court spends something like 30 pages of Heller dissecting the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment. You can disagree with the Court's reasoning there, but the clause certainly wasn't "ignored" then and by proxy isn't now.

 

[Bodacious]

So how long till it's like the Wild West and people are just duelling in the streets.

See the thread, "What's going on in Oakland?" But that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[FLEABttn]

Think about it logically; if the people can not keep private weapons, how would they be able to raise a militia in a time of crisis?

By the nature of being in a militia. I wholly disagree with it being an individual right, regardless of that reading.

In modern English, the amendment reads more like this, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state'.

You're saying the same thing. If the well regulated militia is not part of the right right to keep and bear arms, it's entirely unnecessary to mention. If the reason isn't important, there's no reason to mention the reason at all.

Again, the first amendment doesn't bind us with anything, but we can't still yell "fire" in a theater. Yet an amendment that is explicit in its terms as to how we have it provides for no bounds as to how we have it? Sorry, I'm not siding with Scalia on this one.