Ninth Circuit upholds ruling denying right to carry concealed weapon in public | Arkansas Blog

Ninth Circuit upholds ruling denying right to carry concealed weapon in public

by

6 comments
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has roiled the gun lobby with a 7-4 decision upholding a lower court finding that the 2nd Amendment does not provide the unlimited right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

The protests have come from, among others, Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who naturally jumped into this case on the side of concealed guns. She said:

“The idea that a State can completely ban or unfairly restrict the right of a law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon ignores the written text and history of the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional,” said Attorney General Rutledge. “I believe states can create concealed carry permitting laws consistent with the Constitution, but such laws must be fair, even-handed and not unduly restrictive of the ability of citizens to actually obtain conceal and carry permits. San Diego County’s concealed carry permitting scheme amounts to a total or nearly total ban on concealed carry, which is why I joined an amicus brief in support of the gun owners in this case.”
Some important facts left out by Rutledge in decrying the ruling, which many legal authorities think unlikely to be overturned. Thanks to Talking Points Memo.

Said the court's opinion:

As the uncontradicted historical evidence overwhelmingly shows, the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed weapon in public.

The Second Amendment may or may not protect to some degree a right of a member of the general public to carry a firearm in public. If there is such a right, it is only a right to carry a firearm openly But Plaintiffs do not challenge California’s restrictions on open carry; they challenge only restrictions on concealed carry."
The opinion is the same as opinions issued in the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits, but was contradicted in the Seventh, according to the Wall Street Journal. Sounds like there's some text and history that Rutledge chose to ignore.

From the ArkTimes store

Comments (6)

Showing 1-6 of 6

Add a comment
 

Add a comment

Clicky