Put on your surprised face. According the the US 9th District Court, the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights does not cover or protect the right to carry a concealed firearm.
Where does that leave not only the people of California, but what kind of precedent does this set for lower courts across the United States?
You will not believe who was “disinvited” from a Prayer Breakfast held on a US Army base.
Also, during our Student of the Gun Homeroom segment from Crossbreed Holsters, Professor Paul considers police trade-in guns. How much are they really worth?
Brought to you by Silencer Shop!
Use Code “SOTG2015”
Meal Planning & Exercise Guide
Please visit www.SilencerShop.com and take a look at what they have in stock!
Get Your Student of the Gun Tattoo Here: www.lauerweaponry.com
A war of words is being waged at a Kansas military base after a highly decorated retired officer was disinvited from a prayer breakfast because of complaints about his outspoken Christian conservative views.
The Topeka Capital-Journal reports retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin was scheduled to speak Monday at Fort Riley as part of the 1st Infantry Division’s “Victory Week.”
Boykin spent 36 years in the Army and led the elite Delta Force in attempts to recover hostages in Iran, apprehend Manuel Noriega and track drug kingpin Pablo Escobar.
But he also has drawn attention for claiming Islam doesn’t deserve First Amendment protection and that President Barack Obama subliminally supports al-Qaeda.
Boykin was disinvited from the breakfast after the Military Religious Freedom Foundation protested his appearance at the event.
The en banc court affirmed the district courts’ judgments and held that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment.
The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question.
The en banc court granted the motion to intervene by the State of California, which sought intervention after the San Diego Sheriff declined to petition for rehearing en banc following the panel’s decision. The en banc court held that under the circumstances presented here, California’s motion to intervene was timely.
Concurring, Judge Graber, joined by Chief Judge Thomas and Judge McKeown, wrote separately only to state that, even if the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional.
Dissenting, Judge Callahan, joined by Judge Silverman as to all parts except section IV, by Judge Bea, and by Judge N.R. Smith as to all parts except section II.B, stated that 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. Thus, plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights have been violated.
Dissenting, Judge Silverman, joined by Judge Bea, would hold that the challenged laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment because they do not survive any form of heightened scrutiny analysis.
Dissenting, Judge N.R. Smith stated that he joined the dissent of Judge Callahan but wrote separately only to express his opinion that the appropriate remedy is to remand this case to the district courts to allow them to initially determine and apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.
Latest posts by Professor Paul Markel (see all)
- Go Team Moment! Why You Carry Your Gear [VIDEO] - September 14th, 2022
- The Perfect Rifle? A.R.M.E.D. - September 6th, 2022
- SOTG Guardian Challenge - August 15th, 2022
- California Church Pays $20,000 a Month for Security - August 3rd, 2022
- Indiana Good Samaritan: Lessons Learned - July 22nd, 2022