Federal court rules against 2nd amendment

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Who needs that silly Bill of Rights anyway? A federal court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of Americans to carry a concealed gun in public.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is ruling in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement, saying the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed gun in public.

On February 13 2014 Breibart News reported that a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s “good cause” requirement. Thereafter–under pressure from State Attorney Kamala Harris–the court announced that it would rehear the case en banc. Today that en banc ruling resulted in the “good cause” requirement being upheld and Americans being told they have not right to carry a concealed gun in public.

This ruling is also a reason I will have as little to do with the fascist state of California as I can. Not only is California now a place where you are denied your right to keep and bear arms, Kamala Harris is likely going to be California’s next Senator, and she is someone quite willing to use the power of government to squelch people she disagrees with. For the people of California, however, that fascist approach to government is a recommendation, not a disqualification.


  • D K Rögnvald Williams

    It’s the 9th Circuit. And with the Supremes deadlocked, this ruling won’t be overturned any time soon.

  • wayne

    All the more reason we need to be as vigilant as possible & advocate Federal Judges with a Conservative/Constitutional bent be appointed, which is a power the (Fed) Senate & the Executive Branch share.
    >I have zero faith Mitch or the Judiciary Committee however, can be trusted to do the correct thing now or in the near-future. (Average of 100-300 Fed Judges appointed in any given Presidential Term, all must be approved by the Senate.)
    >As well, we are going to have to fight both sides of the isle when it comes to whacky SCOTUS nominations, no matter who the President is next January.
    …tangentially– the 17th Amendment has got to GO. Senator’s are no longer accountable to their respective States. They won’t willingly do it, so that means an Article 5 Convention of the States.

  • Mark

    “For the people of California, however, that fascist approach to government is a recommendation, not a disqualification.”

    Well, gee, that’s a little unfair. If you had said “for too many people in California”, or some such construction, I’d’ve agreed with you, but as a long time San Franciscan, I guarantee you there are many Californians, including myself, who are as unhappy about today’s Ninth Circuit ruling, and Kamala Harris, as you are. California is no longer the state I’ve lived in for most of my life, and it’s a source of endless frustration. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t still people here who have their heads screwed on straight. Just not enough.

  • You are right, but you know better than I that a solid majority of the population of your state believes that the squelching all opposition to their agenda is the right and proper thing to do, and that if you don’t agree, they will squash you as well. Worse, the minority of Californians (and in too many other places throughout the U.S.) who still believe in freedom has been timid and diffident to this tyrannical majority, and allowed it to run over all their freedoms, without serious opposition.

  • As a resident of Oregon, I’ve seen any number of Californian’s fleeing the very society they voted for. Even a turquoise State like Oregon has a very limited tolerance for people who destroyed their own house and seek to do the same here. Why any sane person would do business with, or, inexplicably, live in California, is beyond rational thought.

  • Max

    Majority opinion, Judge Williams Fletcher said, “We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
    Define “general public” are we France? That our rights are held in common? Socialistic “we” to be defined by the majority? Or is our rights held by the “individual” and for their own personal needs as defined by the Bill of Rights?
    If a “good cause” must be shown to be able to defend yourself, then this judge must also apply this rule to the rest of the constitution…

    Do we need a “good cause” for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
    Do we need a “good cause” permission slip to exercise the freedom of speech, to worship, or to have a jury of our peers?
    Will this judge grant me an exception of a “conscientious objecter” for being a global warming denier? I don’t think so, in fact I believe the “general public” would be better served, in her view, if I was imprisoned for my own good and protection of the great “we”…

    I’ve never felt the need to carry a weapon, until now that a federal judge tells me that no one can…

  • wayne

    Max: well said.

  • mike shupp

    Chortle! Memory says Californians had the right — but seldom the inclination — to carry concealed weapons in the not so distant past. But during the 1970’s, a group of freedom loving souls in Oakland going by the name of Black Panthers decided they too ought to enjoy the blessings of liberty, and the then governor, a fellow named Ronald Reagan, took exception — much to the relief of most Californians.

    A lot depends on whose ox is being gored, right?

  • Mike Shupp: You want to make this a partisan thing. I would have opposed Reagan then, if that is what he did, just as I oppose the Democrats now. The thing is, right now it is Democrats that are working to limit my freedom, so right now I oppose them. You it seems by your comment want to excuse them somehow.

  • mike shupp

    Mr Zimmerman:

    I don’t think it’s a partisan thing. I think it’s a STUPID thing.

    Here’s my ideal: (a) People have the right to be armed, openly or concealed. (b) Almost nobody bothers. (c) Hunting and target shooting are recognized as skills and marksmanship is as respected as say driving a car without accidents.

    I’m an old fart born and raised in rural Ohio. Those used to be common attitudes, and I don’t see a reason for change. Even now, years later in overly-built up coastal California.

    But y’know, seeing folks walking about in camoflauge with semi-automatic rifles on their backs pretending they’re defending America from brown-complected people who also happen to be Americans, or the return of King George’s Hessians mercenaries is just a bit … silly. And I have to think that the issue being raised isn’t really one of Liberty and Self Defense, but poorly educated people advertising their political and social allegiences. I

    And our society and the American Republic — may it live in triumph another thousand years! — doesn’t need such nonsense.

  • Mike Shupp: I find it interesting how you are trying to change the subject from Democratic legislators working to squelch free speech to that of guys walking around in camo with guns on their backs. Please. The point here is that the people with power are trying to deny you and I our freedoms. That is the bottom line. Guys in camo with guns on their backs might be acting silly and stupid, but they aren’t the ones doing either of us any harm.

    That you wish to focus on the wrong thing makes you similar to many Americans today, which is why we are losing our freedoms.

  • wayne

    Ref: Guys in camo with guns on their backs…

    Every State has laws addressing “brandishing” and/or “menacing,” & they most often & historically apply to how one physically presents/carries a weapon. (they have “menace-by-stalking” but that’s a new thing & applies to stalking.)
    It was well understood historically one could & would carry a weapon openly, but not brandish or menace anyone with that weapon. You can’t point your gun at someone threateningly or imply harm. That was not only common courtesy, it is/was the law & has been for a long time.
    The fact the gun exists & it may be carried by someone who looks like they hunt ducks in Louisiana, does not equate with Black Panthers openly “brandishing & menacing” people with guns. There’s a qualitative difference in play.

    This recent ruling dovetails with the one in DC a few years ago. In that Case however, the Court affirmed gun-rights, but the people running DC just refused to grant concealed-carry permits to lawful applicants, despite being ordered by the Court to do so. (They tripled the price as well, further denying people without a lot of money the opportunity to even apply.)

    There is a definite & increasing trend toward attacking guns & gun-rights, at every turn. It’s not only more pervasive, it’s more tolerated, and that is the scary thing.

  • pzatchok

    For things the left do not like. like the right to bare arms. unless its explicitly written in the constitution and amendments then its not allowed.
    Implication means nothing.
    Unless its the implied right to privacy of your medical records and treatment.
    The constitution does not explicitly state your records are also counted as those in possession by your medical professional. The right to privacy does not apply to your phone records or driving records.

    The left wants to narrow down the 2nd amendment to owner ship of a firearm only.
    But it must be kept at a secure location not your residence.
    Huge fees to own those fire arms.
    Only able to use them at designated areas and at designated times.
    Only in designated non military calibers.

    All others will be confiscated. So criminals don’t get their hands on them.

    Just like Mexico. See how low their crime rate is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *