“A
California federal appeals court ruled on Thursday [June 9] that Americans do
not have a blanket constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon in public,
the Associated Press reports,
taking a strong stand in the battle between gun-control and gun-rights
advocates.
“The
federal court upheld a California law that requires applicants for a concealed-carry
permit to present a ‘good cause’ for their need to carry a weapon, such as
being stalked or regularly carrying large amounts of cash or
valuables. The 7–4 ruling overturned a three-judge panel of the same
court, which had determined in 2014 that a desire for personal safety was sufficient
cause to be granted a permit.
“‘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,’ Circuit Judge
William Fletcher wrote in the majority
opinion, while his colleague, Judge Consuelo Callahan, dissented, saying
the ruling ‘obliterates the Second Amendment's right to bear a firearm in some
manner in public for self-defense.’
“Three
other federal appeals courts have upheld similar restrictions in Maryland, New
Jersey, and New York, while another struck down Illinois's complete ban on
carrying concealed weapons. The San Francisco–based Ninth Circuit’s ruling
upholds restrictions enacted in California and Hawaii — the other seven states
covered by the court issue concealed-carry permits to any resident with no
criminal record or history of mental illness.
“Advocates
of gun rights and gun control reacted in character to the ruling, with the
National Rifle Association calling it ‘out of touch,’ and California Democratic
senator Dianne Feinstein calling it ‘a significant victory for public safety.’
Law professor Adam Winkler characterized
the court’s decision to the New York Times as ‘a huge ruling’ but
expressed doubt that the Supreme Court would take up the issue without a split
in the Circuit Courts, which hasn't happened yet.
“But
Jonathan E. Lowy, the director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center
to Prevent Gun Violence, said he would be ‘surprised but not shocked’ if the
court took up a case on the right to concealed carry anyway, considering the
major constitutional question at stake.
“In
its last major ruling on gun control, the 2008 decision in District of
Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held explicitly, for the first time,
that the Second Amendment ‘protects an individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally
lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.’ The majority opinion in
that 5–4 decision was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia” (Court Rules Second Amendment Doesn't Guarantee Right to Carry Concealed Weapons).
Commentary:
“…We
are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take
seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of
handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of
Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures
regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional
rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include
the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society
where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police
forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.
That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role
of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment
of the Court of Appeals…” (District
of Columbia v. Heller).
Although I agree with background checks for private and gun show sales, and “gun control legislation [that mandates] prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally-deranged, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on a [specific] commercial sale of arms [such as high-powered assault weapons]…” (District of Columbia v. Heller – Case Brief Summary), gun control legislation that will affect responsible law-abiding citizens will never deter the everyday robber or the potentially-deranged terrorist from obtaining illegal weapons, despite the government's feeble attempt to require states to automate a list of past felons and other mentally-disturbed individuals in the federal database (after the carnage at Virginia Tech). Why? It is impossible to predict who will become the next assassin (from "A Letter to a Friend about Gun Control," posted September 14, 2011 on this blog).
ReplyDelete