News

Breaking News: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Right to Carry Concealed

Pistol with police car lights in the background and "Police arrive slower than the Second Amendment. Carry Your Protection With You"

Just when you thought it was safe to go out in public, the California courts restrict your right to self-defense once again. This time, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the right to carry concealed weapons in public. Gavel with American flag The Second Amendment and the right to self-defense lost a major decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today. The court ruled that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public. The court was divided (7-4), but ultimately upheld a California law mandating applicants to show “good cause” to obtain a concealed-carry permit.

This seems to be in conflict with previous rulings, but for now, according to the federal appeals court, Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public.

What’s Next?

The next logical step would be the Supreme Court to determine whether local law enforcement officials should have the right to place significant restrictions on who is allowed to carry firearms concealed. Today’s decision overturns an earlier decision by a 9-judge panel. In that ruling, the same court that said applicants need only express a desire for personal safety.

The Ninth Circuit’s rulings are binding in nine Western states. Two other federal appeals courts have taken up the issue—New York and Maryland. Both ruling were inline with the Ninth Circuit’s latest ruling.

The National Rifle Association called the ruling “out of touch.” “This decision will leave good people defenseless, as it completely ignores the fact that law-abiding Californians who reside in counties with hostile sheriffs will now have no means to carry a firearm outside the home for personal protection,” said NRA legislative chief Chris W. Cox.

The New York-based gun control organization Everytown welcomed the decision as “a major victory for public safety.” The Ninth Circuit decision arose from a lawsuit filed by Edward Peruta. The Shooter’s Log covered the story at the time (links to coverage below). Peruta’s suit challenged the San Diego County sheriff’s refusal to issue a permit because he failed to cite a “good cause.” The sheriff required applicants to produce supporting documents, such as a restraining order against a possible attacker.

Peruta argued that the requirement violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

What will this mean for gun rights in the future? Should the Supreme Court decide the matter? Share your opinions in the comment section.

[dave]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (155)

  1. I think it’s time to throw California out of the union and make it its own nation. The people in government out there are so out of touch it’s pathetic. Let them have their illegal aliens, unconstitutional laws, and wacko leftist judges and government, but don’t let any of that influence the rest of the United States.

  2. @ G-Man:
    Until this response, the exchange has been civil.
    Why it now has devolved to something else is a true disappointment. You have nothing to base the retort now flung at me, and it is truly saddening to see someone who is supposed to be of the higher character we are to represent, striking out as you did. The cases that I have been involved with have led to different determinations, and come along with different case outcomes. It does not make one of us right and the other wrong. It simply puts the entire situation into a fluid state. THAT. is what I was trying to get across, and to urge caution for the others not to jump to long term conclusions. As far as you jumping to any conclusions regarding me, my experience, cases handled, or any other aspect of my professional history, you Sir, are way out of line. Please consider this the end of this conversation.

    1. The exchange remains civil; you just didn’t like the outcome. No one is “striking out”, I merely stated the obvious. Lacking civility versus your discomfort in the truth are two entirely separate things. Please learn the difference before re-directing your own earned aspersions back upon me.

      You claimed that – “[I] have nothing to base [my] retort”, when instead I have categorically laid out before you precisely that which I “based” it upon. You simply refuse to address it.

      What “is truly saddening to see” is someone who is supposed to be a federal agent yet in the same breath renounces the fundamental skillset by which I successfully deduced your sad predicament.

      Now here’s some real advice – the next time you attempt to come off as a federal agent I suggest you not post using your real name.

  3. @ G Man

    If you are a lawyer sir, than I would ask you to quote your supportive references. My information comes from nearly 40 years as a state and federal law enforcement agent who has spent more time in federal court rooms than most attorneys. I would simply ask that you not unintentionally mislead people with information that may not lead them in the direction you are pointing them. We are all on the same team and the 9th Circuit has a well known reputation as an activist Circuit. It has been incorrect in the past, and will be held to be incorrect in this case as well, if nothing else, by the groundswell reaction it’s announcement has caused,

    1. @ Phil Whitehead

      You must be new to the Shooter’s Log, otherwise you would already know that I have been posting here for years by offering up my expertise backed by my credentials as a federal law enforcement officer running consecutively with reserve military service now going into my 34th year.

      While my background certainly helps offer specific guidance to others in understanding the practical application of law, one does not have to be an agent or lawyer to know that what you wrote is not founded by either expertise or fact. A simple dissection of what you actually wrote clears that right up:

      “…the 9th Circuit cannot issue a ruling…”, yet they IN-FACT did issue a ruling. That much is irrefutable.

      Whether you wished you had worded your post differently is another thing entirely, but I cannot possibly presume to know what you intended to say in your mind; I can only respond based upon that which you actually put into words; and your words quite clearly do not align with the evident facts.

      Now, I kindly ask that you go back and carefully re-read what I actually wrote to you, and try your best to put it in context with what actually did happen, rather than your philosophy of what you think should have happened.

      Coupled with your own research, you will find as a matter of Fact and Law the following:

      – The Ninth Circuit did IN-FACT make a ruling.
      – The Ninth Circuit did IN-FACT issue this ruling despite other “preexisting Supreme Court ruling[s]”
      – The Ninth Circuit did IN-FACT distinguish their ruling as separate by citing only concealed carry.
      – The Ninth Circuit’s ruling does IN-FACT impact how laws are, and will be, applied within its jurisdiction.
      – The Ninth Circuit’s ruling does IN-FACT remain in effect until stayed or overturned by a higher court.
      – The Ninth Circuit’s ruling may IN-FACT never be overruled if the Supreme Court refuses to hear it, or…
      – The Ninth Circuit’s ruling may IN-FACT never be overruled if Hillary takes office and appoints judges that agree with the ruling.

      In closing I wish to add that I don’t expect to convince you in one post of my expertise in law enforcement or the extremely high position I hold. But there does exist literally hundreds of my posts over the years in which I impart information based upon releasable information relating to my career experiences.

      This includes my experiences garnered both inside the courtrooms while assisting with prosecutions; as well as my vast field experience; and on through to the latter part of my career as a policy maker and expertise tasked with developing intelligence fusion centers nationwide and standing up multi-jurisdictional task forces in almost every state after 9/11.

      There are some forum members who have figured out who I am or realized they actually know me – regardless, I have asked them to keep my identity anonymous as it affords me the ability to speak my mind freely. Without duplicating efforts, here is a link in which I explain more of my career credentials, assuming you are interested…

      http://dev-migrationctd.pantheonsite.io/nra-statement-terror-watchlists/comment-page-2/#comment-327668

    2. @ G-Man.
      Since you do go to such lengths to make your point, including, unfortunately, ignoring the references to the ecperiences of others equally qualified, then I shall cease asking you to restrain yourself from unbridled information releases. It is painfully apparent that you are not inclined to take advice, only to give it. Good day sir.

    3. @ Phil Whitehead,

      Quite on the contrary… none of your references were ignored at all; instead it is your very claims to such vast experience which forces me to question its authenticity.

      One dead giveaway is that you insist on scolding me for dismissing your experienced-based opinions and advice about the Courts. The catch is – any federal agent knows our opinion doesn’t matter. We all must operate under strict compliance to operational procedures regardless of our opinions. These procedures are so firmly embedded into our career lives that it would be virtually impossible for 2 federal agents to each hold different operational understandings of the same Court proceeding.

      Our entire exchange began because it was I that first corrected your attempts to sell your misguided personal opinions as policy. If you were an experienced federal agent you would know full well that what I’ve posted is not an opinion; it is unquestionably a matter of Fact and Law.

      Moreover, the actual “painfully apparent” aspect in all of this is your tactics thereafter to evade having to admit the facts – as I’ve previously listed them – to be indisputable. Your failure to do so makes it embarrassingly obvious that you simply do not possess the working knowledge to match the career experience as you’ve claimed.

      With that said, only one of us can actually be right, and the other is nothing other than a fraud. You and I both know who that is.

  4. “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Technically, any laws or regulations restricting firearms of any sort are a form of infringement and a violation of the 2nd Amendment!

  5. Both of you need to remember, the 9th Circuit cannot issue a ruling that holds preeminence over a preexisting Supreme Court ruling, There is still SCOTUS case law which supersedes this.

    1. @ Phil Whitehead,

      Actually they can… and they did. Regardless of whether it was lawful or not, this decision will remain in full force and impact the laws until such time the Supreme Court rules on the matter. That could take years or never – given the SCOTUS can decline any case they please.

      Or worse, Hillary becomes president and appoints the one anti-gun judge needed to tie-break a ruling in their favor.

      As for your thoughts on this being a “preexisting Supreme Court ruling”, it is not. The Ninth Circuit was smart enough to explicitly state so in their ruling be delineating different types of firearms carry; thus making their ruling distinct and separate from higher Court rulings over that addressed a general right to bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.

  6. But what you missed is that it is still legal in CA and many sheriffs, after the ruling have declared they will issue with self-defense as good cause.

    Do you have the exact wording of the Court’s finding, since you are stating what they changed? I am not referring to internet hearsay, but what the wording is of the 9th, that says now all concealed carry in CA is now illegal? Which what you seem to be saying?

    @G-Man

    All I am saying is let’s see the facts, cause ccw is still legal here in CA!

    1. @ Ron Cash,

      I’ve missed nothing. You’ve consistently failed to grasp the words I’ve written. I don’t know how else to get it across to you that you are the only one insisting that I (we) believe the ruling somehow makes concealed carry illegal. It has been said over and over – WE KNOW FULL WELL IT DOES NOT OUTLAW CONCEALED CARRY.

      It is you, and you alone that has confused the removal of a RIGHT by thinking it is the same as making it ILLEGAL. But what I am trying to make you understand is they are two entirely separate things. So before you can even begin to comprehend anything in my posts, you have to grasp that first.

      Furthermore, it is inappropriate of you to place the burden upon me to do your homework for you. Since you are the one questioning the facts, it is incumbent upon you to go look up the ruling for yourself… not me. The rest of us already know what it says.

      Might I point out the obvious for you when you insulted the author by proclaiming, “…the title of this article is not accurate”. The title says it all, and was appropriately based on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. You should give the Shooter’s Log professionals a bit more respect for their efforts rather than bash them over your inability to comprehend court rulings and the drastic effects such ruling have over laws.

  7. This proves that the US Supreme Court hijacked its authority and has been acting on a plethora of cases, without Constitutional authority, since Marbury v Madison (can you say, e.g., “Roe v Wade” or “Separation of Church and State”. Can you also see that the 9th Circuit has, in outlaw fashion, rendered a decision on the 2nd Amendment? Can you say, “Obamacare”?). No, the decisions of the Supreme Court are not “law” as Congress is the only entity that can make laws – them and the State legislatures, provided they are laws allowed under the Constitution’s enumerated powers. Wake up, People!! Your Constitutional Rights have been usurped, stolen, run over, trampled!! It’s time to take back our country from those who stole it from us. Now, vote them all out of office if we can’t impeach them. We need a Constitutional litmus test for all elected officials and judges – they need to provide The People their detailed interpretation of what the Constitution means. If they can’t pass that test, they don’t advance to the next test. Obviously, HC and Obama flunked – they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a government position, post, office, building, program, etc.
    “Although most of the Framers of the Constitution anticipated that the Federal judiciary would be the weakest branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court has come to wield enormous power with decisions that have reached into the lives of every citizen and resolved some of the most dramatic confrontations in U.S. history. The word of the Supreme Court is final. Overturning its decisions often requires an amendment to the Constitution or a revision of Federal law.
    The power of the Supreme Court has evolved over time, through a series of milestone court cases. One of the Court’s most fundamental powers is judicial review–the power to judge the constitutionality of any act or law of the executive or legislative branch. Some of the Framers expected the Supreme Court to take on the role of determining the constitutionality of Congress’s laws, but the Constitution did not explicitly assign it to the Court. Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 landmark Supreme Court case, established the power of judicial review. From the modest claim of William Marbury, who sought a low-paying appointment as a District of Columbia Justice of the Peace, emerged a Supreme Court decision that established one of the cornerstones of the American constitutional system.”
    Section 1.
    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
    Section 2.
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
    Section 3.
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

  8. You must understand that many of those, judged, politicians and others who promote gun control or gun confiscation do not want to reduce or eliminate gun crime. They are not afraid of the criminals. Many of them have armed bodyguards, live in gated communities and feel perfectly safe. Why is it that thousands of felons are released before their full sentences are served? Why is it that the feds refuse to prosecute thousands of people who commit federal gun crimes every year? It is because They want to see more crime and more violent crime. They want to see blood run in the streets because they believe that will cause people to vote for, or at least accept gun control, gun confiscation and elimination of the 2nd amendment. They want that because it will give them more power of an unarmed and defenseless populous.

  9. Every time you turn around the government is trying to take away the wrights of law abiding citizens. Who purchase guns legally! .It starts with the right to carry a firearm and it will snowball from there to taking away your semi automatic rifles and handguns until the government makes this country like other countries who have been striped of the right to own firearms. The government wants to take away your Second Amendment rights through the political system rather than put their efforts in to stopping criminals and terrorists who want to destroy our country. We need to stop these assaults on our rights and quick! This is the time to accomplish this; in the presidential election. If you defend our 2nd Amendment and want to keep your guns, don’t blow it when you cast your vote for the next president.

  10. It is a fact that many Judges are armed. Why? To protect themselves from “the bad guys”. We that like to carry concealed want to carry for what reason? To protect US from “the bad guys”. Explain to me how they are anymore entitled than we are? Do they bleed a different color? Are they MORE susceptible to be a victim to a random crime than us?
    It’s total crap and they know it.

  11. I agree with a lot of what people are saying here. Just a word of caution here. The men who wrote the Declaration of independence and the Constitution were not hot heads. They thought this out very carefully and acted wisely. They used every means possible to resolve their problems without bloodshed. When all was said and done they had no alternative but to fight for freedom. It wasn’t free. It costed a lot of men’s lives. To be honest, we need to realize this will not be any different. If we take up arms to fight for our freedom many of us will not live to see it. Many of our family members may die as well. No doubt this country will not be the same as we knew it 50 years ago. It may never recover. Obama is hoping we rebel so he can be a dictator. He would love to see the people of this country rebel. Many people will take advantage to the caos in this country to act lawlessly and grab what they want. The Lord only knows how much destruction will occur as a result of a civil war in this country. I know its probably inevitable but lets not fly off the handle.Let us all use wisdom. Lets get back to the the Christian principals that our founding fathers built this nation upon. Yes they were all Christians and They counted the cost. We need to do the same.

  12. You could be next.

    Being ruled by words and then the words being called laws.

    The written “Rule of Law”.

    Words that can be changed and are changed as needed by your fellow

    human kind w/ titles given to them by you.

    Titles: President, Congressman, Councilman, Mayor, Judge, AG, DA, Police etc. etc..

    To do as they want, say and wish for. AND not as you want, say and wish for.

    “Ain’t Freedom Grand”……………….Don’t EVER mess with the MAN.

  13. Just like when you were very young in age and wanted desperately do be able to get something, do something, go somewhere? Remember and if it were parents or teachers or chaperones, or whomever was arbitrarily in charge over you (oh yeah, let’s toss a boss in there as well). Advice at the time was if you know the answer will be NO or even HELL NO, then why on earth would you want to even ask the question? Right? Or maybe a cliche you are more familiar with “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six”. So the proverbial “THEY” don’t want you to be toting a firearms concealed or exposed or to even have one at all. There’s the term you should center on….. “CONCEALED” Which of course means that no one can see it or figure out what it may be. Get the right gun and the right concealment and carry away. Don’t sell yourself on “Well I’d just rather take my good ol 45 for them thar defensive situations” Crap and nothing but crap. If you’re not licensed to do so and it don’t look like we will be able to do so any more, then scale your gun choice down to something you can slip into your back pocket and it looks much like a man’s wallet. Or front pocket like a ball of keys. Hidden is that, hidden. They shouldn’t know you have a gun until you pull it out to use it and then that other cliche can kick into prominence. After getting a Glock shoved into my nose while at the local market, I’ve not been without a gun on my person and no one ever has to know. I do and it makes me feel a whole lot better for it let me tell you and the annual fee is zero. Did I tell you the annual fee is zero. Think about it.

  14. as long as gun owners refer to their tools for defense as weapons don”t exoect any change…a weapon is any tool USED to cause death or injury…do you think your friends want you waking around with something looking to cause death or injury…try calling your defensive tool a firearm and not a weapon

  15. I’d say Americans are long overdue for a revolt. If blacks can f#%k up a city, then whites and Latinos, and Chinese, and Asians can get together and show them all who is boss. So, what if they sick the dogs on us, what do we have to lose but our freedom and liberty? Our government is out of control, and we Americans want it back!

  16. Well, it looks like California has set the standard for fiscal, political, and judicial stupidity…must be too much of that legal weed being consumed.

  17. As a Law abiding Veteran that has Proudly served this Nation and placed many, many drug dealers, Rapists, murderers in Prison I will not allow this Unconstitutional, Treasonous act to take my Firearm. Everyone knows this Ruling is completly Unconstitutional. We are obligated to disobey and Rebel against any and all Laws, Regulations, Ordinance’s, policies that Clearly violate our Constitutional Rights. These So called judges must be deemed unfit and removed from the Bench. We cannot afford anymore individuals that cannot abide by our Constitution and the bill of right’s. We are not Africa, We are not Islamic’s, We are not Soviet,
    N. Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, Kurdish, etc. WE ARE AND SHALL EVER BE AMERICANS ! We are by far a Society of Freedom, Liberty, Self and United Preservation. We have cared for the people of this World more than any Nation on Earth. It was once said by a foe that attacked us and killed thousands of Civilian and Military that Stated ” We cannot attack America on her soil, There is a weapon behind every blade of grass”! Foreign powers knew and still do know that every abled body Man, Woman and Teen in America would respond to the aid of our Nation in defense against Invadion ! Liberals and Democrats want this taken from us ! Disarming America would remder an Open door for any and all of Americas Enemies to waltz onto our soul for that fight. It also opens the Door widly for Federal, Overreaching, Treasonous, Tyrannis Government to empower the next Hitler, Stalin, Hussein to begin their quest of Domination and Control. Our Constitution was not written to protect the Fedetal Government ! Our Constitution was written to assist in keeping the Federal and State Governments in check and owned and Controled by ” WE THE PEOPLE”. The Fedetal Government has far exceeded their authority on many occssions already. They sit in unannounced meetings creating more Laws that exceed their authority over the People. They pass laws unknown to us untill its to late to stop them. Our ( not mine) current President. Let me rephrase that. THE current President and His administration are the Prime Example of the reason our Constitution was written. His acts of Treason and violation our laws and Constitutional rights is exactly the reason our Constitution was written and the reason He so desperatly wants to dismantle our Beloved Constitution. It is the DUTY OF EVERY AMERICAN TO OPPOSE HIS ACTS OF TYRANNY, TREASON AND CRIMINAL ACTS ! Those that support his Open doors to Islamics, Terrorists, Illegals, Supplying Arms to our Enemies, Financially Supporting our Ememy’s, Failing to support our Ambassador and crew in Bengazi, pumping 150 billion Tax payer Dollars into Irag. With So many other insane acts that have been committed he should have been removed and Charged under the Constitution. This insane act of Turanny committed by the 9th District Court of Appeals was clearly a bought off, Political pay off by each Judge on the Bench. This decision is by far an Unconstitutionsl act of Tyranny. They have now placed the lives of thousands of American Citizens in Harms way, dictated by one individual with a liberal, Political agenda. One person will now dictate weather or not an Individual has the right to defend their life, to defend the lives of thrir families. One person now is given the power to choosethe Life or Death of American Citizrns. One person with a Badge that feels threatened by a Law abiding Citizen attempting to give themselves, their families, their loved ones and friends a chance to live. For each permit ( which they shouldn’t need in the first place) DENIED, One Man/Woman has been given the power to determine, because of their Political affiliation or Personal feelings, who will live and who will die. One person now has the power to dictate and EMPOWER Criminals, Rapists, Pedophiles, Murderers the ability to choose their now defenseless Victims. Any Sheriff or controling so called authority failing to issue permit’s to a Law abiding Citizen will also be telling that citizen “I dont care if you live or Die”! He/She has been given the power of Kings and Queens over the lives and Death’s of Every citizen in their District
    This is why the Constitution was written as it was. To stop anyone from having the power to dicyate life and Death ovet Americans that shall remain free !

  18. The govm’t is asking for severe civil unrest where Obama can call Martial Law. And then he can stay in office or…migrate over the UN as SECGEN. Which is what he really wants anyway, while finishing off the US as a third world country.

  19. the 9th’s judges CAN GO F’K THEMSELVES….WE WILL CARRY OPEN OR CONCEALED ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE U.S. THAT WE WISH TO…WE DO NOT NEED YOUR PERMISSION OR APPROVAL FOR S–T….THE ONLY LAW WE RECOGNISE IS THE CONSTITUTION,…YOU ARE MORE CRIMINAL FOR WRITING SUCH ILLEGAL LAWS THAN WE ARE FOR BREAKING THESE ILLEGAL LAWS….AGAIN, GO F’K YOURSELVES YOU F’KING TRAITORS…

  20. This is why the election for president is so important. Are rights not only the 2nd adm. Are a stake. If u don’t believe in the right to keep and bear arms vote Hillary or any 3rd party. Because a vote for any 3rd party is a vote for Hillary. So what are u going to do?

    1. Typical elite liberal judges in Cali who think they know better than the rest of us. In the name of “public safety” they handcuff good citizens and favor the perps over the good folks who pay taxes and raise good kids.

      Enough is enough. In my opinion screw the courts and protect your family by whatever means is necessary. They truly don’t care about our rights.
      There will be a resurrection of good citizens in the near future who finally wake up and say let’s take back our country.
      Is called co-equal branches of government not the courts making the final call.
      Adams and Jefferson fought for this balanced approach not the courts usurping authority at will.
      My God, wake up and stand up.

  21. Politicians and judges are one in the same. They think they have the power to dictate to the masses. They couldn’t be more wrong! I feel that our constitution is extremely clear.

    Thanks to the media, our society is completely misinformed about the benefits of gun carrying citizens. As if the vast majority of all (U.S.) people are just animals walking around shooting people for no reason.

    Let’s consider this. Insurance companies say that having an alarm sign (ADT, Honeywell, etc.) in front of your home is a deterrent for criminals. Insurance companies also say that having an obvious alarm on your vehicle is a deterrent for criminals. Its a known fact that a simple “Beware of Dog” sign is a deterrent for criminals. Its a known fact that exterior cameras (working or not) are deterrents for criminals. I could go on and on and on.

    So it makes perfect sense that law abiding citizens with guns would certainly be a deterrent for criminal behavior of all kinds.

  22. trunkjunkie, you are right. In many ways the various govts have already “infringed” on our rights to bear arms. Back in colonial times, one did not have to get a background check or any other such govt approval, nor get a “concealed carry permit”. So I would say that all the laws regulating this are in fact “infringement” upon our constitutional right to bear arms.

  23. Now wait! I dislike this ruling as much as anyone on here. But instead of crying foul, this is one we gun lovers brought on ourselves. California is not a “shall issue” state. That’s a bigger issue than the one we’re addressing right now. But given fact that CA IS a “may issue” state, the real problem lies with Sheriff Gore in San Diego county. And he’s been the sheriff (i.e. ELECTED OFFICIAL) for NINE YEARS deciding who can and can’t carry a firearm. If he’s a butthole, then we, the gun owners, should have rallied and stopped this years ago, by voting him out of office. But, no, instead of doing the responsible thing, and exercising our rights and RESPONSIBILITIES to clean our own house, we waited until one person used the court system to force the issue. And, given CA’s background on gun rights, should we be shocked or surprised at the outcome? Until we take the time to do what we SHOULD be doing at home and at the ballot box, we should just shut up and take what we’re given when the “other side” wins. I want my guns and have no intention of giving them up. But I respect what America stands for, and if more people decide it’s bad to have guns, or don’t care about guns, I have to respect “majority rules”. If you sit back and bitch on social media but don’t care enough to find out who the right people are, and take the effort to vote for them, then we deserve what we get. V O T E people!

    1. @ George,

      I agree with you 100% and have often used similar voting logic as presented in your comment. BUT…

      It is unfair to presume that gun owners failed to do the responsible thing and vote Gore out of office, but rather one must consider the possibility that the personal liberal politics of the indigenous peoples of San Diego County evidently outnumbered the gun owners at the poles.

      It was then thought – fret not, that a majority of the regional county populace prefers tyrannical rule over freedom, because the minority gun owners still had the Second Amendment card up their sleeve which guaranteed to override such fools. And thus a suit was filed… and won.

      After gun owners won, even Sheriff Gore opted not to fight the ruling. But that did not stop the national liberal elements from hijacking the case on appeal and using the force of nationally funded anti-gun money to ride the coattails of an appeal all the way to the Ninth Circuit.

      Again, the Second Amendment protections should have overwhelmingly sufficed in arguments to thwart such tyrannical efforts. But alas, the kooky unexpected antics of the Ninth Circuit set aside the Second Amendment entirely by conveniently proclaiming it no longer applies to concealed carry.

      This was a decision I don’t believe any reasonable sane person could have anticipated. Nevertheless, it handed a temporary victory to tyranny. So I disagree with you on one thing – I feel those aggrieved have every right to “cry foul” at this point .

  24. An earlier writer (Eric) brought up the ‘concealed’ target of this court, but did this court mention any other form of carry? Any form or possession is already confirmed by the 2nd Amendment, i.e. you can just sashay out there with it strapped to your leg and these unhappy, grossly overpaid public employes called judges would be forced to ,live with it.

  25. Wow, this has gotten way out of hand and I do agree with almost everything being said, let’s keep the issue clear. The 9th did NOT deny the right to carry concealed!

    The County I live in has concealed carry license applications on it’s web site, as to ALL counties in CA. Another way of saying it, is it IS LEGAL to carry concealed in ALL Counties in Comifornia.

    And most Counties in CA are a SHALL ISSUE type County. But some Counties, like mine, do issue BUT and it’s big BUTT (misspelling intended), you have to demonstrate GOOD CAUSE, other than self defense. Of course in these few Counties where GOOD CAUSE is required, no one knows what good cause is. And most of these type counties are where the highest population is. And again even in these good cause counties they DO ISSUE concealed carry license. Enough for them to say, yea “we support” the 2nd Amend. But really mean they are token CCW permits, that are given to the sheriffs buddies, celebs (Los Angeles), etc.

    So at least deal with the facts. CA does permit concealed carry and it is not against the law, just they requite a permit and some place they are hard to come by.

    The 9th’s ruling simply upheld this grossly unfair system of issuing!

    1. @ Ron Cash,

      Your well written clarification is absolutely necessary for some, but I think that most folks already understand the distinctions you’ve made and are jumping ahead by posting their comments based on the anticipated effects that will be forthcoming as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

      Most reasonable persons understand that laws based upon “may issue for good cause only” verbiage is a clear violation of the Second Amendment. So while we are busy winning case after case to remove such unlawful statues from the books, along comes the Ninth Circuit which arbitrarily decides concealed carry is no longer a protected means of carry under the Second Amendment.

      What this decision just did was allow the counties that were only issuing a few “token” permits in order to appear as Second Amendment compliant – will now instead feel empowered to shut these programs down wholesale. The effect of which is tantamount to a complete weapons carry ban of any kind given California also recently banned open carry as well.

      If a law or ruling carries the same effect, then it can be legitimately argued as such. I think that is the conclusion many in this forum are posting about.

    2. You said most people understand my point, but then you said this, “along comes the Ninth Circuit which arbitrarily decides concealed carry is no longer a protected means of carry under the Second Amendment”

      Well my point was, that is NOT what the 9th did at all. All the 9th did was let the current status quo stand.

      IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO CONCEAL CARRY IN CA, except you do have to get a permit.

      There are several counties that specifically state that “self-defense” is “good cause” and will issue ccw’s accordingly.

      Of course the default position of any State should be both open and concealed should be the primary right of anyone, except felons. And the only thing that can alter that right is that pesky thing called “due process”, like when someone is declared a Felon.

      But all this talk about the 9th taking our right away according to this article is not accurate and the title of this article is not accurate.

      There are many people who carry concealed in CA and a friend of my friend just got a ccw permit in one of the strict “good cause” counties.

      Let’s be a little more objective here and at least deal with the facts. We don’t want to be like the Democrats that don’t deal with reality when objecting to guns!

    3. @ Ron Cash,

      I mean you no disrespect, but your last post was a revelation that you do not grasp the Court’s ruling, how their ruling applies, or even our understanding of this ruling.

      The Court did not just merely, “let the current status quo stand” as you claim. They actually put forth a ruling which created a new precedent which holds that the right to carry a firearm in a concealed manner is no longer protected by the Second Amendment.

      Prior to this ruling it was naturally presumed conceal carry to be a protected right under the Second Amendment and legal issues were argued accordingly.

      However, this new ruling is huge in that it changes the entire construct by which many gun laws are framed – with the presumption that concealed carry was previously a protected right – but now is no longer. In no way could such a ruling be construed as maintaining a “status quo” of any kind. Instead it most definitely reshapes a good many gun laws and thus lives that depend upon them.

      Furthermore, it appears you think we’ve misunderstood the ruling to say the Court has outlawed concealed carry. However, in actuality we understand full well it does not outlaw concealed carry, but what we do understand (and apparently you’ve missed), is that it stripped us of a previous right in which the Second Amendment was thought to protect concealed carry as a right; and thus we no longer have the ability to assert such a right when defending legal matters in future Courts. Again, that is HUGE.

  26. Unfortunately, according to the message contained herein, the ninth circuit court decision affects “nine western states”. That’s bad. Seems like the only resolution will be at the questionable Supreme Court. And That’s bad, also. Our constitution has been relegated to the waste basket, and the entire nation has become a trash pile due to the current political administration. Don’t think so? How much did you pay for hamburger, rent and gasoline in 1970? And that’s bad, too.

  27. I’m really disgusted with this whole issue and NRA. I’ve been a life of duty member for years and have yet to see them take a stance or negotiate common sence laws that will help us keep our right to own alive. As soon as I get my membership cards I’m getting requests for more money. Also, after all the police brutality and excessive use of force cases no one is talking about disarming them. In my area most police are politically appointed, young, untrained, and useless. Still the police union stands behind them and allows them to 90% of the time get away with murder.

  28. When too many in this country don’t exercise their rite to vote, this is the liberal BS you can expect . It’s time we the people take this country back. Take out the garbage holding political offices from top to bottom. Starting in Cal. And working all the way to Washinton. …STAND UP AMERICA…

  29. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

  30. Let’s help the 9th circuit out regarding the 2nd amendment. Of course that amendment does not say that a person may carry a concealed weapon. Back in the day it was ratified, there were no guns small enough in general, to be concealed. But….it was certainly not against any constitutional law to carry….period. That meant that it was okay to carry openly. But…California feels that open carry might frighten someone so if people were endowed with the right to carry, then they should be permitted to carry….concealed or otherwise.
    While the 2nd may not explicitly say “you may carry a concealed weapon” it certainly does not say that “you many NOT.”
    It would then be interpreted that since the court is not permitted to MAKE a law, they can only render a ruling on a law that is in effect passed or being considered.
    The problem here is that should this ruling be appealed to the U.S. supreme court, the best that could be hoped for would be that there are 4 votes on each side….thus, the previous court….the 9th circuit…ruling would stand.
    This is another reason that Hillary should not be elected president, for she will most certainly appoint several liberal justices who would for the next 30 plus years, pound this nation with constitution-wrecking decisions. Then, the United Nations will be here to protect us while we obey all the federal government’s newest rules….including that of making the constitution irrelevant.

    1. @ Nick Liberto,

      In addition to what you’ve stated, the Ninth Circuit Court needs to be reminded that the Second Amendment is not a law which tells citizens what they can or cannot do. Instead the Constitution is a written set of laws through a proclamation written by the “People” in which we are dictating to the federal government what they can and cannot do.

      It is through our Constitution that “We the People” establish proof of a jointly agreed proclamation by the “People” of each State which then gives the federal government the right to even exist and only on the condition that they conduct government business on our behalf, in our best interest, as we have given it permission and guidance to do.

      But now the federal government has disregarded the rules and limits we set upon it, and instead has taken on a life of its own; a life well outside the scope of our original intent for which we created it. As well, we ratified Courts into existence for the sole purpose of serving us in the name of justice, but instead they have become bigger than all of us, it creators, and now rules over us.

      This has to stop. People need to re-learn that since “We the People” are the sole authority which gave the federal government permission to exist, we are the only ones with the authority to rein it in or abolish it completely. And we need to do so before this monster we created completely turns on us and renders us so powerless that we no longer have the means to shut it down.

  31. Ask me if I care what California says OR thinks….No I’ll just say it….PHUQ California I don’t go OR live there and don’t ever plan to

  32. I’m trying to figure out WHO gives the Courts the authority to tamper with OUR Rights,as given by God and guaranteed by the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was written using these words BECAUSE they give NOBODY the authority to license,restrict or control HOW we can utilize our Rights,and it gives NOBODY the authority to try to “re-interpret” its meaning-it’s perfectly explicit in its meaning. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” can only be read to mean ONE thing-Why can’t these Demo-Socialist egg-heads just read and comply?

    1. You need to study some basic constitutional law. Those rights contained in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, and an integral part of that constitutional grants the federal courts the power to interpret those rights. This is middle school stuff.

    2. YOU need to read the Constitution!! Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Supreme Court, or any court, for that matter, any authority to rule on the Constitutionality of any law; it certainly does not give authority to any court to rule on anything related to the 2nd Amendment, nor does it give any Federal, State, or Municipal government any authority to limit The People from possessing or carrying “Arms” (that’d be guns, cannons, tomahawks, knives, et al). The Supreme Court gave itself authority to interpret the Constitution and the Constitutionality of laws and Congress acquiesced and allowed this violation of the Constitution to continue since.
      Now, the Constitution isn’t hard to read or to understand – it was intentionally penned by the founders to be so. In the Constitution, there are at least 3 distinct entities that you all need to be aware of – they are “Congress”, “The States”, and “The People”. So, when the 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or the free exercise thereof.” – it does not state, nor does it mean, that there is some magical “separation of Church and State” – there is no clause in the Constitution that refers to a separation of Church and State. So, when prayer is outlawed at a school sporting event or other function, it is they who outlaw the prayer that are the outlaws – “The People” have the Constitutional right to pray anywhere, anytime they like.
      When we refer to “taking back our country”, we’re referring to taking back our Constitutional Rights – from the Federal Government, from “Congress” from “The States”, from “the President”, et al. Go back and read the Constitution and you will find that the rights, powers, or authority of the Federal Government are “enumerated” and if the rights, power, or authority is not enumerated as belonging to the Federal Government, then the rights, power, and/or authority belong to the States or to The People!! – so if the State doesn’t take control of a right, a power, or an authority, then it belongs to The People – not to a Municipality, not to some school board, not to some government regulator – but to “THE PEOPLE”!!
      Now, go educate yourself and TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!

    3. @ Dirk,

      Truckjunkie never once implied the Constitution as establishing the Bill of Rights to be absolute. He did however predicate his comment upon the tenets of the Constitution which holds that God bestowed such rights upon us – Who’s authority is absolute without question – and thus makes such rights absolute. This fact is merely affirmed by the Constitution and thereafter enumerated through the Bill of Rights.

      While the Constitution does establish the Judicial Branch into existence, it only gives Courts the power to ensure justice is applied equally under the Constitution and the laws established by Congress thereafter. But nowhere is it written in the Constitution that Courts have the power to re-interpret natural unalienable rights or presume to place limits on these rights.

      Thinking such rights are subject to interpretation are philosophies which have come into practice only in recent decades by a Supreme Court that realized how easy it was to unlawfully usurp such power by nothing more than their own interpretations to do so.

      No such power would ever truly be granted to the Judicial Branch, for if it were, they could re-interpret the Constitution to a point which does away with all other branches, thus proclaiming itself the ultimate authority. However, despite lacking such authority that is precisely what they have done, and it needs to be put to an end.

      For if such power were truly granted the Judicial Branch, it could re-interpret the Constitution to a point which does away with all other branches, thus proclaiming itself the ultimate authority. To an extent, that is what they have done, and it needs to be put to an end.

      As for your middle school comment – they never covered Constitutional “law” and most definitely did not delve into issues regarding absolute rights. Maybe you should revisit your middle school. These days very few public schools even cover the Constitution, and those that do are only required by federal law (if receiving funds) to cover the basics one day a year.

  33. This is a liberal/progressive court where 7 judges are attempting to criminalize the law abiding citizen & disarm the good citizens who are protecting their fellow citizens from the many dangers that exist in society today. Try as they might, I refuse their attempt, and will not become a “subject” of this country. I stand firm and unmovable as a free “citizen” of this country and forever behind the Constitution of these United States of America! We must adhere to the belief that “We carry everywhere, because we cannot carry a policeman everywhere!”

  34. What is the point in ruling ine way, and then turning around and ruling another way later? There is no logic here. These Judges are anti-Constitutional, and traitors to their country. They should resign, and hand their responsibilites over to non-biased and non-corrupt Judges! Cowards!

  35. No surprise here. California is not a shall issue state. Shall issue jurisdictions are and will remain unaffected.

  36. Good! I’m glad they ruled the way they did. Creating the category of “concealed” vs. “open” carry is like creating the distinction between ‘assault’ vs other weapons.

    Now, this decision should cause Americans to just start carrying their weapons any way they want with the firm knowledge that it is not the governments place to tell them how, when, or where a weapon may be carried.

    I find it a hoot that here in Montana the county sheriff believes that I need a permit from him if I decide to wear a gun under my shirt or inside my belt. Like most LEO he’s an arrogant fool.

    Now, how did this come about? It came about by our accepting the word “concealed” vs other methods of carrying a firearm. Once you embraced this word, and ideology, you were ripe for the leftist pickin’

    Their word “concealed” IS the Trojan Horse of 2nd Amendment’s violation. Remember! The 2nd Amendment applies to government NOT TO ME (OR YOU). My rights come from God, NOT THE CONSTITUTION OR the so-called BILL OF RIGHTS.

  37. The courts are being corrupted by corrupt Liberals who want nothing more than a totalitarian state. While they talk about keeping this country free (gays, ILLEGAL immigrants, etc.), they do Not seem to think anything in our constitution is protected. There is effectively NO free speech, NO freedom of religion (unless you’re a Muslim), and the 2nd Amendment, well if Billary gets elected, that will be gone. This country will not survive another Liberal term.

  38. I wouldn’t be in too big of a hurry to take this to the Supreme Court just yet! Given the geniuses of the Senate leaving a tie vote potential which would automatically revert to and enshrine the Appellate Court”s last decision.

  39. I will bet the judge carries a weapon. I guess in the land of fruits and nuts you need be a member of the Bloods or Crypts or better yet on a no fly list
    to carry concealed

  40. I’m sorry, but I gotta say that I’m split on the “concealed” carry issue..

    I want my guns.
    I want to be able to have my guns.

    And honestly, if I have mine, I want anyone with bad intentions to know it.


    that being said, slippery sloipe is a m/f

  41. The tragedy in Florida should prove beyond a doubt the need for each and every American to be armed at all times. The NRA should get in front of this and stress education is necessary when carrying concealed but point out the fact this is the only way to a safer America. While some want to strip us of our firearms, let’s face reality, our police, FBI, CIA, can not be everywhere, every minute of every day.

  42. The only surprise here is that the first panel of judges gave an opinion for a natural, God given right that is simply re-stated in the 2nd Amendment.

    If Hillary Clinton does capture the Presidency you WILL see this case and others fast tracked to the Supreme Court after she has appointed only one more justice and the Senate foolishly confirm that person. Once there are five progressives on the court they WILL over turn Heller and McDonald and they will bring case after case after case that will litigate every aspect of gun ownership and will produce a “precedent” that the Federal government, regardless of the language of the 2nd Amendment, and regardless of the enumerated powers WILL rule that the Federal government has the right to control guns. Once that occurs you will see imposition of Federal gun control and very quickly after that as soon as she can get the votes in Congress there will will be confiscation. In the interim between crushing Federal gun control we will be treated to a million ways to curtain our ability to buy guns and ammunition.

    The only way out of our mess is an Article V Convention of the States that legally, peacefully and severely curtains the Federal governments powers.

  43. Will the police be randomly metal detect scanning all of us in the future, when we are forced to carry “Illegally” to protect ourselves? And without probable cause? And if we unfortunately have to deploy our concealed weapon and end up killing the assailant, will we be charged with murder because we weren’t suppose to be carrying, but needed to save our own life? We know where this is all leading to; despite the dem.’s trying to tell us otherwise.

  44. Why do most of us carry? It’s simple. I’d rather not need it every day and have it than get into a situation, though out of my control, that I need it and don’t have it. California has along with States like Illinois and New York have crazy strict guns laws, but what most are failing to comprehend in the opposition camp is that the legal gun carrying people are not the ones that are are committing the crimes and murdering all the innocents. The non law following citizens, i.e., the criminals are breaking the laws. Finally, don’t punish all the law abiding citizens because Federal law enforcement fails to follow up and keep the guns out of the hands of those who they know are threats but too afraid of to offend them.

  45. What EVERYONE’S missing, and NO ONE seems to want to talk about or discuss – and I include conservatives, liberals, politicians, gun rights advocates, fairies, goblins, etc., and should be the hammer to argue for the right to conceal carry is this; there is not one single public police department (not CIA or FBI who have clandestine intelligence ops) in existence today that can protect any one individual or group of people from harmful assault such as is occurring in our society from a lone-wolf predator. Our public police departments are a “reactionary” force and respond only to a “past” event. Unfortunately, they are not a “preventative” force in the sense capable, or needed, to stop an isolated attacker due the limited number of isolated police on the streets (riding around in cars doesn’t provide the public intelligence needed to help stop this type of assault and there’s no argument that the courts can provide in all good conscience to say they that they are). Maybe this should become the main talking point? in court when arguing for the right to concealed carry. Just a thought…….

  46. Not gonna stop me, hoss! This Court has only “opinions.” These are not binding. At last observation, the 2nd Amendment is still the “law of the land” and no black robed lawyer can take that away, nor change it with his or her “opinion.”

  47. You’re right!
    “Sall not be infringed” is a definitive statement,, and therefore not open to ‘opinions.’
    “You’re Fired” is also a definitive statement, and no one questions its meanings…and it is a statement that should be used by the public in response to anyone who attempts to ‘infringe’ on ANY of our Rights.
    That’s why the system must be changed to electing SCOTUS, without Party affiliations, so they Rule Constitutionally, rather than Politically.
    Don

  48. If we can’t carry a concealed weapon, can we carry it in the open? LOL Maybe it is time we defy laws that blatantly go contrary to the constitution and carry anyway?!! My gun goes where I go. I do not try to show I have it on me. You can not tell I carry. I have the right to protect myself, my family and fellow Americans no matter what a liberal court says. If we allow killery as president at some point the Supreme Court will take away all of our rights!!!!!!!!!!

    1. As I understand it,much of California does NOT allow open carry. Now that Californians can’t carry CONCEALED either,that means they are being DEPRIVED of their Second Amendment RIGHT,and THAT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

  49. Another victory for criminals and would-be terrorists. Have these people learned nothing from the aftermath from when England took away private citizens ability to possess firearms? How these judges cannot see that the only people they’re endangering are the law abiding citizens and not those intent on harming others is completely beyond me.

  50. Just realize that our courts Do Not issue “rulings”. They issue opinions. Only kings issue rulings under a monarchy. We the People established this government and gave to it any and all its power. The Bill of Rights can not be infringed upon or diminished in any way! Opinions by courts are just that: Opinions. We the People can chose to accept them or not. In this case: NOT!

  51. This has already been decided by Heller, and several previous Supreme Court decions, which made it CLEAR that possession of a firearm for personal self defense, which is a right, has been extended outside the home, AND, the laws of society, a polite society, dictate that polite people would prefer to carry their firearms concealed to maintain that polite society. This WILL get overturned on appeal, as much of what comes from the crazy 9th Circuit does,

    1. Individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The court ruled that individuals don’t have the right to bear them in a concealed fashion. It did not rule that they don’t have the right not to bear arms. Therefore, if we can’t bear arms concealed, we can bear them openly. Concealed or open carry will therefore be decided depending upon where int he 9th’s jurisdiction you live. What a mess.

    2. Yes but try getting a CCW permit from your local sheriff now. My sister was in the process of filing her CCW permit when the original ruling stating that you did NOT have to show good cause came down, so she called the Kern County (CA) sheriff’s office and asked them if she still had to show good cause on her application. They told her that it was just a ruling, not a law (yet), and that until it became law, yes, she would still have to show cause other than “personal safety”. My sister never completed her application. Even though KCSO is somewhat less stringent than San Diego county on what good cause is, personal defense alone will get you turned down. And now it will probably get worse.

  52. I seems the ninth District court can’t make up their mind what they rule, for or against the rule of concealed carry. One time they vote one way and then another. Sounds like someone has their head up their you know what. This what the Supream Court needs to strike down.

  53. Thats why I don’t live in a state like california who has the most mass shootings anywhere because the citizens are unarmed and the criminals know it.

  54. It is obvious liberals universally are afraid either a terrorist, or other criminal, might be shot by an armed citizen while doing what they (the bad guy) do for a living. These people are either stupid or complicent, and I don’t believe it is the former.

  55. Well, Lot’s of innocent people has chances of being shot by possible attackers that carry guns illegally. This stinking 9th court really sucks the bamm boo zal over this nomination.

  56. Guess the 9th District hasn’t read their enumerated powers on what court cases they are allow to preside over. Firearms and ammunition for said firearms is not one of their enumerated powers. The Second Amendment is quite clear on that, “Shall not be Infringrd”.

  57. Let’s give the Political and left-wing Turds what they want.

    Let’s call for an all out repeal of the Second Amendment.

    Before you send hate mail, let me explain.

    Under Article V there is a way to solve this tard-war once and for all. By calling for a vote, we eliminate the states that have little say when it comes to gun laws. Two thirds of the states must vote for ratification of the change. Call for a state conference to ratify the ending the second amendment.

    Only 18 states are needed to say no to end this. I’m pretty sure that the fly-over states (Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Nevada, Kansas, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisianan, Alaska, and the New England state) would overpower and nullify the stupid twins of the east and west coasts.

    Article V,
    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.

  58. If that’s the case, then those so-called ‘judges’ need to give up their weapons too. MORONS!

  59. I can’t understand why the ninth circuit court is still active. Every wacky decision they hand down is overturned on appeal to the Supremes!

  60. Well, open carry makes more sense to me. I’m going to start carrying a rifle bag with fishing poles in it just to mess with people. FFS. You know, gun control tools all have such a strong herd mentality… they’re just lining themselves up for slaughter.

  61. The 2nd amendment is very clear about the right to bear arms, is says nothing about “to show good cause.”
    These people who made this ruling and the ones who enforce it are anti American! They belong if Federal prison…
    Stand up America and protect your constitutional rights!!

  62. i can’t believe that americans are tolerating this. the current government is trying to make everyone victims. they must understand that if people are armed then these mass shootings in safe zones would not happen. we are not seeing these suicidal killers aiming for anything but areas where is is forbidden to carry firearms. it says in the constitution we have the right to bear arms!!! how can any judge argue that! these killers aim for the weak and helpless….you lawmakers are only helping the killers by giving them more targets and more victims. shame on all of you for being so blind

  63. It’s commiefornia ca. Why is it that no one ever says that if you look up the shooters affiliation you will find that they are a democrat or thier parents were democrat.
    Why is it that democrats think republicans are crazy for thier ideas about guns but thier people are the ones doing the mass shootings. Dont believe me, look it up. I found one person that affiliation was unsure.

  64. The 2nd doesn’t grant the right but directs the Government to protect the 2nd. To be so stupid to believe Americans are going disarm in the wake of Terror is astonishing. Thomas Jefferson warned of this attempt.

  65. I completely agree with Sarah. The consitution of the United States trumps the three branches of government. The ninth circuit has no legal, or moral right to circumvent the consitution, and ammendments that were put in place for a reason… that all branches of government would accountable to each other and in particular to the people that put them in their offices to uphold the constitution – checks and balances if you will. I think that many have forgotten that those very words are in their oaths of office – that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;. They, the ninth circuit will have their little day in the sun, but American citizens who know their rights, and have fought and bled to preserve them are not going to bow to tyranny without resistence. The judges that sit in these courts have forgotten that they are there to interpret law, not to make it. Only congress can do that – and that based on the will of the people. A 2010 estimate from the NRA states “Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually.” Ronald Reagan, may he rest in peace, said that “Government is not the solution to ouro problem(s). Government is the problem.”

    1. @ Clifford: while I am an avid fan of our most precious 2 nd Amendment, and also feel that President Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of modern times, he(Reagan) along with Gerald Ford, and I think, James Carter ( worst president until our present usurper) wrote and signed a letter to Congress in support of the “assault ” weapons ban, which banned our scary looking semi-automatic sports rifles. It was all based on emotion, which is what Liberals do.
      I have chosen to follow our Constitution and to ignore any unjust and UnConstitutional laws. Soon, in our down slide of this once great land, there will be I estimate 60,000,000 Americans that overnight become criminals. And then it will still be true that only the CRIMINALS will have guns. Please be sure to have the w weapons you want and need, AND the ammo and spare parts to go with them.
      I, at this point, am supporting Trump but if anyone here follows politics, unless Hell freezes over, they have it rigged for Hillery to take over the throne from he buddy. Russia may be our only hope if they will release everything to Wikileaks AND Hillery gets bounced TO PRISON.

  66. “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

  67. I live 3500 feet up on a mountain top in Washington state, i travel 1 hour to work and 1 hour home on bad roads through blizzards, rain storms and sun, i carry and i have concealed, i will not give it up without a fight! Wait till one of those law makers is up in my tweaker riddled mountains being held up at gun point, hmmmm, should i keep on driving?

  68. I don’t understand why you need a reason to exercise a right. If I choose to be tried by a jury of my peers, I don’t need a reason. If I want to walk down to the courthouse with a political sign to carry, I don’t need a reason.

    Now I may need a reason to be granted a privilege. If I want to open a bar and serve alcohol, the granting of a liquor license is a privilege. If I want to drive a commercial truck, I may be granted a CDL as a privilege.

    Makes me crazy this liberal logic..

  69. And of course when all the bad guys heard the courts decision, they ALL stopped carrying concealed!! I think the 9th all live at Disneyland here in Comifornia!

  70. I used to live in the former USSR where civilians couldn’t have any kind of weapon in possession at all, but criminals could buy it on a black market whenever they want to have it.
    I live in Iowa now where almost every man has often collection of guns at home, but I feel myself much more safety here and never heard about some problem with this.
    Bad people always could get a weapon if they need it.
    But I agree that potential terrorists and criminals shouldn’t be able to buy any weapon legally.

  71. Rest assured, NO ONE has the absolute right to speak for the American public with a self-serving anti-gun rhetoric and personal agenda in order to distort the 2nd Amendment. And, all while using the attack on or tragic deaths of other citizens at the hands of a terrorist or mad man. Doing this for notoriety or to attain a personal goal is disgusting. If certain “officials” would kindly keep their nose where it belongs, fixing the issues in their own constituency, the country would certainly rest easier. There is definitive knowledge to be gained knowing we are certainly able to run our own communities without outside intervention or interference. Lastly, there is no place for opportunistic politicians or other appointed/elected officials in the United States. Someone obviously forgot and requires a reminder they are simply an over paid EMPLOYEE of the people…an appointed/elected official who can be replaced at the will of the American people…nothing more. No man or woman entrusted by WE THE PEOPLE have the right to rule or control the lives of FREE people. A select few wealthy influential socialites who happen to be in either an appointed/elected position of public trust believe they are the ruling class and forget that THEY WORK FOR US. To remember this might help bring them back to reality. Then again, maybe not.

    Respectfully submitted,

    1. Well said ! As I’ve been putting out there myself, they need to be reminded of their position and responsibilities in a no nonsense hard knocks way. Personally I think putting them in the unemployed line would be a real eye opener.

    2. Excellent reply RPK. People should take these words to heart and know that no political hack using his bully pulpit for his own purposes is going to change the US Constitution, whether he chooses to defend it or not. It is simply not his call to make!

  72. I unfortunately live in the Republic of Kalifornia, I can tell you that when I did my interview with my local sheriff to get my CCW the sheriff said that anyone that just came in and said it’s my right to carry will get denied. That was back when the law had changed in favor of allowing anyone to apply and be approved for a CCW. In Placer County this changes nothing because the sheriff had this mentality all along.
    I am a divorced dad and only 7 more years until my daughter turns 18 and then it’s Alaska here I come. I hate this state with a passion and can’t wait to see this place in my review mirror.

  73. It’s the 9th District, what would you expect. All of their appointments are cherry picked to toe the progressive line. The 9th District should be disbanded as a whole & jurisdiction transferred to jurists who adhere to their oath of office, to uphold our constitution, above all else.

  74. Seems to me that the action the 9th circuit took is ample reason to support the right to carry.

    [ e.g. (ignoring the phrase “, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”)]

  75. The only thing that will stop this — is for a local police or sheriffs department to arrest these commie judges and charge them with treason for going against the constitution

  76. The California 9th court appeals is a joke and everybody knows it. It never rules on law, but ideology. This is no surprise. Idiot does as idiot is.

    We have long been a country ruled not by laws, but by judicial tyranny. There are mechanisms in the constitution to prevent this, but it would take congressmen with balls, and I think they all wear skirts now days.

    Bottom line; Change never comes easy folks. Liberty is never maintained by good people doing nothing except for hoping that bad people will stop doing bad all of their own accord. No, I am not suggesting violence. I am saying that when good Americans have so little commitment to change that won’t even change where they shop (boycott a store) to effect change, then we have lost America.

    To quote: George Washington. “The thing that separates the American Christian apart from all other people in the world is; they would rather die on their feet then live on their knees.”

    Sorry to tell you, Mr. Washington, that is no longer true in this country. We have become a country of selfish, self-centered, spineless, lazy, wimps that spend more time researching our next smartphone buy then the person we vote for office. We believe that some magical power exist that always makes sure that good wins over evil without any intervention or sacrifice on our part, because we are unwilling to do anything but sit around and complain and hope things change.

    1. JOHN, I Completely and whole heartily agree. This country is going in the way of entitled, selfish, metrosexuals. They believe voting for the next ” American idol” is patriotic as they get.

  77. California is the land of the fruits & nuts. Few Californians can even tell you who their elected representatives are, much less tell you about the 2nd Amendment. Politicians in California are money hungry, and hate restraints like Prop 13 which keep them from spending all of taxpayers money. As such, California politicians do not want taxpayers to be able to protect themselves, since they believe the State owns taxpayers.

  78. Personally I think all those that support the 2A and open or ccw should leave these states and let the libs have at it, they’ll be screaming to reverse their stupidly inside a year as they watch family,friends,loved ones, etc become the victims of crime on an incessant increase. Terrorism gangs and other criminal behavior will soon absorb the state. They have just declared open season on themselves.

  79. The liberals have been able to jump on the recent tragedies to push their agenda of taking firearms away from the people. Over 88,000,000 Americans have firearms and caused no trouble whatsoever. Maybe if more Americans were carrying concealed, these tragedies could be stopped. The liberal judges in California cannot take my right to bear arms. I’m not giving mine up. “From my cold dead hands…….”

  80. Please stop referring to this as a “California court”. This was the federal 9th District Court of Appeals. It’s a FEDERAL court. They have jurisdiction over nine western states, Not just CA. We have plenty of political lunacy to go around without having to be held responsible for this atrocious decision.

  81. From my perspective, “the matter” was decided when the Bill OF Rights was penned.
    “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.”
    That seems pretty cut and dried, to me. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Means this ruling of theirs, and every other ruling requiring registration or licensing or permits regarding firearms, are unconstitutional and therefore cannot be considered law.

    1. The only laws the extremist gun control people care about is the ones they create. They completely fail to see that if they keep this up, the only people with guns will be the criminals and the cops!

    2. I agree with Sarah. Has anyone considered that if someone in the Orlando massacre had a ccw just how many lives may have been spared? Don’t be one of the sheep.

  82. I would refer my fellow shooters to CHARLES COOKE’s recent analysis of Peruta in the National Review. The Court held on very narrow grounds that concealed carry is not a protected right. In the accompanying dissents, and even in some of the concurring votes, the Justices also said in effect that per Heller, the State cannot ban both concealed and open carry as that would invalidate the protected right ti bear arms. It is not over yrt.

    1. Can you just picture everyone in Ca. not qualified for a concealed carry permit walking around with their AKs and ARs with their 10 round magazines? It’s like the 1840s all over again..

    2. While Peruta was being debated the Commiefornia legislature banned open carry of all arms, first handguns and then long gun, loaded or unloaded. Part of the decision said that the citizens had a remedy as long as they could openly carry. Well thats gone too. Mike is right, its not over and if the SCOTUS fails to take this and let it stand then its the Dred Scott decision for RKBA. We have been to the soap box, the ballot box and the jury box, only one box left…..

    3. The problem with SCOTUS taking it up currently is the balance of the court. Currently, it would be projected to be a 4-4 decision, in which case the lower court ruling would stand. WE need SCOTUS to take it up, but ONLY after a 9th judge is on the court and ONLY if that judge is pro 2A. ~Dave Dolbee

    4. @ Mike,

      I had truly wondered when others would make that connection. Banning both aspects of carry – open and concealed – is tantamount to an outright gun ban and thus aggregates into complete infringement of our Second Amendment right. The anti-gun liberals are so busy frothing over the prospect of success that they fail to see the corner they are panting themselves into.

    5. It’s be funny & ironic if the liberal wackos wind up forcing CA to become Open Carry due to their successfully limiting concealed carry.

    6. So, you bring up a good question that has been driving me crazy – the areas that ban ‘concealed carry’ seems very specific. There is never any mention in the Court’s decision about open carry, so does that then allow for open carry?

    7. @ RickAlan,

      The short answer is a resounding NO – it does not allow for open carry. The Court even addressed the issue by admitting they were aware their ruling against concealed carry flies in the face of fact that open carry was also recently banned in California; however, they stated they could not address that side of this issue in this particular ruling given it was not a matter brought before them.

      Thus my comment to Mike above in which I wrote (in part):

      “Banning both aspects of carry – open and concealed – is tantamount to an outright gun ban and thus aggregates into complete infringement of our Second Amendment right. The anti-gun liberals are so busy frothing over the prospect of success that they fail to see the corner they are panting themselves into.”

  83. California is being turned into the largest “gun free” zone in the country, “Gun Free Zone” is liberalspeak for FREE FIRE ZONE WITH A TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT has been proved time and time again

  84. It is Scary… I don’t know where does the people of the 9th CCofA have their heads stuck up to… but I know one thing-> A perpetrator (the Bad guy) that is going to commit some evil, is Not gonna care about any law or ruling. On the contrary, the evil doer is gonna to attack a ‘gun-free’ zone or were is less probable to find a ResponsableArmedAmerican…

  85. No surprise here. California HAD to reverse that ruling and they did. Before Scalia passed this is as far as this would go. Now, with an even split they may just appeal to get another split decision that lets the ruling stand as a precedent of sorts. Or they could wait hoping that Hillary captures the presidency and then appeal after the court flips progressive. This way they would have a piece of what they’ve wanted forever: SCOTUS ruling against the right to carry outside the home. Next up would be the right keep arms at all. This disaster could happen very, very quickly.

  86. Gee! What a surprise!
    Actually it is of no surprise at all since it is California.
    It is a shame that so many in this country cannot read or understand what they are reading as the Second Amendment is very clear in saying that the people have a right to own and bear arms. Where does it say in that statement that “the people’ must carry concealed anyways. AND the Supreme Court does not have the right to change the meaning of said statement in any way or form!

  87. P*ss on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals! For the present, until Hillary becomes POTUS, I reside in Texas. Texas Law say that I have a right to carry ‘open’ or ‘concealed’. Until such time the State of Texas say I can’, I will. Even if, I will, sighting the 2nd Amendment if ever stopped for having a weapon on me. As for Hillary, I lived in Mexico and parts south, until I returned recently. I still know how to get to southern countries that are gun friendly, some even encouraging the carry of weapons. So, Hillary, 9th CCofA, do your worst. Those that allow this B.S. to continue, deserve the government they get. As for me adios, asta leugo , so long! I ‘still’ love America,BUT, the powers that be, are making it difficult for me to remain much longer. Will straddle my ‘scoot’ & party my way back to Paraguay, Uraguay, one of those ‘guays’ where gus are still welcome.

  88. Another wonderful decision from the 9th Circuit Court – which has proven over the years to favor liberal causes:

    See http://criminallaw.calbar.ca.gov/Publications/ThreeStrikesOpinionsCasesDecidedbytheNinthCircuitCourtofAppeal.aspx for details

    This decision is hair splitting with the SCOTUS Heller decision and will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. This decision depending on the make-up of the Supreme Court could allow states to regress from “shall issue” CCW permits to the arbitrary bureaucrats decision of who can have a CWW such as is happening in NYC.

  89. The 9th Circuit is a Progressive Liberals wet dream, made up of some of the finest Jurists that money can buy (as long as you are a Hillary Liberal) and this ruling comes as absolutely no surprise considering their history.. This is just a preview of what a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court ruling will look like and rest assured if she is elected the first case her new court will hear will be the right to bear/right to concealed carry question and we will no longer need worry about our 2nd amendment rights as it will be clearly defined and anyone wishing to remain within their legal definition will be hunting and defending their home with a single shot 22 (and if you are lucky they might even permit the .22 long variety)

    1. and before the Trolls come out, I am fully aware that concealed carry is not protected by the Constitution so technically they are correct however the Declaration of Independence does guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness endowed by their creator a right which can be deprived from you by any gun carrying criminal determined to separate you from your personal property which might be averted and actually happens less often in States that permit concealed carry than in those with the strictest gun laws….

  90. 9th CIRCUS court of Appeals is THE premier LEFT Loco court in the land. They have more cases overturned by the SCOTUS than any other court.
    that means they are even LEFT of SCOTUS..

    1. Sorry, Fatboy46, 9th Circus Court of Appeals, is wrong. A circus is fun, entertaining, with animal performers, clowns and human performers. There is nothing fun or entertaining about the 9th CCofA. It is however; full of clowns and not the fun or entertaining type, but ‘The Attack of The Killer Clowns’ type.

  91. Time for people to take control and ELIMINATE these so called judges and misguided politicians. This is what would have happened in the wild west or colonial days and needs to happen now. We NEED a new revolution in this country to get us back on track. The utter stupidity. All these G D laws about guns don’t mean a thing to a criminal. How come these lib jack turds can’t realize that.

  92. While this decision currently affects only those States that fall under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, once it reaches the Supreme Court, whatever they decide will define law for the entire Nation. By the time this case makes it to the Supreme Court, either Hillary or Donald will have already seated the new deciding judge to replace Scalia.

    Especially considering that Heller was only won by a 5-4 decision, now more than ever your vote for president will decide the fate of the Second Amendment. While many don’t care for Trump, a vote for Hillary virtually guarantees we’ll lose this case in the Supreme Court and thus the destruction of the Second Amendment.

    As for the immediate damage, this isn’t really a loss for Californian’s as it merely rolls things back to the anti-gun laws they’ve allowed onto their books for years. However, now that it has been made into case law at the 9th Circuit level, it can adversely affect similar case rulings in other states which fall under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction (Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington).

    As a law enforcement officer my LEOSA credentials authorize my concealed carry in any state or territory, even after I retire. So one would think I’d be satisfied knowing my butt is covered regardless of rogue court decisions, but I am not…

    I truly feel anguish and anger that 7 judges with a personal liberal agenda, only here for a fleeting moment in history, feel they have the authority to effectively strip millions of their Constitutional right to defend their lives; a God-given right which was Constitutionally acknowledged through enumeration over 225 years ago. They are a disgrace to this once great Nation.

  93. The constitutional right to bear arms is written in plain English and should not be interpreted by the courts. “Shall not be infringed” does not require a Lawyer or a Judge to tell me what it means. This decision is a travesty of justice.

    1. Simple English written and ratified by farmers. So what it says is what it means. Simple and easily understood by all but the most delusional.

  94. Commiefornia is at it again. I think it’s time that ferderal law mandate concealed carry approval in all states and one permit fits all. I’m tired of all the games.

  95. Isn’t this supposed to be settled law? Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that people have the individual right to bear arms and as 2A says, that right shall not be infringed

    The 9th once again demonstrates what pinheads they really are

  96. Sorry Dave. I need not have to read this article to realize that this is an infringement on the second Amendment and any UnConstitutional ruling or Law put forth should be and will be disregarded by the majority of the populace. And hopefully, lawsuits fly when a loved one is murdered, or someone is raped by a thug, and a law abiding citizen can’t protect themselves. Surely the police will then be responsible for our safety. Surely! NOT. I will carry regardless ( although I do have a concealed carry permit)

  97. You may not like anything about Trumpet man, but he is the only one that has stated pro-2nd Amendment… The other two- Hill&Bill- state from day one they will rape our right to carry! The Supreme Court is up for grabs folks! Organize and vote!

  98. Regarding Arizona, which I’m assuming is one of the 9 states, can state courts or existing state laws override this decision, or does this decision immediately negate those laws?

    1. Fortunately State law takes precedence.. 9th simply said concealed carry is not protected by the Constitution (which it is not) which will allow states wishing to suppress concealed carry to do without argument. Az. will be fine unless the progressives go on a drive to import liberals to shift the balance like they have in Fl.

    2. @ Steven King,

      Forgive me if I’ve taken you out of context, but based on the face value of your comments, nothing could be further from fact.

      State law does NOT take precedent over federal because federal law is the Supreme Law of the Land and overrides any subordinate law in which it finds itself conflicted. There is simply nothing else that could be said on the matter.

      Unless I misinterpreted how you chose to word your sentence, you seemed to agree with the 9th Circuit in saying concealed carry is not protected by the Constitution. I certainly hope you realize that is your personal opinion and not a matter of law. I also hope your realize that you and 7 other judges in California are in the extreme minority for believing so.

      With an overwhelming majority of State’s laws along with the 7th Circuit saying concealed carry is in-fact a Constitutional right, that leaves you somewhat out in the cold along with the oddball 9th Circuit.

      Now to put ss1’s question into proper context regarding the effects on Arizona – the 9th Circuit’s decision affirmed a lower courts assertion that held there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. It doesn’t mean folks can’t carry concealed, it just means they have no argument in court should they fight a city or state that makes laws which prevents concealed carry. (Keep in mind I’m writing to ss1 at this point).

      Given the 9th Circuit has now singlehandedly abolished such a right, this leaves States along with every municipality that falls under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction with the ability to deny citizens their right to bear concealed arms. And it could happen in very short order.

      Consider the few liberal cities in Arizona that will take this ruling to heart and immediately institute new anti-carry laws despite the Arizona statutes which are supposed to prevent that. It would be pointless for the Arizona Attorney General to prosecute such a case when he knows the 9th Circuit will overrule him.

      And thus the anti-gun liberals will for the first time have managed to fracture the most pro-gun State in the country.

    3. @Steven King and G-Man:

      Thanks for your replies. I read all of them just now. It’s quite perplexing. I hope the best for all of us.

      On a related but different topic, I hope the liberals don’t try to capitalize on both tragedies in Orlando, especially the bigger one. All people, conservatives and liberals, should see that the nightclub tragedy has everything to do with Homeland Security and the FBI FAILING to protect our country by letting a domestic terrorist, who was interviewed by the FBI 2 times in recent years, freely buy all his weapons this week without placing them on hold, without re-interviewing him, and without tracking him. This is a major, major hole in our security system and I wish that liberals could just see the light and see where the real threat to our country is.

      There obviously needs to be red flag alert which puts multiple protections in place when a guy like this enters his name in the federal computer system to buy a gun.

    4. @ ss1,

      To help put things into proper context… it’s only going to get worse. We are so inundated dealing with Obama’s intentional creation of a mass influx in illegal aliens from the south and all his imported refugees from the middle-east, that we no longer have the resources to monitor all the subjects the public would like us to.

      However, even if we did have the resources, Omar Mateen barely met the profile required to maintain observation. View it along the lines of expecting street officers to be at every crime where their usual suspects are known to frequent. It’s simply impossible to expect such constant surveillance.

      The only trigger’s which ever led the Bureau to check Mateen in the first place were reports he was bragging about ISIS ties. Real ISIS doesn’t brag, yet they investigated anyway and it was proven to be just that – bragging – because there was no actual ISIS affiliation. Every time a subsequent call came in the Bureau responded as they should, but still no real affiliation could be established.

      So when it comes down to it, no crime was committed, just some guy talking crap every time. In America you can’t authorize the expense of constant surveillance over that nor order an arrest just for crap talking. And without a conviction you can’t place them in the NICS system either.

      Could you imagine the public uproar if we did? Randomly deciding to place U.S. persons into the NICS without proper adjudication is precisely what we often fight to prevent here in this pro-gun forum. So now that we’ve seen what a crazy man with a gun can do we suddenly want that? I really don’t think so, because that is exactly what Obama wants.

      To put this into perspective Mateen had mental health issue. He was born and raised here. He was already known as a belligerent, racist, anti-gay, wife beater who ultimately chose to self-radicalized into a wanna-be lone wolf extremist. Even ISIS leader Al Baghdadi’s claims that he ordered this hit are proving to be false. Instead he’s just capitalized on the news of the shooting.

      Whether it’s one crazy man or a hundred organized jihadists, any deaths in the name of someone’s religion is terrorism. The fact is it still happened and no one was ready for it. We can’t blame it solely as a singular point of failure within the FBI or any other alphabet agency.

      Call it end-times or whatever you like, but fact is times are changing and we are all going to have to step up our game and work together or perish trying.

  99. We can only hope it goes to the Supreme Court.

    So will California now invalidate all permits issued without good cause documentation?

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

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.