The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment. (Dave Workman photo)
By Dave Workman
Senior Editor
In a stunning setback for gun rights advocates, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that “there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”
The divided 7-4 ruling came in a pair of cases challenging the way California’s carry law is administered. The cases involved the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Inc., and California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation. The ruling may be read here.
The split decision appears to have been basically along political and philosophical lines. The prevailing majority includes five judges who were appointed by President Bill Clinton, one was appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson and one appointed by Barack Obama. On the dissenting panel were three judges appointed by President George W. Bush and one Clinton appointee.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed that “elections do matter.” Federal judges are nominated by the president and they are lifetime appointments.
“The ruling misrepresented our complaint,” Gottlieb told TGM. “We never argued that there was a right to concealed carry. Our complaint was that there is a right to carry and the law in question did not allow it in any form. The court ignored what this case was really about to get around the challenge we raised.”
SAF’s Alan M. Gottlieb
Indeed, the ruling now may raise questions about the constitutionality of open carry. At some point the U.S. Supreme Court will have to weigh in on this thorny issue because of the Second Amendment’s specific language about the “right to keep and bear arms.”
“My clients are disappointed, but given the political inclinations of the judges on this panel, (are) not surprised by this ruling,” added California attorney Chuck Michel. “An appeal to the Supreme Court is possible. But significantly, the Peruta decision specifically avoided answering the critical legal question of whether, if concealed carry is prohibited, some form of open carry of firearms must be allowed. California law bans open carry, so the constitutionality of that ban will now have to be tested.”
The California Rifle & Pistol Association, which was also a plaintiff, issued a statement asserting that “Once again the 9th Circuit showed how out of touch it is with mainstream Americans. 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.”
The majority opinion was written by Judge William A. Fletcher, a Clinton appointee.
According to the Associated Press, the ruling overturned a 2014 decision by a three-judge 9th Circuit panel in a lawsuit challenging routine denials of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County. Depending upon the county, California carry permits can be pretty tough to obtain, and this ruling could create more problems for law-abiding armed citizens in that state.
California’s state constitution does not have a specific “right to bear arms” provision, while other states in the 9th Circuit do have such provisions in their state constitutions.
In Washington, for example, Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution specifically states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” Arizona uses identical language in its state constitution.
