Peruta v San Diego

[Inigoes]

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content..._id=0000000722

Delivered this morning, there is no 2A right for concealed carry

the decision should be up in a day or so on the webpage.

The text of the decision found on mdshooters.com:
https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=194716

[ideaman]

Then bodyguards, off duty police, all politicians up to the prez, federal security etc. Why are the police carrying guns outside. In essence, only law-abiding citizens are prohibited because criminals never obey laws.

[NRA Member]

They are chipping away little by little.

President Crooked Hillary will finish it off.

We all better dam well hope Trump is elected or the 2nd amendment will be only a memory!

[Bang]

Prediction: If it goes to SCOTUS, they will decline to hear it.

[ChemicalReaper]

I'm sure all the criminals will immediately cease to conceal carry their illegally-possessed firearms

[mikelets456]

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.

So a bunch of highly educated law "dudes" can't figure out what that means? I'm sure they were taught about commas, rights and infringements somewhere along the line....It's one freaking sentence,my goodness!

[Bang]

We lost our founder's intended society when corrupt politics trumped law. Politics was already an on-going situation during the debates on how to frame the 2nd amendment...which is the reason behind the unfortunate use of the comma. It was a compromise attempting to allay fears of how the amendment would affect matters local to the states from which the participants came. But, no matter. Present holders of a particular point of view will never be persuaded by facts. They are only interested in power...something the framers were well aware could happen.

[greenjohn88]

It's the historically anti-2A ninth circuit. There's a good chance this won't last.

[jthrelf]

This is ridiculous. I'm fuzzy on the case, but from what I remember the plaintiffs initially won until the Kali AG got involved and pushed the case to be reheard en banc. It just seems so messed up, but I don't have enough legal knowledge to know really how messed up.

[mikelets456]

This is ridiculous. I'm fuzzy on the case, but from what I remember the plaintiffs initially won until the Kali AG got involved and pushed the case to be reheard en banc. It just seems so messed up, but I don't have enough legal knowledge to know really how messed up.

Progressives lose and they try and retry until they get the desired answer and change the outcome. Then they win and tell us "that's the law of the land, it can't be changed---live with it"!