https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/06/09/10-56971.pdf
http://archive.is/gvsPj
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_seniority_list.php?pk_id=0000000035
http://archive.is/GQG2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
Notice that the first oral argument of 'Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego' was delivered back in December of 2012, so it took the Ninth Circuit Court over 3 years to rule on a simple point of law. That is, whether citizens of the United States have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms.
Not too surprisingly, the court ruled in favor of government power — that is, that any restriction the state wishes to place on a citizen's ability to carry firearms is constitutional, despite the simple language in the Second Amendment that obviously prohibits any restrictions. After all, the Second Amendment clearly states "the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It doesn't take a law degree, or a study of history, to understand what that simple language means.
Of course, the judges on the Ninth Circuit court that held the majority opinion had no problem justifying their ruling, since there is an ample supply of bad precedent from history conferring power to governments (of course), that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits — again, any infringement of the right of the people to bear arms.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
http://archive.is/f0MVt
Article the fourth... 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.
The following seven Ninth Circuit Court Judges gave the majority opinion in the case —
Sidney R. Thomas (Chief Judge), Harry Pregerson, Susan P. Graber,
M. Margaret McKeown, William A. Fletcher, Richard A. Paez, and John B. Owens
The following four Ninth Circuit Court Judges dissented —
Barry G. Silverman, Consuelo M. Callahan, Carlos T. Bea, N. Randy Smith
The majority opinion is tragically comical to read. Ponderous and ridiculous, it actually includes a brief history of restrictions on the right to bear arms in England, going back to 1299. Here is just one example —
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf
...
1. History Relevant to the Second Amendment
a. Right to Bear Arms in England
The right to bear arms in England has long been subject to substantial regulation. In 1299, Edward I directed the sheriffs of Safford and Shalop to prohibit anyone from “going armed within the realm without the king’s special licence.” 4 Calendar Of The Close Rolls, Edward I, 1296–1302, at 318 (Sept. 15, 1299, Canterbury) (H.C. Maxwell-Lyte ed., 1906). Five years later, in 1304, Edward I ordered the sheriff of Leicester to enforce his prohibition on “any knight, esquire or other person from . . . going armed in any way without the king’s licence.” 5 Calendar Of The Close Rolls, Edward I, 1302–1307, at 210 (June 10, 1304, Stirling) (H.C. MaxwellLyteed., 1908).
...
There are numerous other irrelevant references to various arms restrictions from history in the court's published ruling — as if somehow what was happening in England in 1299 (or wherever and whenever) gives one carte blanche to ignore the obvious language of the Second Amendment, and that the U.S. Constitution was written precisely to break from existing precedents.
Why on earth would anyone fight a bloody revolution to break from some ruling nation, only to establish a legal system that slavishly conformed to the legal traditions of the former rulers? What on earth would be the point of that?
Somehow it was lost on these judges that the founders fought the Revolutionary War to form a new nation under a government that did not conform to past tradition. It is especially ironic that a majority of the judges from any court would cite English law prior to the American Revolution as valid precedent, given that the purpose of the American Revolution was to eliminate English control over the colonies. You could not make that up. Such is the supposed wisdom of a government employee, with years of experience studying law.
If you do not agree that it is ridiculous to use English law prior to the American Revolution to justify ignoring phrases in the U.S. Constitution like 'shall not be infringed', then you may enjoy the writings of concurring judge Susan P. Graber.
Consider the quote below from Susan P. Graber. It seems the earlier absurdities in the majority opinion were not extreme enough for Graber, since she felt compelled to make the majority opinion even more ridiculous (italics added below) —
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf
I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately only to state that, even if we assume that the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional. Three of our sister circuits have upheld similar restrictions under intermediate scrutiny. Such restrictions strike a permissible balance between “granting handgun permits to those persons known to be in need of self-protection and precluding a dangerous proliferation of handguns on the streets.” Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, 881 (4th Cir. 2013); see also Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426, 431–32 (3d Cir. 2013) (assuming that the Second Amendment applies and upholding New Jersey’s “justifiable need” restriction on carrying handguns in public); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89, 97 (2d Cir. 2012) (assuming that the Second Amendment applies and upholding New York’s “proper cause” restriction on the concealed carrying of firearms). If restrictions on concealed carry of weapons in public are subject to Second Amendment analysis, we should follow the approach adopted by our sister circuits.
...
This cries out for a response. Notice that Graber's statement quoted above has nothing to do with the law. It is not up to judges to strike balances, as Graber claims in the quote above. Judges are paid to abide by, and uphold the law — that is the meaning of rule of law. Graber's notion that it is up to judges to apply the law as they see fit in order to 'strike a balance', is as clear a contradiction to the ideal of the rule of law from a judge as you will hear. Want 'a government of laws, and not of men'? Well, then you have to keep the likes of Susan P. Graber as far from a courtroom as possible.
And pay special attention to this statement from Graber —
... even if we assume that the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional.This quote from Graber begs the painfully obvious question:
What could the U.S. founders have possibly written to permit carrying concealed weapons in public, given that Graber does not accept the statement "the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed", as granting that permission?Does the U.S. Constitution really have to be filled with numerous laundry lists of examples to prevent incompetent judges from justifying any interpretation that suits them? Graber's statement quoted above is obviously absurd on its face — how on earth can the infringements being considered in the case in question still remain constitutional, even with language in the Second Amendment that specifically emphasized concealed carry?
We know that if the U.S. Constitution contained specific examples to clarify every statement of law, it would do nothing to prevent dishonest interpretations, since Graber demonstrated that explicitly in the quote above. Adding specific examples to the U.S. Constitution might make it harder for judges like Graber to 'strike a balance' that suits them, of course, but the regular assaults on the Second Amendment have provided us with a clear demonstration that many people will simply twist whatever is written to justify whatever position they fancy (Susan P. Graber's statements are just one demonstration among many of this obvious fact).
Notice that dissenting judges pointed out that California's gun laws considered in total, approach being a total ban on a citizen's right to bear firearms, and as such, are clearly in direct contradiction with the Second Amendment —
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf
B. In the context of California’s ban on open carry, the counties’ ban on concealed carry for self-defense is unconstitutionalIn the context of California’s choice to prohibit open carry, the counties’ policies regarding the licensing of concealed carry are tantamount to complete bans on the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home for self-defense, and are therefore unconstitutional.
Heller defined the right to bear arms as the right to be “armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (quoting Muscarello, 524 U.S. at 143 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). Here, California has chosen to ban open carry but grants its citizens the ability to carry firearms in public through county-issued concealed weapons licenses. Thus, in California, the only way that the average law-abiding citizen can carry a firearm in public for the lawful, constitutionally protected purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry license. And in San Diego and Yolo Counties that option has been taken off the table. Both policies specify that concern for one’s personal safety alone does not satisfy the “good cause” requirement for issuance of a license.
...
Writing words in a document protects no one, if those entrusted to abide by and enforce those words are not honest enough to do so.
The words 'shall not be infringed' have a clear meaning that everyone understands. You know what they mean, I know what they mean, and all the judges on the Ninth Circuit Court know what they mean — pity they will not enforce them.
If you are convinced that the Second Amendment is flawed, then by all means make your case, and attempt to start a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution, but do not lie and pretend a phrase like 'shall not be infringed' means 'infringe when we feel like it'.
