Huge Fight Over Concealed Carry Brewing In The Courts


This fall we could be witnessing another major Supreme Court decision on guns. At issue is concealed carry in San Diego, where it is basically impossible for an average citizen to obtain a permit to carry a gun outside the home.

From the gun hating New York Times:



The plaintiffs argue that given the ban on open carry — which is being challenged in a separate lawsuit filed last August in Federal District Court in Los Angeles — the San Diego sheriff’s restrictive policy on concealed carry means that as a practical matter, “the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.” The question is whether there is any such right.

Significantly, in ruling against the plaintiffs last June by a vote of 7 to 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn’t actually answer that question. That fact may deter the Supreme Court from hearing the appeal — or, depending on the justices’ appetite for a major gun case, it may prove irrelevant. The justices have the power to frame just about any question they want to answer. If they want to decide the core question of whether the Second Amendment gives the right to carry a gun, in some manner, any manner, outside the home — which is to say, if four justices think they can count on an eventual fifth vote for that proposition, then this will be the case to grant.

It would be an activist grant, but that’s nothing new; remember last winter when the court agreed to hear a challenge to President Obama’s deportation-deferral program and added the politically charged question, not addressed by the lower court, of whether the president had violated his constitutional duty to “take care” to enforce the law. (That case ended in a 4-4 tie, with the question — almost surely framed by Justice Scalia — left unanswered.)

In his majority opinion for the Ninth Circuit last June, Judge William A. Fletcher explained why the court wasn’t answering the broad question. Because the plaintiffs were complaining only about the San Diego sheriff’s approach to concealed carry and had not directly challenged the state’s open-carry ban, Judge Fletcher wrote, “we do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry.” Rather, he said, “we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.”

And he answered the question this way: “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”


The New York Times recognizes that the matter before the courts can be framed as whether or not there is any protection whatsoever for citizens who wish to carry guns outside of their homes. Progressives are not happy with the way this issue can be framed, since the plaintiff is not asserting a specific right to open carry or concealed carry. The plaintiff is simply saying that some form of carry must be permitted.

That smart line of argument increases the odds of another victory for gun owners. Of course, the Supreme Court has to decide to hear the case, but if they do; gun owners in ultra-restrictive blue states could be given some form of relief. Fresh off several major victories in replacing “may issue” permit laws with “shall issue” ones, the NRA and California Pistol and Rifle Association could score a big victory here.



  1. We all have a “right” but not an obligation to defend our selves and our loved ones or we all have the “right” to kneel and beg for our lives or the lives of our loved ones. We “all” have a right granted by the second amendment to own a firearm (barring any kind of a restriction based on a previous criminal charge) and use it for our defense, these anti-gun loons, however, DO NOT have a right to force me to kneel and beg beside them. There should be laws enacted in every state that places direct liability on those who would deny someones right to defend themselves by way of a “gun free zone.” Think Aurora Colorado theater mass shooting, that theater denied the right to defend ones self to every patron in that theater and should be held liable for such. This makes much more sense than suing a gun manufacture just because they manufactured the gun, with that anti-gun lunatic logic, Ford Motor would be sued for every death because of reckless or drunk driving.

    • My rights are not “granted” by other people. I was born free. The Bill of Rights were flawed. The constitution limits what the politicians can do. If it was not written into the constitution (denying a right) the politicians have no legal authority to do it. Example free speech, free press, right to bear arms etc. Remember if someone gives you a right they can takes it away.

    • I agree with you totally, Going armed is a basic right of All American Citizens, with the exception of felony convictions . These convictions should be only crimes against others or their property. I don’t think that anyone who has a simple tort should be denied their rights. My opinion and I thank you for allowing me to voice my thoughts.

    • John, as been said many times before, the second amendment does not “grant” the rights you mention…it merely guarantees the pre-existing natural or God given right… thus, even if the dim dems succeeded in ever repealing the second amendment, it is very arguable that the government would not only lose any loyalty, but would also have a battle royal ( can anyone say ‘civil war’?)… if ever they were to try to seize firearms… how many leos or armed forces would be willing to risk their lives if stiff armed resistance were to happen with ill advised seizure attempts?

    • What we need is a mass to assemble outside the lawmakers window, all openly flipping the bird to them, while open carrying, and concealed carrying, in a display of civil disobedience. The SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND says your gun rights MUST NOT be infringed. These people know, or should know, that what they are doing is TREASON. They should be charged with that crime and punished accordingly. They are the “domestic enemies” spoken of.

  2. I agree with you and it is your senator that stops everything with her dumb law when she has armed security for her protection. GO AFTER FINESTINE SHE IS THE CULPRIT for Cal. gun Laws!!!

    • she is a communist wanna b bitch! people are tired of all this san deago crap! they don’t speak for all americans! they speak for socialism and communist rule!NO! DICTATORSHIP IN AMERICA! Washington will do the peoples bid! or they will leave!!


      • very true, it is not time to drain the swamp, but clean the sewer. allow us get get back our freedoms we have lost. communism and socialism, just right of communism, does not want an armed population, they are harder to control. the funny thing is, the reason neither has ever worked is a group of people cannot decide supply and demand. it just does not work. a free market decides supply and demand because they are the ones that want the stuff. it is not hard to understand. what is hard is someone trying to control everyone else. both parties are guilty of this. that is why we need to keep church and state separate. the right to be free and make your own decisions. you can not have freedom without tolerance. if someone wants to do heroin it is there business until they hurt someone else. all the war on drugs has done is make drugs available to everyone including kids and produced criminals we then house so they can become better criminals. a lot needs to be changed and i certainly will not see it one in my life time, but it would be nice to get a start on it…

  3. For all the ANTI-GUN law makers, we now have ONLY 22,000 PLUS gun laws on the books. Can any reasonably sane person believe that ONE MORE will cause the rampaging ,thug law breakers to suddenly become compliant citizens? NO. —– Enforcement of existing law is the best answer, and yet ,there is little interest in doing so.
    One example is in the BACKGROUND CHECK so loved by the liberals.NOTE ::: In a recent year, 76,000 applicants LIED on the BATF form required for a firearm purchase. (a Federal offense) Of these only 4700 were referred to BATF for processing. Of all these major violations, —ONLY 44 were prosecuted.
    So much for ENFORCEMENT.
    When questioned why, the BATF stated they did not have adequate funds for prosecuting them AND—- Juries were just NOT INTERESTED in trying these cases.

    • Isn’t jury nullification wonderful? The final judge of the law is the jury and they can throw out the law through nullification. Every jury has the right to judge not only the guilt or innocence of the accused, but they also have a duty to judge the acceptability of the law as applied to the case at hand. Judges sometimes instruct otherwise, but they actually have no say in the matter.

      • IMHO: jury nullification should be required in every set of instructions to a jury by a judge. The jury desides the case, not the judge.

    • more then enforcement, we need to get rid of a lot of those laws. all of these licenses are restricting our second amendment. if someone wants an automatic they should be allowed to get one without all the government paper work. spray and pray never worked well anyway. control should only be a persons control of their weapon and trigger finger. reduce government by 1/2 at least. while trump was the only choice we need to quit spending money and take this greatest depression we have been setup for and fix things. it is going to get ugly and those lefties will be sorry they don’t like guns. how will they be able to take our food from us? i have heard that some are buying weapons now, i wonder why? crazy azz people everywhere just look at me.

  4. Carrying concealed in a warm climate is much more difficult because of the need to keep the weapon concealed without scaring others. A shirt not tucked in is the only option. It also requires a small weapon, which can be done. But it is more of a risk than a sweater or coat. I wish people did not do evil deeds but they do and we have to defend ourselves at times because no law enforcement is close enough to be any help.

    • Try wearing a 5.11 tactical vest. Covers well and is not to hot as its open enough for decent air flow. I too live in a warm climate ( at least it is in the summer, gets down right sticky and muggy here in the Ohio valley ) and that’s what I wear. I wear it over a tucked in tee shirt as I must wear suspenders ( I’m old and fat LOL) and it makes a great cover garment. I carry a S&W shield, 40 cal. and 2 spare 7 round mags that way with no problem. Could probably carry a full size 1911 and still cover well if I wanted to carry a gun that heavy.

  5. And where does it say in the Constitution that a small group of robed men have any say in the matter? The Constitution itself says in plain language that these rights “shall not be infringed!” What’s so hard about that? The supreme court wasn’t put at its level to be any FINAL judge of right and wrong. It is supposed to be a check or balance against the abuse of power by either of the other two branches. Congress has the burden of presenting law to the nation for approval or otherwise, just as long as it doesn’t fly in the face of liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The simple logic involved is beautiful – but the legal profession (influenced by some Satanic sort of convoluted logic) has done a number on it all; and now we are stuck with a huge, top-heavy, bureaucracy, regulating us at every turn. And these devils won’t stop until they’ve disassembled the whole thing.

  6. Well that decision falls in line with hilibitch’s campaign promises to expand control for all states. Californians voted for the losing candidate and what she wanted. Make up your minds. Personally I think your state should lose your gun right and in fact they put a wall around your state. The real patriots are allowed to leave before the gate is locked.

      • someone will give you a ride if you need it. let us just let all those that said they would leave get the f@@@ out of here. we need to explore pizzagate and lock those mother F@@@ERs up. if we did that we would get rid of a lot of politicians and hollyweird and elites. there is something about power that corrupts. i do not understand it i have never wanted to control others. i believe in freedom and tolerance. there is no tolerance when it has to do with kids. stake them to an ant hill and then we will punish them.

  7. The 2nd Amendment. Lets save the constitution. End the gun control act of (19,34. 1968) and the Brady Bill. They are all against the constitution. They haven’t saved one life. The gun grabbers are constantly looking for a way to disarm Americans. We are experiencing a Muslim invasion from the Obama administration And the want to take our guns. We need to be able to protect ourselves from the government and tyranny. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. With the invasion of barbarians who like to rape and cut peoples heads off we need our guns. Save the 2nd Amendment. Do away with these tax laws that control who can own a gun. End The information ACT it’s an invasion of privacy. Recivadism is rampant today from the discrimination by employers and landlords. Without a place to live or a job this problem in our society will only get worse.

  8. Dear friends,

    I wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People, a new feature on, and ask for your support. Will you add your name to mine? If this petition gets 99,999 signatures by February 26, 2017, the White House will review it and respond!

    We the People allows anyone to create and sign petitions asking the White House to take action on a range of issues. If a petition gets enough support, the White House will issue an official response.

    You can view and sign the petition here:

    Here’s some more information about this petition:


    To finalize President Trumps promise to make ccw permits good from any state good throughout the whole Country, in each and every state.


  10. I have set with this one person set above for a long time, and that is any politician or any store that says I don’t have the right to carry a gun to protect myself and I get hurt except responsibility for me and therefore I will sue them not the tax pair but them for their personal wealth ! This is the same thing dictators sing in every country and it never works out good for the people in the end ever. The man who has the guns has control and they know that, so that’s why they want the guns not for yours and I protection but for there so they can promote three full agenda on weed the people and steal everything we have and make us a Third World country. Have you looked at the gun sales you idiot you want to steal our guns , If you have the balls come get them.

  11. Please citizens let us not forget the Democratic Anti gun Senators of NJ Sen Sweeney ,Weinberg, Greenwald and others. They swear a oath to uphold and obey the laws and the constitution. And blaintly defi it . They are in violation of Purjury. And defi its meaning.

  12. they can shove their “permits” straight up their a–es, we will carry what we want, where we want, how we want, within the borders of the U.S., PERIOD…THIS INCLUDES COMMIEFORNIA…

Comments are closed.