After their latest ruling, San Francisco’s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals might as well rule the Constitution unconstitutional.
A divided federal appeals court in California ruled Thursday that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed handgun, adding to a division among the lower courts on gun rights outside the home.
By a vote of 7-4, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a California law that requires gun owners to show a good reason before they can get a license to carry a concealed handgun.
Weird, I must’ve missed that part of the Second Amendment where it said “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, unless we don’t like your reason for owning a gun.”“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 court declined to say whether the Constitution protects openly carrying a gun in public. It said that question was not at issue in the case.
If liberals knew what was good for them, they’d all be in favor of concealed carry. Violence has generally declined after states adopt concealed carry, as the chart below shows:
It’s not hard to see why concealed carry would reduce crime, considering that those with concealed carry permits commit violence and non-violent crimes at a lower rate than the general population.
When you really think about it, the majority of our nation’s gun crime is concentrated in liberal cities. Maybe we should just restrict concealed carry from them.
[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]