Federal Court Shoots Down Concealed Carry in California

[Asclepias]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

That is that whole part about "bear arms" dipstick..........

"bear arms" is actually open carry not conceal carry dummy. Its uncanny how you show up on every gun thread.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Much ado about nothing, it'll be overturned....but the anti gun loons had an orgasm

Depends on the law. States can require training and licensing and restrict where carry is allowed. But it may well implicate NY's restrictive law.

They tried it in Illinois and promptly got stuffed....wait for it

 

[2aguy]

If every weapon in your home is registered I would rethink that decision...

What does registering guns do...specifically? I have yet for an anti gun loon to explain that....

And of course the real reason anti gun loons want registration.....so later they can ban and confiscate...just like Germany, Britain and Australia.....

 

[2aguy]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

That is that whole part about "bear arms" dipstick..........

"bear arms" is actually open carry not conceal carry dummy. Its uncanny how you show up on every gun thread.

"Bear" arms simply means to carry them moron.......over or under your coat is not even a consideration...twit.

 

[Rambunctious]

If every weapon in your home is registered I would rethink that decision...

What does registering guns do...specifically? I have yet for an anti gun loon to explain that....

And of course the real reason anti gun loons want registration.....so later they can ban and confiscate...just like Germany, Britain and Australia.....

That was my whole point...

 

[2aguy]

You have a right to BEAR arms, and concealed carry is merely a polite way of doing so.

If you want Open Carry across the country, thats fine by me. I used to do it all the time.

You dont even have a right to bear arms unless you are part of the militia.

It doesn't say that, but you know that.

Actually it does say that if you can read.

Unless you are not a people then no it doesn't.

Thats not a separate sentence. Its just saying if you are part of the militia you have a right to have a gun.

Wrong twit.....the right of the People, to keep and bear arms....other wise it would have read the right of the militia to keep and bear arms......

If only it was you nuts couldn't read...that would be okay, we could undestand and feel sorry for you...that you lie....that is contemptible.....

 

[Asclepias]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

That is that whole part about "bear arms" dipstick..........

"bear arms" is actually open carry not conceal carry dummy. Its uncanny how you show up on every gun thread.

"Bear" arms simply means to carry them moron.......over or under your coat is not even a consideration...twit.

Yes. Carry them. It doesnt say you get to hide them. When you come bearing gifts i can see your gift...or lack thereof.

 

[Asclepias]

You dont even have a right to bear arms unless you are part of the militia.

It doesn't say that, but you know that.

Actually it does say that if you can read.

Unless you are not a people then no it doesn't.

Thats not a separate sentence. Its just saying if you are part of the militia you have a right to have a gun.

Wrong twit.....the right of the People, to keep and bear arms....other wise it would have read the right of the militia to keep and bear arms......

If only it was you nuts couldn't read...that would be okay, we could undestand and feel sorry for you...that you lie....that is contemptible.....

You keep leaving out the first part regarding a regulated militia. Its basically saying that if in the militia you must be supplied with weapons and you can carry them but you will be regulated.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Take it with a grain of salt, it's the 9th circus.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You dont even have a right to bear arms unless you are part of the militia.

It doesn't say that, but you know that.

Actually it does say that if you can read.

Unless you are not a people then no it doesn't.

Thats not a separate sentence. Its just saying if you are part of the militia you have a right to have a gun.

Wrong twit.....the right of the People, to keep and bear arms....other wise it would have read the right of the militia to keep and bear arms......

If only it was you nuts couldn't read...that would be okay, we could undestand and feel sorry for you...that you lie....that is contemptible.....

Asslipias hasnt read anything successfully outside of a comic for a couple of decades, apparently.

 

[Grizz]

Most over turned Court in the land,

 

[The Professor]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

"Keep and bear arms"

Bear arms means display your gun. You only have the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a militia.

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

You have a right to BEAR arms, and concealed carry is merely a polite way of doing so.

If you want Open Carry across the country, thats fine by me. I used to do it all the time.

You dont even have a right to bear arms unless you are part of the militia.

Not true. But the mistake you made is a rather common one, at least for those who have no legal education. I have a Doctorate in law, so let me 'splain it to you.

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53 (highlights my own).

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right completely unrelated to membership in a militia. However the right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a reasonable restriction is a matter for the courts to decide.

I suggest you go to Google and research the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause. When you do, you will understand the SCOTUS ruling. The difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause is sort of like the difference between the whereas and therefore clauses in a motion. What follows the words, “therefore, be it resolved” is the binding part. It is binding whether the whereas portions are true or not. Although the Constitution does not use terms such as whereas and therefore, legal scholars know which provisions merely state a purpose and which parts are binding.

Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I like how 'liberals' can make up their own rules as they go along. Isn't their a precedent already established that they have to follow?

 

[JBond]

I truly wish we could have courageous legislatures to throw out all laws and start over with well thought out laws that protects gun owners and soothe the nerves of non gun owners. It won't happen but I like to dream.

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.

"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.

Gun owners in two California counties challenged the requirement that they show "good cause," as defined by county sheriffs, before they could get concealed carry permits.

Thursday's majority opinion traced the rights of gun owners from medieval England to the founding of the United States and through the Civil War, finding that local laws almost universally prohibited carrying concealed firearms in public. Appeals Court Says No Right to Concealed Gun Carry

Another victory for tyranny. The Supreme Court appointment just gained even more importance.

 

[Asclepias]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

"Keep and bear arms"

Bear arms means display your gun. You only have the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a militia.

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

You have a right to BEAR arms, and concealed carry is merely a polite way of doing so.

If you want Open Carry across the country, thats fine by me. I used to do it all the time.

You dont even have a right to bear arms unless you are part of the militia.

Not true. But the mistake you made is a rather common, at least for those who have no legal education. I have a Doctorate in law, so let me 'splain it to you.

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53 (highlights my own).

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right completely unrelated to membership in a militia. However the right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a reasonable restriction is a matter for the courts to decide.

I suggest you go to Google and research the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause. When you do, you will understand the SCOTUS ruling. The difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause is sort of like the difference between the whereas and therefore clauses in a motion. What follows the words, “therefore, be it resolved” is the binding part. It is binding whether the whereas portions are true or not. Although the Constitution does not use terms such as whereas and therefore, legal scholars know which provisions merely state a purpose and which parts are binding.

Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

I wouldnt thank you for having bad grammar. I would suggest you sue whomever taught you english. Actually it is true. It doesnt matter if its a prefatory clause. Its integral to the meaning of the entire sentence. If they were meant to be seperate thoughts then they would have put a period and started a new sentence. Either the people who wrote it had terrible grammar or they intended for the prefatory clause to set the stage for the operative clause. i will give you an example.

"Due to the lighting strikes, the baseball game was stopped."

"in order to have a well regulated militia, these people should be armed."

In both sentences the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence. the game was called because of lighting strikes. The people are armed because we need a regulated militia.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

"Keep and bear arms"

Bear arms means display your gun. You only have the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a militia.

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

You have a right to BEAR arms, and concealed carry is merely a polite way of doing so.

If you want Open Carry across the country, thats fine by me. I used to do it all the time.

You dont even have a right to bear arms unless you are part of the militia.

Not true. But the mistake you made is a rather common, at least for those who have no legal education. I have a Doctorate in law, so let me 'splain it to you.

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53 (highlights my own).

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right completely unrelated to membership in a militia. However the right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a reasonable restriction is a matter for the courts to decide.

I suggest you go to Google and research the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause. When you do, you will understand the SCOTUS ruling. The difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause is sort of like the difference between the whereas and therefore clauses in a motion. What follows the words, “therefore, be it resolved” is the binding part. It is binding whether the whereas portions are true or not. Although the Constitution does not use terms such as whereas and therefore, legal scholars know which provisions merely state a purpose and which parts are binding.

Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

I wouldnt thank you for having bad grammar. I would suggest you sue whomever taught you english. Actually it is true. It doesnt matter if its a prefatory clause. Its integral to the meaning of the entire sentence. If they were meant to be seperate thoughts then they would have put a period and started a new sentence. Either the people who wrote it had terrible grammar or they intended for the prefatory clause to set the stage for the operative clause. i will give you an example.

"Due to the lighting strikes, the baseball game was stopped."

"in order to have a well regulated militia, these people should be armed."

In both sentences the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence. the game was called because of lighting strikes. The people are armed because we need a regulated militia.

Before you actually rip on other people's grammar you should learn how to spell 'sure'. I caught that in the first sentence.

The people should be armed in order to have a well regulated militia. Considering that militia's were drawn from the people the people had to be armed since they were bringing their own weapons. This means they could have any weapon that was needed by any military so their can be no restrictions on whatever arms the people could have. What would be the point of allowing the people to carry their own arms that can be used in military service only to not use them because the militaries would be able to legally get arms that they couldn't because they were illegal? It doesn't make any sense to limit the possible arms the people could have if those same weapons were to be used in a military campaign.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Federal Court Shoots Down Concealed Carry in California”

Wrong.

Residents of California are in fact allowed to carry concealed firearms.

From the actual ruling:

‘Under California law, a member of the general public
may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she
has been issued a license. An applicant for a license must
satisfy a number of conditions. Among other things, the
applicant must show “good cause” to carry a concealed
firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish
and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San
Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good
cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant
needs a concealed firearm for self-defense.

Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties,
allege that they wish to carry concealed firearms in public for
self-defense, but that they do not satisfy the good cause
requirements in their counties. They contend that their
counties’ definitions of good cause violate their Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve
or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry
concealed firearms in public.
[…]
We do not reach the question whether the Second
Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public,
such as open carry. That question was left open by the
Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it
here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing
concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the
Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to
carry concealed firearms in public. 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 Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some
degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry
firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right,
and the scope of such a right, are separate from and
independent of the question presented here. We hold only
that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the
general public to carry concealed firearms in public.’

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaw...0c24958b2da82f02796a80a6df5940aca88f672855b13

Consequently, the issue isn’t the carrying of concealed firearms, as indeed California residents do carry concealed firearms, but whether the ‘good cause’ provision of the law is Constitutional, which the court determined it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ts the loony Ninth. Handgun carry will become more prevalent, not less.

Another ignorant rightwing moron who didn’t bother to read the actual ruling.

 

[Asclepias]

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

"Keep and bear arms"

Bear arms means display your gun. You only have the right to keep and bear arms if you are part of a militia.

It doesnt state in the 2nd amendment you have a right to have a concealed weapon.

You have a right to BEAR arms, and concealed carry is merely a polite way of doing so.

If you want Open Carry across the country, thats fine by me. I used to do it all the time.

You dont even have a right to bear arms unless you are part of the militia.

Not true. But the mistake you made is a rather common, at least for those who have no legal education. I have a Doctorate in law, so let me 'splain it to you.

You think that the word “militia” in the Second Amendment is significant. It isn't. According to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) the right to keep and bear arms is a personal right and has nothing to do with the militia!! Here are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008):

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53 (highlights my own).

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp.54–56.

District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Conclusion: The right to keep and bear arms is a personal right completely unrelated to membership in a militia. However the right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions. What constitutes a reasonable restriction is a matter for the courts to decide.

I suggest you go to Google and research the difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause. When you do, you will understand the SCOTUS ruling. The difference between a prefatory clause and an operative clause is sort of like the difference between the whereas and therefore clauses in a motion. What follows the words, “therefore, be it resolved” is the binding part. It is binding whether the whereas portions are true or not. Although the Constitution does not use terms such as whereas and therefore, legal scholars know which provisions merely state a purpose and which parts are binding.

Don't bother to thank me. That's why I'm here.

I wouldnt thank you for having bad grammar. I would suggest you sue whomever taught you english. Actually it is true. It doesnt matter if its a prefatory clause. Its integral to the meaning of the entire sentence. If they were meant to be seperate thoughts then they would have put a period and started a new sentence. Either the people who wrote it had terrible grammar or they intended for the prefatory clause to set the stage for the operative clause. i will give you an example.

"Due to the lighting strikes, the baseball game was stopped."

"in order to have a well regulated militia, these people should be armed."

In both sentences the initial dependent clause is not superfluous to the meaning of the entire sentence. the game was called because of lighting strikes. The people are armed because we need a regulated militia.

Before you actually rip on other people's grammar you should learn how to spell 'sure'. I caught that in the first sentence.

The people should be armed in order to have a well regulated militia. Considering that militia's were drawn from the people the people had to be armed since they were bringing their own weapons. This means they could have any weapon that was needed by any military so their can be no restrictions on whatever arms the people could have. What would be the point of allowing the people to carry their own arms that can be used in military service only to not use them because the militaries would be able to legally get arms that they couldn't because they were illegal? It doesn't make any sense to limit the possible arms the people could have if those same weapons were to be used in a military campaign.

Hey dummy. You should be embarrassed that you couldnt figure out that "sue" was the correct term just from the context of the sentence.

sue
so͞o/
verb

1. 1.
   institute legal proceedings against (a person or institution), typically for redress.

 

[The Rabbi]

“Federal Court Shoots Down Concealed Carry in California”

Wrong.

Residents of California are in fact allowed to carry concealed firearms.

From the actual ruling:

‘Under California law, a member of the general public
may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she
has been issued a license. An applicant for a license must
satisfy a number of conditions. Among other things, the
applicant must show “good cause” to carry a concealed
firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish
and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San
Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good
cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant
needs a concealed firearm for self-defense.

Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties,
allege that they wish to carry concealed firearms in public for
self-defense, but that they do not satisfy the good cause
requirements in their counties. They contend that their
counties’ definitions of good cause violate their Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve
or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry
concealed firearms in public.
[…]
We do not reach the question whether the Second
Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public,
such as open carry. That question was left open by the
Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it
here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing
concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the
Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to
carry concealed firearms in public. 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 Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some
degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry
firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right,
and the scope of such a right, are separate from and
independent of the question presented here. We hold only
that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the
general public to carry concealed firearms in public.’

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/3/10-56971/009128111226.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline; filename="E.C.F. 9th Cir. 10-56971 dckt 000333_000 filed 2016-06-09.pdf"&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-Date=20160609T153038Z&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJDK6JKKSMS3DQS4Q/20160609/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=b672fae1df6941d1b870c24958b2da82f02796a80a6df5940aca88f672855b13

Consequently, the issue isn’t the carrying of concealed firearms, as indeed California residents do carry concealed firearms, but whether the ‘good cause’ provision of the law is Constitutional, which the court determined it is.

You should read the decision because what you say about it is wrong.