Privacy   |    Financial   |    Current Events   |    Self Defense   |    Miscellaneous   |    Letters To Editor   |    About Off The Grid News   |    Off The Grid Videos   |    Weekly Radio Show

Can Concealed Carry Be Banned? Supreme Court May Decide

Can Concealed Carry Be Banned? Supreme Court May Decide

Image source:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court may decide in its next term if citizens have a constitutional right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Earlier this month, the court “relisted” the case, Peruta v. California, meaning the justices are still considering it

“I suspect they’re going to grant it,” John Eastman, director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the former law dean at Chapman University, told Fox News.

The lawsuit was filed by a California man, Edward Peruta, who challenged San Diego County Sheriff William D. Gore’s denial of concealed carry permits to applicants who did not show “good cause.” Gore does not consider self-defense to be good cause for a concealed carry permit.

The Self-Defense Weapon That Doesn’t Require A Firearms License!

Peruta’s attorneys want the justices to overturn a U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Second Amendment does not grant the right to carry a gun outside the home, Off The Grid News previously reported. The Ninth Circuit ruled against Peruta in a 7-4 decision in June 2016.

“The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment,” the Ninth Circuit’s majority opinion read. “Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry — including a requirement of ‘good cause,’ however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment.”

Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement challenged that ruling in January 2017, The Union Tribune reported. Second Amendment activists and gun control advocates are watching the case closely, not only because of the issue but because it could be the first major firearms decision heard by new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Although Gorsuch has been a federal judge for years, he’s never ruled on a Second Amendment case.

Peruta could be the most important gun-rights case since the 2008 Heller decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment grants Americans the rights to keep guns in their homes, UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler told The Los Angeles Times. Heller overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on private ownership of handguns.

What do you think? Should concealed carry be a constitutional right? Share your thoughts in the section below:

© Copyright Off The Grid News


  1. What part of no authority/power that has to do with the people and weapons was delegated to any branch or office within a branch of our governments. Instead that was RETAINED by the people. What we have here is more judges who are domestic enemies of the USA, the American people.

    During the ratification debates, Archibald Maclaine of North Carolina not only said that we “should disregard” unconstitutional acts, but that we should “punish them for the attempt.”

    Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

    Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): “‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

    Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

    Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

    Remember that the judicial branch, all of it, was created by the US Constitution, and it is from the US Constitution that they derive any LAWFUL authority at all. The courts gave themselves the “power” to “interpret” the US Constitution, which is usurpation and a crime or three or four.

    James Madison: “But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort;”

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    James Madison: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

    ”Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    The US Constitution requires the American people to be armed and TRAINED as the Congress requires the military to be trained (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. The duties that those that serve within the state and federal governments have TO the Militias are found in Clause 16.

    Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, clergyman, theologian, popular poet, successful diplomat, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

    Richard Henry Lee, 1st Senate: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

    George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    William Rawle, his work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions and was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania, describes the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

    Ronald Reagan: “… And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    • TheSouthernNationalist

      Very well written and with good info, yes the 2nd amendment does allow the carrying of weapons concealed or otherwise, the part that says “to bear arms” does not limit a citizen on “how” they can “bear them”

  2. Adam Albanowicz

    Hmm… the question here is not over gun ownership, but over how a person carries weapons in public. Concealed carry is one of those questions not covered in the constitution. As well, the constitution calls for a regulated militia, not just armed… this means we as citizens should be trained in the use of weapons and how to follow orders, not just allowed to own them. I have always felt that the ownership of weapons should be under a rule that, like with driving cars and other vehicles, requires us to show on a regular basis that we can operate our weapons safely, in a legal manner. Concealed carry should require even more proof of proper knowledge of how and when to use these weapons.

    • Adam I understand your concern but having lived in California for several years let me explain something the state does not have a open carry law so you can not carry a firearm unless you have a CCW. And in California the right to carry is up to the digression of the county sheriff So he can give his friends CCW’s but not anyone else. Now say you have a firearm with you the way the law works over there if you don’t have a CCW the firearm needs to be disassembled till you get to the gunsmith or gun range. When I lived in California I knew several LA County Sheriffs and they told me that even with them vouching for me the chance of getting the sheriff to grant a CCW would be like winning the lottery. Aldo in California the CCW is only as good as the county it was issued in other countys can accept them or not so it is a crap shoot if you go into another county if they will accept it.

      The problem with the ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court is it is known as the court that is the most anti gun court in the nation and if you have a case involving firearms you have lost the case before it is heard. For this area of the country they are the only ones to go to.

      Yes the Second Amendment says nothing about how to carry a firearm directly but it has been proven by a number of scholars that it gives us the right to own firearms no matter what type in implied so in the same vein so is how they can be carried. Several states have tried to outlaw what they call assault weapons but I will go back to when Washington crossed the Delaware the rifles and pistols of the time would have been considered assault weapons.

  3. Hmmm

    Cal that is is without a doubt, the very best 2nd Amendment rebuttal I have ever read.

  4. in my opinion we should be able to hold guns since there is a reason for the right to bear arms, we need to be able to defend ourselves from assult

    • The original intent was to protect the people from government tyranny.
      You can find this in many of the writings of the founders.

  5. Cal,

    An excellent and well researched response. I have copied your counter
    verbatim and pasted into my notes on the topic.

    Thanks for your efforts.

  6. Short and to the point… 4 words from the Second Amendment: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” and two words to challenge those who would (try to) violate the Second Amendment – Molon Labe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *