Judge
Fletcher’s 52-page majority opinion detailed the history behind
concealed carry prohibitions dating back to colonial times and even to
England. But it repeatedly stresses that carrying openly was not an
issue on the table.
Buried in the text of a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
that the Second Amendment does not protect the carrying of concealed
handguns in public is a potential landmine for anti-gunners that nobody
saw coming.
On page 51, in the second paragraph, Judge William A. Fletcher, a Bill
Clinton appointee, observed, “The 2nd Amendment may or may not protect
to some degree a right of a member of the general public to carry a
firearm in public. If there is such a right, it is only a right to
carry a firearm openly.”
While Judge Fletcher couches his words with “if,” it seems inescapable
that the Second Amendment’s affirmation of a “right to keep and bear
arms” must apply to some form of carry. Otherwise, how could someone
“bear” arms?
Predictably,
anti-gunners have seized on the ruling as an opportunity to challenge
right-to-carry statutes. One Washington state lawmaker, Sen. Reuven
Carlyle, a Seattle Democrat, reportedly indicated to KIRO News that the
ruling should open the door for lawmakers in Olympia to adopt a “good
cause” requirement for obtaining a concealed pistol license. Such
requirements have allowed authorities in New York, New Jersey, Maryland
and now California the ability to deny law-abiding citizens their right
of self-defense outside the home.
Currently, more than 541,000 Washington citizens hold concealed pistol
licenses. That number has been rising steadily for more than two years
at an average of about 2,500 CPLs each month. The ruling has infuriated
gun rights activists.
[full
text]
