This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 03/24/2021 1:44:38 PM PDT by PROCON
On Wednesday, an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms does not citizens include the right to carry a firearm, either openly or concealed, in public .
The court issued the ruling in the case of George Young Jr. V Hawaii, a lawsuit challenging a Hawaii firearm licensing law, which states residents seeking license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.” The court said, “There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.”
The majority opinion also states “we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.” The majority further argued that the second amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home” and “the power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.”
The majority ruled opinion covers Hawaii’s law regarding open carrying a firearm and the court further states, “We have previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public” meaning they believe no right to carry a firearm in any capacity in public exists.
Four judges dissented from the majority decision in two different dissenting opinions. In one of the dissenting opinions, three judges argued, “The majority’s suggestion that the values of federalism somehow preclude the Second Amendment from guaranteeing an individual right to carry arms for self-defense in the public square is fundamentally misguided” adding, “Hawaii’s severe deprivation of the core right to carry a firearm in public can only be understood as amounting to a total destruction of such right.”
Responding to the decision, the National Rifle Association tweeted, “BREAKING: The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just ruled that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY – either openly or concealed in public. This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT. This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this.”
The appeals court’s en banc decision could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, though the Supreme Court has not heard a second amendment case in more than ten years. In April of 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case regarding a rescinded New York City rule that prohibited residents from transporting firearms to shooting ranges, competitions and even their secondary residences outside of the city.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
The Ninth Circuit is all the explanation anyone needs.
No surprise here. What would you expect from the 9th Circuit Court?
Of course, I should add that the judges in the majority should be hanged.
Oh the 9th circus. In the past I would have said overturned in 3,...2,... but with the current SCOTUS I ain’t so sure.
I thought Mitch FIXED the 9th circuit, I guess NOT!!
Will the fearful SCOTUS take this appeal ?
Yeah, Mitch fixed it alright.
Just like he fixed the Supreme Court with the last two “ strict constitutionalists “.
What the left wants, is little by little your 2nd Amendment rights to be taken away til there is NONE left..first the AR-15, then conceal carry, then the handgun, then there wont be anymore guns which is their end game
Shades of Dred Scott.
How do you “open carry a gun?
Hmmm, “to keep and bear arms”
Keep is synonymous with own and posses
Bear is synonymous with carry
So this phrase could be substituted as “...to own and carry arms”
Merriam Webster dictionary literally has a sub section for “bear arms” and the first sub definition is “: to carry or possess arms”
Non so blind as those that refuse to see.
The right to “keep and bear arms” does not cover a right to bear arms?
I am certainly not nearly as well-educated as the esteemed members of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but what does the word ‘bear’ mean in the phrase ‘keep and bear’ arms?
And wherever did they get the idea that the “...second amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home”? I thought it was there to prevent tyrannical governments, since the Founders had just lived through such an experience.
But if, as they say, the second amendment does apply to defense of hearth and home, why do citizens of Hawaii and California require their state’s permission to exercise the right?
Anyone know what's up with the NRA? They didn't go "woke" I hope.
Off to the SCOTUS then.
My State’s Article 16 - ‘That the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State’.
No mention of home, business or in public. This has meant, for nearly 240 years, exactly what it says.
No group of brain-dead, black-bedecked tyrants are going to change it - we simply will not comply and any equally simple-minded LE bully supporting this will be eternally sorry for doing so.
“The majority further argued that the second amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home....”
Noticeably absent is the right to protect one’s self in the public square.
What part of “Shall Not Infringe” is being misunderstood?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.