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.
Only because we’ll allow it to happen.
The key word being “bear”. We are guaranteed the right to “keep AND “bear” arms - two separate this. ‘Keep” certainly pertains to hearth and home. It guarantees we can own, store and possess firearms - the government can’t take them away. To “bear” arms mean to possess arms on one’s person - to carry in other words. While I understand no amendment is absolute and you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, and reasonable restrictions and blah, blah, blah - those are issues at the fringes. We have judges to, hopefully, reasonably resolve the “crowed theater” issues as narrowly, and rarely, as possible to protect the public without ever touching the core right. Eliminating either “keep” or “bear” is a fundamental violation of the amendment.
F’ing commies.
Seems rather obvious to me. We are not supposed to be in the public square. The lockdowns are proof of that. We are to shut up and do as we are told.
:)
That should be the first thing and the loudest thing coming out of the office of every Attorney General and Governor, at least in the RED states.
With Alaska, Arizona and Montana either having or will have Constitutional Carry a short, sweet and to the point press release stating that our states don’t care what 7 Liberal Democrat Radical judges think about the 2nd Amendment.
Gun laws only disarm the law abiding.
The thugs and psychos will have plenty of guns.
Outlawing drugs didn’t get rid of addiction and the violence of trafficking.
Same will happen with guns if we let them take them.
“What part of “Shall Not Infringe” is being misunderstood?”
The part where they are paid handsomely in ways we do and do not know about to ignore the constitution on behalf of America’s enemies foreign and domestic?
No NRA?
NRA
@NRA
·
4h
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 majority further argued that the second amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home”..”
The majority of these robed felons apparently interpret the 2nd Amendment thusly:
“... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms around the hearth and home, shall not be infringed.”
What abominable filth.
The government will still have guns, at their mercy and on our knees. That's their endgame.
America is doomed.
🔫👼😄🙌
Just a reminder; the US Constitution was to restrict the power of the US Government, not the other way around. Those inside this government and the US courts are in dire need of an attitude adjustment. I’m curious, when will taking an oath to protect and defend our Constitution in order to serve in public office be outlawed? It certainly doesn’t apply any more.
Supreme Court here it comes.
They’re moving to Texas, but in the meantime I expect LaPierre is off getting himself some new $50K suits and $10K haircuts. LaPierre and his buddies purged a lot of the NRA’s staunchest 2A defenders recently when they questioned his spending.
Here in Michigan we allow both......
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
To start this 2nd Amendment (2A) discussion, please consider this. The main option that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave to the feds to address domestic violence in a state is to wait for a state to formally request help from the feds.
"Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence [emphasis added]."
As a side note to federal involvement in violence, note that although a state is not obligated to request help from the feds for domestic violence, the feds have the express power to interfere with possibly nationally-related violence imo.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions [emphasis added];"
Otherwise, from a related thread about major constitutional problems (imo) with so-called federal peacetime gun control laws…
Patriots, in addition to continuing to defend 2A, also need to argue that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime gun control laws.
More specifically, since the federal government has only those powers that the states expressly constitutionally give to it, some of the drafters of the Bill of Rights had expressed the following concern.
Drafters had feared that patriots would eventually develop tunnel vision (my words) for Bill of Rights (BoR) protections and forget that the BoR was redundant in the context that powers that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds to regulate our basic protections are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that, until the 14th Amendment (14A) was ratified was ratified, the states hadn’t expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make peacetime penal laws, not even for murder.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union. The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
The great irony of 14A where today’s unconstitutional (imo) peacetime federal gun control laws are concerned is this. That amendment gives Congress the specific power only to make laws that STRENGTHEN constitutionally enumerated rights, including 2A, from abridgment by state actors, still no express power for Congress to make peacetime gun control laws.
“The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
Unfortunately, today’s generation is proof that patriots have long-forgotten the significance of constitutionally enumerated federal government powers as the drafters of the BoR had feared, particularly the lack of such powers in the context of peacetime gun rights.
In fact, it is disturbing that peacetime restrictive federal gun laws seem to have started appearing in the books during FDR Administration, FDR and the Congress at that time infamous for making laws which they had no express constitutional authority to make imo.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
Even the post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court is glaring evidence that top legal professionals don’t bother to check if a contested federal law is reasonably justified under a constitutionally enumerated power.
Finally, citizens need to start working with their federal lawmakers to demand the following. When the federal government accuses someone of violating a federal law, the accused also needs to be informed of at least the common name of the constitutional clause that arguably justifies the law for further scrutiny of the constitutionality of that law, especially where our 2A safety net is concerned.
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.