Posted on 11/08/2018 10:09:02 AM PST by marktwain
On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home. From uscourts.gov:
This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally.
The plaintiffs say that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment. The district court disagreed, and so do we. Mindful that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), we hold that the challenged regime bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendants. In the last analysis, the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose. Id. at 595, 626 (emphasis omitted).
The Court specifically said the decision applies to both open and concealed carry of handguns. They reserved the power to infringe on concealed carry more than open carry.
Judge Selya wrote the decision for the unanimous three-judge panel. They held that allowing police to decide if a citizen has a “need” to carry a gun outside the home allows sufficient
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
The First Circuit has ruled that there is no right to bear arms outside of the home.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I consider the whole world to be my home so I’m safe with that.
This happened on November 2nd and is only now being reported? I don’t have time to read more but am gathering there is more to this, else everyone would have been screaming for the past week. What am I missing here?
Step 1) Find a replacement for RBG
Step 2) Take this case to the Supreme Court
So everyone else has been getting it wrong the past 231 years, but this 3 judge triad of retards have received the flame of knowledge from Mt. Olympus, and really nailed what the founders REALLY meant?
Massholes....................
I wonder if we will finally get to have this heard by SCOTUS to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. Our founders would have laughed or potentially taken up arms at this ruling.
Because well-regulated militias restrict themselves to their homes, right? These judges are just too deep for my puny mind.
Wrong. And I ain’t even a lawyer.
Someone should ask this court about other rights, like speech, assembly, or maybe the 4th only applies in a home also?
This should go straight to the SCOTUS. And Trump needs to keep draining the judicial swamp...
The supremes need this case.
The opinion is clearly flawed. They cited a part of Heller that was effectively overturned by McDonald vs. Chicago that applied Heller’s narrow, DC-only ruling to all of the states. McDonald is the decision that names handgun ownership as an individual right (so long as a weapon can be “beared”), not Heller.
Maryland is pretty much the same.
Special rules for transport and those requiring a gun for their jobs.
the SCOTUS ALMOST ruled the exact same thing. ONE vote saved the 2A in Heller v DC. Read the dissenting opinions, and you’ll freak out!
How did this circuit court not rely on the settled law in Heller v DC?
plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose...
Whoever said they did??!!
They make it sound like everyone carrying a gun is looking for a shootout
How about the Homeless?
So we’re back to being subjects and not citizens? A police officer, who in many cases is an individual who couldn’t get into trade school or a good college, is going to decide whether I’m able to arm myself?
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.