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 ...
And Maine and new Hampshire will ignore them.
Likewise. Hey, it’ts where I live. :)
(A) Living in Massachusetts
(B) Poor legal representation for the plaintiff
(C) Judicial activism
How did this circuit court not rely on the settled law in Heller v DC?
Because stare decisis only applies to Roe v. Wade.
It’ll be appealed and overturned.
The very definition of “bear arms” is that you can carry outside the home. If the 1st Circuit ruling is adopted, the US will have the same “gun laws” as Mexico.
Well, good thing there wasn’t any 1st Circuit version of the 2A around when the Minutemen were mustering. They’d have had to leave their muskets, rifles, tomahawks, pistols, etc at home.
Nope, nothing about inside or outside the home.
Lawless judge such as these need to be removed from the bench.
Or Obergefell v. Hodges
It will be ignored.
So judge asshole says I can’t defend myself outside my house!?
Tyranny is draped in black robes. Just like tyranny had a crown on his head.
5.56mm
I bet everyone on that court has a armed guard.
transport rules and required for jobs....
So a gun in a locked safe at home but never loaded or brought out or taken anywhere or fired in any jurisdiction satisfies the 2nd Amendment?
Not from where I read it.
“If the 1st Circuit ruling is adopted, the US will have the same “gun laws” as Mexico.”
Meanwhile the decision should be duly ignored.
Here in WA State, after a 100 yrs or more, the Supremes here decided the death penalty was unconstitutional. Meanwhile abortion...
I had to look it up, but yes, we’re thinking the same.
The earth is my home.
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.