Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home
Ammoland ^ | 2 November, 2018 | Dean Weingarten

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: 1stcircus; 2ndamendment; banglist; bearingarms; firstcircus; lawsuit; ma; massachusetts; nra; ruling; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: windsorknot
Maybe not in MA.
41 posted on 11/08/2018 10:25:07 AM PST by cowboyusa (America Cowboy UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Don't buy anymore hunting licenses!
42 posted on 11/08/2018 10:25:17 AM PST by 4yearlurker ("There stands mother under the oleanders,open the windows." A dying cowboys last words,1879.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

So does this overturn the 1775 case of General Gage v. the towns of Lexington and Concord?


43 posted on 11/08/2018 10:25:39 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Leave the job, leave the clearance. It should be the same rule for the Swamp as for everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

“Trump needs to keep draining the judicial swamp...”

Yes, and so someone should “trip” Ginsberg again! As they say, the third time is the charm!


44 posted on 11/08/2018 10:26:18 AM PST by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Anti-American, anti-COTUS judges must be removed from our benches. Period.


45 posted on 11/08/2018 10:26:28 AM PST by polymuser (Its terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged today. - Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Obamites and Clintonites, I guess, unless there was a dissenter in the bunch. The plaintiffs should go to an en banc hearing or straight to the SCOTUS. I would pick en banc first, since SCOTUS won’t generally hear a case unless the ruling conflicts with one or more rulings from another district. En banc would allow more time for such a conflicting ruling to show up.


46 posted on 11/08/2018 10:27:03 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks ( The US Constitution ....... Invented by geniuses and God .... Administered by morons ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Step 1) Find a replacement for RBG
Step 2) Take this case to the Supreme Court

We don't particularly need a replacement. If the court hears the case and she's still recuperating, it will be an 8-person court that hears the argument. Of those 8 folks there are 5 sane, and 3 insane judges, so it's a win.

47 posted on 11/08/2018 10:28:06 AM PST by zeugma (Power without accountability is fertilizer for tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carlucci
Precedents and stare decisis only matter when you're a conservative judge, don'tcha know!
48 posted on 11/08/2018 10:28:21 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks ( The US Constitution ....... Invented by geniuses and God .... Administered by morons ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Violates McDonald v. City of Chicago

This will go straight to the Supreme Court.


49 posted on 11/08/2018 10:28:31 AM PST by PapaBear3625 ("Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scrambler Bob
I guess they can keep a gun in their shopping cart.


50 posted on 11/08/2018 10:28:32 AM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

.
This foolish idea has already been defeated by SCOTUS.


51 posted on 11/08/2018 10:30:32 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reno89519

I’m guessing the first step will be for the 1st Circuit to rehear the case en banc (a full panel, vice 3 judges). If they reach the same ruling, then on the SCOTUS.


52 posted on 11/08/2018 10:30:54 AM PST by ETCM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

apparently some places you are not even allowed to own guns even in your own home

Maryland: Cops Shoot Man to Death In His Home For Resisting Gun Confiscation

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3703893/posts


53 posted on 11/08/2018 10:30:59 AM PST by Bob434
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
Let's add their 'interpretation' to the original clause and see how much sense it makes.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms within their homes, shall not be infringed.

Militias only operate within the home, right? LOL

54 posted on 11/08/2018 10:31:02 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: frank ballenger
RE:”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.”

Here you can transport it in a vehicle unloaded away from where anyone is sitting, like the locked car trunk.

You are probably not a judge so how you read it doesnt affect many lives.

You read about this?

Anne Arundel (Maryland) police say officers fatally shot (and killed) armed man while serving protective order to remove guns(11/5/2018)

55 posted on 11/08/2018 10:31:06 AM PST by sickoflibs ('Equal protection' only applies to illegals not you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

I take it as “To keep” to mean to have them in your home to keep them there,and “bear arms” is take them out in public and be seen, and not be hassled. That’s my two cents worth.


56 posted on 11/08/2018 10:31:36 AM PST by 4yearlurker ("There stands mother under the oleanders,open the windows." A dying cowboys last words,1879.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It’s a summary judgement.
The court and the Appeals court didn’t even think the case should be heard!

That makes no sense: it’s a Federal right and Federal courts should weigh in on just what are the ‘reasonable’ restrictions localities can place on 2nd Amendment.


57 posted on 11/08/2018 10:31:48 AM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

This is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

These 3 clowns should be prohibited from "legislating" outside of an outhouse.

58 posted on 11/08/2018 10:32:43 AM PST by Perseverando (For Progressives, Islamonazis, Statists, Commies & other Democrats: It's all about PEOPLE CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy
Because well-regulated militias restrict themselves to their homes, right?

How convenient to let the bad guys take over everything in the area, as long as they don't go into the houses. So, when you go out to do anything, the bad guys can shoot you, but you can't shoot back. What a concept. Why didn't the founding fathers think of this?

59 posted on 11/08/2018 10:35:00 AM PST by Right Wing Assault (Kill-googl,TWITR,FACBK,NYT,WaPo,Hlywd,CNN,NFL,BLM,CAIR,Antifa,SPLC,ESPN,NPR,NBA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

.
>> “Federal courts should weigh in on just what are the ‘reasonable’ restrictions localities can place on 2nd Amendment.” <<

“Shall not be infringed” means that no restrictions are permissable. All gun possession laws fail that clause.
.


60 posted on 11/08/2018 10:35:01 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson