9th Circuit Rules That There Is No Right to Carry a Weapon

If this is accepted for review by the Supreme Court -- and the Supreme Court has shown itself to be extraordinarily cowardly in ducking ruling on big-ticket items -- we will find out if we really have a "conservative" court, or if the lawyers recommended by the Professional Class Karens of the Federalist Society are just from the Corporate Wing of the Uniparty.

--- The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Hawaii gun regulation, ruling Wednesday that states can restrict the right to openly carry a firearm in public. The 7-4 decision said restrictions on carrying guns in public do not fall within the scope of what is protected by the Second Amendment.

"We have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces," the majority ruled. "Indeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self defense."

"The en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawaii�s firearms-carry scheme is lawful."

The case was brought by George Young, who applied for a license twice in 2011 to carry a gun in public either openly or concealed and was denied both times because he didn't prove the "urgency or the need" to openly carry a firearm in public, the decision said. Instead, Young relied on his "general desire to carry a firearm for self-defense."

Under Hawaii's law, residents have to show the "urgency or the need" to carry a firearm in public and must be of good moral character and "engaged in the protection of life and property."

Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain authored Wednesday�s dissent, calling the ruling "extreme."

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'. Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says," the minority dissented. "Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one�s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear-i.e., to carry -- that same firearm for self-defense in any other place."

"We now become the first and only court of appeals to hold that public carry falls entirely outside the scope of the Amendment�s protections," O'Scannlain continued. "In so holding, the majority reduces the right to 'bear Arms' to a mere inkblot."

You really need to read the 1982 Senate report on the 2nd Amendment. I have a paper copy.

https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).

“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).

“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”

18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).

“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”

19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).

“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”

And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..

Paragraph 77 in the link below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”

So out of an estimated 20, 000 Gun Laws already on the books .. the criminal elements will abide by this one?

How about assault bats?

Assault knives?
Assault rocks next?

Assault weapon is a word, invented by leftists to scare up Illegal gun laws!

To be very clear of where I stand, this is going to be a Very long but not an in-depth study of my stance on cry babies and gun laws.
(Don't miss the information provided on the very last linked page)

Every time there is a "mass shooting", it gives the gun grabbers another opportunity to write new Unconstitutional Laws and another chance to take away the law abiding citizen's right to Self protection!

These laws will only apply to people who are law abiding, who have never hurt or killed anyone! Criminals don't follow laws!

When a mass shooting or a crime of any kind is committed ... That crime should be prosecuted in the courts!

Congress has no right to create laws to punish the law abiding citizen for the actions of another!

A crime was committed by a person so prosecute the crime and the person who committed it!

Punishing the law abiding will not prevent future crimes!

In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

The first words of the Bill of Rights say that Congress shall make no law restricting certain rights.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008)
It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.
(Or scary looking)

Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’”

The vast majority of people who believe that the government has the right to regulate gun ownership by passing new laws ... have a poor understanding of our Constitution!

Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment ... made by both sides, revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms.

What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!

What the Constitution does do is identify what powers the people grant to the government.

This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the government what it can and cannot do, our Constitution is a limit on government.

That is why Marxists, Socialist, Progressive Democrats, et al. have such a disdain for our Constitution ... It is a limitation on Government not a limitation on We The People.

Read the Second Amendment closely.
Nowhere does it state that the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the government cannot infringe on that right.

The framers of our Constitution believed that our right to bear arms is a natural right , not a right to be given to us by government.

This is ... and should have always been the way our 2ND amendment Right To Bear Arms needed to be presented!

Every single law passed on gun control is an illegal law!
Every single one!

The courts cannot overrule the Constitution even though the ignorant masses have allowed them the freedom to do so!

If the government is allowed to dictate what we are 'permitted' to own, to defend ourselves, how exactly are we able, if ever, to defend against the tyranny of that government!?

Just look at how the Democrats are threatening to 'erode' our gun rights even further!
(If not downright confiscation!)

For those interested please see the following:
(No ads or popups.)

2ND AMENDMENT

Page 2 should prove interesting to those who think the 2ND only meant that we were limited to carrying muskets!

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.