Posted on 03/24/2021 3:24:57 PM PDT by Mount Athos
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.
I suspect the latter.
--- 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."
And then they can move on to “shall not be infringed”.
For more commentary on this:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3944898/posts
“No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot(s).” Mark Twain.
This is really beside the point of course, but if the "urgency" ever cropped up, it would be a little late to request a permit, eh?
Yup. At one time I would have said “Pffftttt!”. Current scotus,not so much.
It matters not to me what these jokers rule - I’m at the point where I will damned well uphold our Constitution as I see fit.
I swore an oath to protect and defend it for 25 years and nobody ever asked me, during that time, how I interpreted any of the Bill of Rights.
“...we have the right already...”
Obviously, we HAVE the right to defend ourselves.
2A is not just for marching in formation either. You’re actually allowed to fire them.
This will be their next angle if this fails.
Yes, you can keep and bear your arms, but shooting them is another story.
Umm, how is one supposed to exercise the RIGHT to bear arms if we cant carry them you morons?
Irony: Biden was part of that.
The Judiciary has proven itself to be as corrupt and meaningless to me as this usurping Administration. We have entered into the times when every man does what is right in his own eyes.
Bttt.
Pretty sad when the courts themselves turn against the American people
Makes it real hard to have any optimism about the future.
The 9th has been stalling and stonewalling on these cases for more than a decade. At first they were somewhat libertarian; then went hard left and play games with their rulings to avoid appeals. Even after the Heller and McDonald rulings, they independently ruled that there is no stated right to carry openly, and also no right to carry concealed because the Supreme Court did not give proper guidance on either question - even though the court did say in Heller it is an individual right to keep and bear. The question they don’t want to answer is “how”.
But they can only stall for so long. This is another stall, though. So now they ruled that open carry can be restricted. So at some point they have to decide whether they think concealed carry can be limited by discretion of the local authorities. Then it can go to the Supreme Court. Been waiting more than 20 years for something; the 9th continues to obstruct.
That is exactly what they are doing. Courts mangle plain meaning if that what it takes to get the "correct" outcome.
The 9th Circus.
A ruling FOR carrying is a dissent AGAINST the previous ruling NOT to carry.
In essence, your statement says (as in the article);
“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in Tuesday’s ruling. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
State Attorney General Russell Suzuki said the ruling would “undermine Hawaii’s strong gun control law and our commitment to protect the public.” He added that state and local authorities would consult on what further action to take.
It's no wonder we referred to the 9th CIRCUS court
Homeless people are now prevented from owning guns.
“To ‘bear arms’ means to carry weapons – phraseology which shows that the Second Amendment contemplates an individual right since in every context it is people who ‘bear’ arms, not states.”
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.”
O’Scannlain wrote the dissent...O’Scannlain was of the minority who, as stated, believes the 2nd Amendment states exactly against what the majority ruled i.e. that public carry falls outside the 2nd Amendment...
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.