Skip to comments.
Federal Judge Overturns Ban on Openly Carrying Guns in Public
Reason ^
| 10/05/2016
| Jacob Sullum
Posted on 10/11/2016 12:09:01 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: MarchonDC09122009
a judge who takes their oath of office seriously
To: JimRed
Today, ammunition is cheap. BLOAT.
22
posted on
10/11/2016 12:57:04 PM PDT
by
NorthMountain
(Hillary Clinton: corrupt unreliable negligent traitor)
To: dp0622; MarchonDC09122009
"
We have something called the Mariana island? How are they relate to the US?"
The North Field on Tinian, located in the Mariana island chain, was the launch point for the atomic bombings on Japan during WWII.
23
posted on
10/11/2016 12:59:27 PM PDT
by
rxsid
(HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
To: MarchonDC09122009
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (2ndA)
there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon in public. (9th Circuit)
Those two statements are clearly inconsistent.
Although the open carrying of guns may clash with contemporary sensibilities, it is the mode of publicly bearing arms that is most clearly protected by the Second Amendment. (this decision.)
Concealed carry by definition would clash with even fewer sensibilities and under this reasoning ought to raise even less of an issue and fully satisfy the 2ndA.
Thank you for the post, 09. The decision will no doubt rattle gun-grabbers.
24
posted on
10/11/2016 1:12:19 PM PDT
by
frog in a pot
(When will come the time to question if a "religion" with totalitarian ambitions is a 1stA religion?)
To: MarchonDC09122009
As the Supreme Court noted in Heller, "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." "State analogues."
Dear God, it's right there in plain sight.
25
posted on
10/11/2016 1:24:19 PM PDT
by
Talisker
(One who commands, must obey.)
To: Talisker
Sharp one, are you, picking right up on that..
RE: “As the Supreme Court noted in Heller, “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”
“State analogues.”
Dear God, it’s right there in plain sight.”
26
posted on
10/11/2016 1:46:06 PM PDT
by
MarchonDC09122009
(When is our next march on DC? When have we had enough?)
To: Tilted Irish Kilt; mylife; Joe Brower; MaxMax; Randy Larsen; waterhill; Envisioning; AZ .44 MAG; ...
Looks like one judge knows what "Shall Not Be Infringed" means.RKBA Ping List
This list is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.If you would like to be added to or deleted from this Ping List, please FReepmail me.
27
posted on
10/11/2016 1:51:29 PM PDT
by
PROCON
("Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!")
To: dp0622
Do you know how to use Google or are you too lazy?
28
posted on
10/11/2016 2:41:57 PM PDT
by
B4Ranch
(Conservatives own 200,000,000 guns and a trillion rounds of ammo. If we were violent you'd know it.)
To: MarchonDC09122009
“...shall not be infringed” actually means something.
29
posted on
10/11/2016 2:58:50 PM PDT
by
fwdude
(If we keep insisting on the lesser of two evils, that is exactly what they will give us from now on.)
To: MarchonDC09122009
"Manglona notes the perseverance of the plaintiff in this case, a former U.S. Army Ranger named Paul Murphy who represented himself through years of litigation." "Rangers Lead the Way!
30
posted on
10/11/2016 3:08:30 PM PDT
by
Flag_This
(Liberals are locusts.)
To: Flag_This
Glad you noticed that too.
We owe his tenacity as a civilian safe-guarding our rights and freedoms, as much as his military service for our country.
RE: “”Manglona notes the perseverance of the plaintiff in this case, a former U.S. Army Ranger named Paul Murphy who represented himself through years of litigation.”
“Rangers Lead the Way!”
31
posted on
10/11/2016 3:37:37 PM PDT
by
MarchonDC09122009
(When is our next march on DC? When have we had enough?)
To: MarchonDC09122009
“If these restrictions has been allowed to stand, it may have served to undermine future 2A rights on mainland USA.”
That’s nice that this judge “allowed” us to exercise our natural law, God-given rights to bear arms. However, another judge could goosestep along and take away our rights to bear arms.
It’s way past time to tell judges, legislators and bureaucrats that we will exercise and USE the 2nd amendment as we see fit, and God help you if you get in the way.
32
posted on
10/11/2016 6:28:34 PM PDT
by
sergeantdave
(Trump will give us 80% of what we want, while hillary will take 100% of what we have)
To: MarchonDC09122009
Won’t this be appealed to the whole Ninth Circuit? And be overturned.
33
posted on
10/11/2016 9:12:02 PM PDT
by
arrogantsob
(Nationalist, Patriot, Trumpman)
To: Sasparilla
This undoubtedly will be expedited to the 9th Circuit Appeals Court where it will most likely decide that Constitutional Intermediate scrutiny was incorrectly applied, and find a Rational Basis, whatever bizarre one they come up with, should be applied and uphold the harsh laws. After all, its the 9th Circuit.Time to impeach the entire 9th circuit - I believe congress can do this.
I hope Trump starts mentioning he'll ask for this
34
posted on
10/11/2016 9:59:17 PM PDT
by
datricker
(President Trump is coming - Damn these new world order cronie technocratic commies)
To: Sasparilla
This was a lone Federal Judge. This undoubtedly will be expedited to the 9th Circuit Appeals Court where it will most likely decide that Constitutional Intermediate scrutiny was incorrectly applied, and find a Rational Basis, whatever bizarre one they come up with, should be applied and uphold the harsh laws. After all, its the 9th Circuit. I don't think so - her logic was stone cold sober. She merely pointed out that without either concealed or open carry the 2nd is functionally negated, so the court has to choose which one it wants to restrict. Since, historically, restrictions came with concealed carry, that meant that restrictions on open carry were - by definition - violations of the 2nd, and then ruled on those grounds. It's sweet, actually - the way the law is SUPPOSED to be argued.
35
posted on
10/11/2016 10:50:16 PM PDT
by
Talisker
(One who commands, must obey.)
To: dp0622
If we put too many troops on them, they will tip over. /sarc
To: Talisker
...It’s sweet, actually - the way the law is SUPPOSED to be argued...
It should be...but the 9th Circuit in California is the most liberal, anti gun Appeals Court of the 10 in the USA. Anything anti Constitutional can and does happen there.
37
posted on
10/12/2016 6:24:56 AM PDT
by
Sasparilla
(Hillary for Prison 2016)
To: MarchonDC09122009
YEAH! I completely missed that one!
Thanks for posting. My good 2nd A. friend failed to aprise me of this newest ruling.
Moving toward closer to a free and just society!
This news comes at just the right time, lest we wind up "electing" the first of many dictators on our road to the dust bin of history.
38
posted on
10/12/2016 10:29:47 PM PDT
by
zerosix
(native sunflower)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson