Federal Judge Overturns Ban on Openly Carrying Guns in Public

Reason ^ | 10/05/2016 | Jacob Sullum

[drypowder]

a judge who takes their oath of office seriously

[NorthMountain]

Today, ammunition is cheap. BLOAT.

[rxsid]

"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.

[frog in a pot]

…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.

[Talisker]

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.

[MarchonDC09122009]

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.”

[PROCON]

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.

[B4Ranch]

Do you know how to use Google or are you too lazy?

[fwdude]

“...shall not be infringed” actually means something.

[Flag_This]

"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!

[MarchonDC09122009]

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!”

[sergeantdave]

“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.

[arrogantsob]

Won’t this be appealed to the whole Ninth Circuit? And be overturned.

[datricker]

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, it’s 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

[Talisker]

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, it’s 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.

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

If we put too many troops on them, they will tip over. /sarc

[Sasparilla]

...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.

[zerosix]

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.