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

Ammoland ^ | 2 November, 2018 | Dean Weingarten

[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

[cowboyusa]

Maybe not in MA.

[4yearlurker]

Don't buy anymore hunting licenses!

[KarlInOhio]

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

[vette6387]

“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!

[polymuser]

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

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

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.

[zeugma]

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.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Precedents and stare decisis only matter when you're a conservative judge, don'tcha know!

[PapaBear3625]

Violates McDonald v. City of Chicago

This will go straight to the Supreme Court.

[smokingfrog]

I guess they can keep a gun in their shopping cart.

[editor-surveyor]

.
This foolish idea has already been defeated by SCOTUS.

[ETCM]

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.

[Bob434]

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

[plain talk]

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

[sickoflibs]

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)

[4yearlurker]

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.

[mrsmith]

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.

[Perseverando]

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.

[Right Wing Assault]

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?

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “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.
.