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

[j. earl carter]

Here in WA State, after a 100 yrs or more, the Supremes here decided the death penalty was unconstitutional.

I think California still has you beat. Their Supreme Court decided that a constitutional amendment was unconstitutional (the no gay marriage amendment).

[Sa-teef]

'....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...."

They are talkin' the Libtard language that carrying a weapon by licensed/screened citizens is a threat to public safety. Packin' prevents crimes; unarmed civilians make a much easier and frequently assaulted targets.

There is no mention in My Constitution about limiting my rights to "within my home only" or allowing a police officer to decide on the spot whether I have Second Amendment rights or not.

-----------

SCOTUS needs to make them sit in a corner until they have read MacDonald and can pass a quiz.

[zeugma]

The opinion is clearly flawed. They cited a part of Heller that was effectively overturned by McDonald vs. Chicago that applied Heller’s narrow, DC-only ruling to all of the states. McDonald is the decision that names handgun ownership as an individual right (so long as a weapon can be “beared”), not Heller.

Yup. Their ruling is in direct conflict with the supreme court's rulings.

[editor-surveyor]

.
They did!
.

[NY Attitude]

I would imaginre that they banned hunting in those areas.

[Pecos]

Maybe we can all pull a page out of the Left’s handbook and declare ourselves “citizens of the world” so U.S. laws don’t really apply to us. ;-)

[NormsRevenge]

Selya is an old timer from Reagan era..
https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/selya-bruce-marshall

—

Selya, Bruce Marshall
Born 1934 in Providence, RI

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 27, 1982, to a seat vacated by Raymond J. Pettine. Confirmed by the Senate on August 18, 1982, and received commission on August 18, 1982. Service terminated on November 24, 1986, due to appointment to another judicial position.

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 26, 1986, to a new seat authorized by 98 Stat. 333. Confirmed by the Senate on October 8, 1986, and received commission on October 14, 1986. Assumed senior status on December 31, 2006.

Other Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, 2005-2012; presiding judge, 2008-2012

Education:
Harvard University, A.B., 1955
Harvard Law School, LL.B., 1958

Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Edward W. Day, U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, 1958-1960
Private practice, Providence, Rhode Island, 1960-1982
Judge, Lincoln [Rhode Island] Probate Court, 1965-1972
Board member, Federal Judicial Center, 1995-1999
Member, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2000-2004

[Pecos]

In that case, we also have no right to the other protections of the Constitution outside our homes. You have to wonder if some judges were born stupid, or if they had to study really hard to get to their level of ignorance.

[liberalh8ter]

Exactly right!

[Bonemaker]

“So judge asshole says I can’t defend myself outside my house!?”

I wonder if these C suckers are going to apply their decision nationwide like that puke judge in Hawaii did with immigration? Maybe not now that Sessions is gone.

[liberalh8ter]

Look at post 54, LOL

[Zathras]

“A well regulated Militia...”
But only inside your home.
I’m sure on Planet Progressive this makes sense.

[fuzzylogic]

That is exactly it.

...but then, we’re all “more enlightened” now. If the founders knew what we know they’d agree with this! /s

;)

[Mears]

” who in many cases is an individual who couldn’t get into trade school or a good college, is going to decide whether I’m able to arm myself?”

—

Mean,snobbish comment——I have a very smart son who has been a cop for 25 years.

.

[MeganC]

“The First Circuit has ruled that there is no right to bear arms outside of the home.”

Ironic that the liberals in Massachusetts are imposing the same gun control laws on their state that the British tried to impose.

And they should meet the same fate.

[Senormechanico]

Three loaded and in arm’s reach of my bed.

[Blood of Tyrants]

And the right to transfer a firearm from one private citizen to another without government oversight or permission is just an illusion.

[Vlad The Inhaler]

Rise up and slap down an unconstitutional tyrannical government from the comfort of your own TV room!

Revolutionary War era Massachusetts patriots would be ashamed to be buried there today.

[Amendment10]

Note that some of the following example videos show that intruder was shot during 911 call.

• Intruder Doesn't Heed Warning, Woman Shoots Him In The Chest (911 related)

• Woman on 911 Call Shoots Intruder

• On cam: Off-duty lady cop shoots armed robber trying to attack women, kids

• Mother and daughter in a violent shootout with an armed robbery

• Watch robbers run for the door after woman shoots at them

• Woman shoots carjacking suspect

[sphinx]

Someone should ask this court about other rights, like speech, assembly, or maybe the 4th only applies in a home also?

Surely you jest. It's a liberal court. Freedom of speech certainly applies within the home (unless you offend someone's feelings). Freedom of assembly certainly applies (unless your assembly involves people parking cars or making noise). Fourth Amendment -- no problem, as long as you are seeking protection for transgressive sexual acts, terrorism or drug related activity. Other stuff, not so much.