9th Circuit just ruled that there is “no right” to carry a firearm

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • JPG

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 5, 2012
    6,996
    Calvert County
    Wow, I'm not sure if a single one of those "issues" makes my list at all. Definitely not in the top 10 or even 20. Yet I still refuse to believe I'm the one that lives in my own little bizarro world.

    They are Democrat concerns, not national concerns (independents, republican and everyone else.)
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    Wow, I'm not sure if a single one of those "issues" makes my list at all.

    That's not how this works. That poll isn't a measurement of what people (Dems in this case) are actually thinking/worried about. The act of asking the questions and showing the results is just the Dem establishment TELLING people what to worry about, even if they previously didn't much care. These polls are instructions, not questions.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,176
    Sun City West, AZ
    The 9th ruled that Hawaiian tradition trumps the Constitution and the Second Amendment when it comes to carrying a firearms outside of the home...both open and concealed carry. The judges seemed to have forgotten or simply ignored the fact that when Hawaii became a state it had to adopt the United Constitution which trumps all previous laws and traditions.

    Based upon that reasoning states that legalized slavery before adoption of the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment can simply ignore it and continue with legalized indentured servitude. The rule of law lost big time in this decision.
     

    KingClown

    SOmething Witty
    Jul 29, 2020
    1,154
    Deep Blue MD
    We are absolutly in a Civil War already. Its a cold civil war right now but they may change very very soon. Biden isnt about to just light a match to throw in the gas he is about to use a flame thrower to spark it off. Or maybe Dragons breath in his beloved 2 shot shotgun
     

    MigraineMan

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 9, 2011
    19,109
    Frederick County
    Jeebus. I just finished the summary section, and I'm at a loss for ... okay, no I'm not.
    After careful review of the history of early English and American regulation of carrying arms openly in the public square, the en banc court concluded that Hawai‘i’s restrictions on the open carrying of firearms reflect longstanding prohibitions,and therefore, the conduct they regulate is outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.
    Absolutely irrelevant. Persistence of an unconstitutional behavior does not make it less so.
    The enbanc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawai‘i’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.
    Uhm ... actually, yes it does. If the 2A was drafted with the intent of owning arms that were to be kept in your residence, the text would read "the right to keep arms shall not be infringed." But it doesn't say that, does it? It says "keep and bear arms." And it does so in an "unfettered" manner, without further qualifications.

    Pretty much, your "right" to flail your arms [sic] ends at the tip of my nose. If you're threatening someone, or stealing from him, or inflicting bodily harm, well, we have laws and punishments for such behaviors ... regardless of being in possession of $ARMS or just your meaty paws.

    Damn, I'm gonna need to buy another bottle of Tums.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    The 9th ruled that Hawaiian tradition trumps the Constitution and the Second Amendment when it comes to carrying a firearms outside of the home...both open and concealed carry. The judges seemed to have forgotten or simply ignored the fact that when Hawaii became a state it had to adopt the United Constitution which trumps all previous laws and traditions.

    Based upon that reasoning states that legalized slavery before adoption of the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment can simply ignore it and continue with legalized indentured servitude. The rule of law lost big time in this decision.

    That is not exactly correct. It certainly was a factor, but the real reason is the belief that police power trumps rights.

    Those restrictions are within the state’s legitimate police powers and are not within the scope of the right protected by Second Amendment. That means that Young’s challenge to Hawai‘i’s restrictions fails at step one of our framework and “may be upheld without further analysis.” Silvester, 843 F.3d at 821

    The state's legitimate police power and the Second Amendment address the same thing; public safety. That is not how the case was argued. It looks as if they are two different issues because the 2A is described as a right of self defense whereas the state's police power is about public safety. One is a subset of the other. They cannot be separated. We will continue to lose as long as people continue to argue as if they are separate issues.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,019
    Glenelg
    pretty effin sad

    That is not exactly correct. It certainly was a factor, but the real reason is the belief that police power trumps rights.



    The state's legitimate police power and the Second Amendment address the same thing; public safety. That is not how the case was argued. It looks as if they are two different issues because the 2A is described as a right of self defense whereas the state's police power is about public safety. One is a subset of the other. They cannot be separated. We will continue to lose as long as people continue to argue as if they are separate issues.

    when shit is like that commercial where the guy says the same thing as the first but one did his hand up and down and the other side to side. This minutia crap gets real old. That is why a handshake no longer means what it is supposed to mean. Too many assholes work too hard to skirt things...
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    That is not exactly correct. It certainly was a factor, but the real reason is the belief that police power trumps rights.



    The state's legitimate police power and the Second Amendment address the same thing; public safety. That is not how the case was argued. It looks as if they are two different issues because the 2A is described as a right of self defense whereas the state's police power is about public safety. One is a subset of the other. They cannot be separated. We will continue to lose as long as people continue to argue as if they are separate issues.

    Okaayyyy... disagree that the 2A is about self-defense...

    These suits may be making it about self-defense, which you may have a point.

    I do see this as a bow shot across the "text and tradition" spoken about when Kav or Gorsuch was confirmed.

    Essentially, we don't like guns, so ANY reasoning isn't good enough.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,176
    Sun City West, AZ
    Okaayyyy... disagree that the 2A is about self-defense...

    There's a fine point here depending on how it's defined. Self-defense in the common use today is most likely defined as defending oneself or one's family or one's home against criminal acts. I believe the Framers of the Constitution more likely defined it as self-defense against an arbitrary and tyrannical government.

    Under the heading of "self-defense" all definitions can be included...defending one's life...one's home...at home or in public...but the primary historical definition is defense against an over-reaching and dictatorial government.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    There's a fine point here depending on how it's defined. Self-defense in the common use today is most likely defined as defending oneself or one's family or one's home against criminal acts. I believe the Framers of the Constitution more likely defined it as self-defense against an arbitrary and tyrannical government.

    Under the heading of "self-defense" all definitions can be included...defending one's life...one's home...at home or in public...but the primary historical definition is defense against an over-reaching and dictatorial government.

    The common use today hides the original intent.

    And then we start getting into the "police provide for the defense of the people from criminals" argument.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Okaayyyy... disagree that the 2A is about self-defense...

    These suits may be making it about self-defense, which you may have a point.

    I do see this as a bow shot across the "text and tradition" spoken about when Kav or Gorsuch was confirmed.

    Essentially, we don't like guns, so ANY reasoning isn't good enough.

    Your right, the 2A is not entirely about self-defense. I believe Heller said "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(Heller. at 628)

    I don't believe the there is a problem with the text part, it is the history and tradition part where there are issues. There have been numerous restrictions placed on the right in the past as the majority in this case rightfully points out. The problem is that you need to put all of these restrictions into perspective. Young did a OK job trying to put some perspective on these restriction, but did it in a way that did not clarify any underlying principles.

    Everyone thinks that this is easy and all you need to do is say "What part of shall not infringe don't you understand?" There have been historical restrictions on the right and that you need to be able to articulate underlying principles that govern them.

    These cases are poorly argued because they don't really address these underlying principles.
     

    ddestruel

    Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    90
    The 9th's use of lip service to "history, text and tradition", to blow this case up demonstrates the flaws in that system ...

    Just like other courts contorting around intermediate scrutiny.
     

    JPG

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 5, 2012
    6,996
    Calvert County
    The 9th ruled that Hawaiian tradition trumps the Constitution and the Second Amendment when it comes to carrying a firearms outside of the home...both open and concealed carry. The judges seemed to have forgotten or simply ignored the fact that when Hawaii became a state it had to adopt the United Constitution which trumps all previous laws and traditions.

    Based upon that reasoning states that legalized slavery before adoption of the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment can simply ignore it and continue with legalized indentured servitude. The rule of law lost big time in this decision.

    Why do you think they are pushing white privilege and reparations? They are going to make white men slaves to repay all debts that white guys owe society for their millennia of "supremacy". :innocent0
     

    MigraineMan

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 9, 2011
    19,109
    Frederick County
    Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square.
    Seriously? We declared independence and threw off the shackles of The Crown, and you're going to use that as a foundational basis for the US Constitution?
    History is messy and, as we anticipated, the record is not uniform, but the overwhelming evidence from the states’ constitutions and statutes, the cases, and the commentaries confirms that we have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.
    You're not getting it. Our forefathers wrote the Constitution to prohibit the US government from committing the same tyrannical acts that were being levied upon the Colonies from across the pond. The First Amendment is all about having the ability to criticize the government without fear of being tossed in the dungeon, but hey, there's 1000 years of Western European history that indicates such behavior is commonplace. Might as well declare that the 1A doesn't protect speech outside the home.

    Then they cite Heller:
    The heart of the Second Amendment is “defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635.
    and immediately insinuate that the defense of hearth and home is exclusive to everywhere else:
    The power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.
    Man, I hope they stretched before doing these contortions. "Hey, we can't ban the 2A outright, but if we chop it into 'open carry' and 'concealed carry' chunks, we can ban it piecemeal."
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Your right, the 2A is not entirely about self-defense. I believe Heller said "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(Heller. at 628)

    I don't believe the there is a problem with the text part, it is the history and tradition part where there are issues. There have been numerous restrictions placed on the right in the past as the majority in this case rightfully points out. The problem is that you need to put all of these restrictions into perspective. Young did a OK job trying to put some perspective on these restriction, but did it in a way that did not clarify any underlying principles.

    Everyone thinks that this is easy and all you need to do is say "What part of shall not infringe don't you understand?" There have been historical restrictions on the right and that you need to be able to articulate underlying principles that govern them.

    These cases are poorly argued because they don't really address these underlying principles.

    it is not really about poorly argued or not, or the intent of the constitution -- it is about poltical views of the federal justices. That is where gun control cases align and to deny it is denial of the record and the clear partisan alignment of judges on almost all on gun control.

    These cases are NOT decided by argument, or merit, but by poltical outcomes of numbers of appoints by winners of presidential elections.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Why is this a surprise? this is Marylandshooters right? The de facto near no issue that "may issue" entails is the law in Maryland.

    It is a virtual certainty that most of the Democrat judges on the majority Democrat the ninth circuit don't think you have any Heller rights all.

    These are political decisions, resulting from elections. What is citied in the decisions is not the logic they used but a cover for their partisan based pre-existing views.

    There are some issues where existing partisan poltical views do not correspond to decisions by federal judges. EG some areas of first fourth and fifth amendment. But the partisan alignment is extremely strong on gun control issues.
     

    rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,725
    Bowie, MD
    The en banc U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 7-4 decision on the ruling.

    MAJORITY

    Judge Sidney Thomas - appointed by President Bill Clinton

    Judge Margaret McKeown - appointed by President Bill Clinton

    Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw - appointed by President Bill Clinton

    Judge William Fletcher - appointed by President Bill Clinton

    Judge Richard Clinton - appointed by President George W Bush

    Judge Jay Bybee - appointed by President George W Bush

    Judge Michelle Friedland - appointed by President Barack Obama

    DISSENT

    Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain - appointed by President Ronald Reagan

    Judge Consuelo Callahan - appointed by President George W Bush

    Judge Sandra Ikuta - appointed by President George W Bush

    Judge Ryan Nelson - appointed by President Donald Trump

    I erroneously thought judges appointed by R's can at least read English. Their names suggest I have over thought this.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,087
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom