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!
  • DanGuy48

    Ultimate Member
    That would be the spark that ignites the powder keg.

    If the 2/3rds requirement laid out in the constitution is over ruled by a silly Senate say so, then this country is done. The constitution will mean nothing, and the oaths sworn to uphold it are worthless.

    I think that’s where we’re headed. I also don’t think there is a powder keg. When they come for our guns, there will be a lot of small individual firecrackers scattered around (which will only justify their actions in their view) but it will probably go down just like in Australia. We’ve become too comfortable with our good lives and will not risk anything unless it comes to our door and directly threatens home and family.
     

    Bohemian

    Member
    Nov 7, 2009
    60
    https://www.newswars.com/breaking-n...ht-to-carry-firearm-either-open-or-concealed/



    In an appalling lack of knowledge on Constitution 9th Circus violates 2nd amendment....

    God Help Us.

    Self Preservation using => force than can be brought against you is a human birthright. In the U.S. it's protected by, not created by the Second Amendment. Every word of Gun Control without exception be it SCOTUS opinion, federal, state, local or other municipality legislation or other prohibition is Unconstitutional.

    All humans have a fundamental right to not be legislated, disarmed, defenseless victims. Imagine IF our framers had to ask permission from the same tyrannical government that we sent our declaration of independence to before we bought firearms. Imagine if they knew what type, location, and who the owner of every firearm was. We'd still be under a monarchy if that was the case.

    American individuals have the protected right to maintain an effective means to remove & replace a tyrannical government, without permission from said government federal, state or otherwise it's a fundamental tenet of freedom.

    Vote Freedom First, Say No To Tyranny By Gun Control, Demand the Restoration of the Unabridged Second Amendment.

    Just because federal, state, local & other government entities have grown accustomed to passing Unconstitional Laws & Acts, does not somehow make them Constitutional even if SCOTUS upholds them all or in part. The Dred Scott case is one of many examples where SCOTUS 1st held something as Constitutional then years later reversed itself.
     

    Fox123

    Ultimate Member
    May 21, 2012
    3,926
    Rosedale, MD
    I think that’s where we’re headed. I also don’t think there is a powder keg. When they come for our guns, there will be a lot of small individual firecrackers scattered around (which will only justify their actions in their view) but it will probably go down just like in Australia. We’ve become too comfortable with our good lives and will not risk anything unless it comes to our door and directly threatens home and family.

    100%.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    I think that’s where we’re headed. I also don’t think there is a powder keg. When they come for our guns, there will be a lot of small individual firecrackers scattered around (which will only justify their actions in their view) but it will probably go down just like in Australia. We’ve become too comfortable with our good lives and will not risk anything unless it comes to our door and directly threatens home and family.

    I think a lot of American tick a little differently than the Aussies. We believe it is our God-Given right to own arms. We fought and beat the tyrants. They have always lived under the crown.

    Though I think in a few generations things will be different in the US.
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,173
    Outside the Gates
    I think it will be the dissolution of the union. I don’t think there will be a war, but the US as we have known it to be will cease. I don’t know which side will carry the name forward. It seems like things are always actually divided 33-33-33 between the sides. 33% want to be free, 33% want to be coddled and protected at the expense of freedom and 33% are undecided or don’t care.
     

    LeeM88

    Member
    Mar 2, 2021
    8
    Beyond infuriating! The language in the constitution is plain for a reason. Right to "Bear" means carry!
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    Beyond infuriating! The language in the constitution is plain for a reason. Right to "Bear" means carry!

    LEFTY JUDGES: "Sure, but we believe the Founders meant that you only had the right to carry single-shot muskets, and even then, only inside your own house, unless safety concerns mean that might make other people feel uncomfortable. And even that is just quaint old-timey stuff that doesn't apply any more. Next case!"
     

    woobie

    Member
    Mar 20, 2019
    16
    I think a lot of American tick a little differently than the Aussies. We believe it is our God-Given right to own arms. We fought and beat the tyrants. They have always lived under the crown.

    Though I think in a few generations things will be different in the US.

    I obviously don't post much on this forum, as seen by my post count. I, like many others, prefer to stay low, out of radar range. But make no mistake, as Teratos says, this is not Australia. If the day comes that patriots must stand firm against tyranny, I promise that there are millions like me, who nobody ever hears from, that will stand with free men. I served my country many years ago, and the oath I took to the COTUS still stands. I will never comply.
    Molon Labe
     

    blipper

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 4, 2017
    380
    Dundalk (Baltimore County)
    If the 2/3rds requirement laid out in the constitution is over ruled by a silly Senate say so, then this country is done. The constitution will mean nothing, and the oaths sworn to uphold it are worthless.

    The cloture requirement isn't constitutionally based, though. It's a creation of Senate rules, which are adopted by a majority vote.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    I obviously don't post much on this forum, as seen by my post count. I, like many others, prefer to stay low, out of radar range. But make no mistake, as Teratos says, this is not Australia. If the day comes that patriots must stand firm against tyranny, I promise that there are millions like me, who nobody ever hears from, that will stand with free men. I served my country many years ago, and the oath I took to the COTUS still stands. I will never comply.
    Molon Labe

    Great first post, sir.
     

    Scorpioj

    Member
    Feb 27, 2017
    99
    US of A
    Interesting, according to this news article, the 9th previously ruled against concealed carry and now, today, they have ruled against open carry. If you can neither carry openly nor concealed how exactly does that meet the second amendment text of allowing one to "bear arms".

    https://www.latimes.com/california/...nel-rules-states-may-restrict-open-carry-guns
    I think either the law was from a time when men could carry bear arms after a successful bear hunt OR when they were allowed to go sleeveless with shaved arms. IJS
     

    rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,725
    Bowie, MD
    I obviously don't post much on this forum, as seen by my post count. I, like many others, prefer to stay low, out of radar range. But make no mistake, as Teratos says, this is not Australia. If the day comes that patriots must stand firm against tyranny, I promise that there are millions like me, who nobody ever hears from, that will stand with free men. I served my country many years ago, and the oath I took to the COTUS still stands. I will never comply.
    Molon Labe

    Thank you, woobie.
     

    bluedog46

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 2, 2011
    1,415
    https://www.newswars.com/breaking-n...ht-to-carry-firearm-either-open-or-concealed/



    In an appalling lack of knowledge on Constitution 9th Circus violates 2nd amendment....

    God Help Us.

    Well first that is the most communist court in the nation. Second of all some wil talk aobut previous decisions by the Supreme Court> i am not recalling a right to carry case. Just a right to have in your home with limitations as i believe some state "assault weapons" bans and mag capacity limits.

    Now I am not sure what the supreme Court will do. They likely will put.
     

    JMangle

    Handsome Engineer
    May 11, 2008
    816
    Mississippi
    Sounds fine in theory. In practice, the GOV can just keep escalating force until they ultimately prevail. Have anything in your safe that works against an A-10 or Apache?

    The promise of a bullet in every member of the pilot's family for starters. This kind of crap has the potential to get real nasty, real quick and anyone with a functioning brain won't want escalate it.

    A hot CW2 holds no appeal for me at all.

    See above - you don't take the bird on the wing, you take out the pilots, families, homes, fuel supply, parts supply, ammunition supply. It's very difficult to forcefully occupy the land that supplies you.

    Anyway, how has SCOTUS not taken anything up? This is maddening.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    See above - you don't take the bird on the wing, you take out the pilots, families, homes, fuel supply, parts supply, ammunition supply. It's very difficult to forcefully occupy the land that supplies you.

    Anyway, how has SCOTUS not taken anything up? This is maddening.

    The conventional wisdom is that the votes were not there or were unclear. That may have changed now with ACB taking RBGs seat.
    The NYC carry case was just relisted so a good sign already. Monday at 9:30am we find out perhaps if the court takes the case.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    See above - you don't take the bird on the wing, you take out the pilots, families, homes, fuel supply, parts supply, ammunition supply. It's very difficult to forcefully occupy the land that supplies you.

    Anyway, how has SCOTUS not taken anything up? This is maddening.

    The conventional wisdom is that the votes were not there or were unclear. That may have changed now with ACB taking RBGs seat.
    The NYC carry case was just relisted so a good sign already. Monday at 9:30am we find out perhaps if the court takes the case.

    They have taken two cases where the lower court's reasoning has been fundamentally wrong; Caetano and NYSRPA.

    The conventional wisdom is wrong and the two cases I have cited help to demonstrate why it is not really about the votes. It is really about the arguments that are presented.

    The real problem is deference and how you need to argue a case when the court is being deferential. I believe the dissent in the recent 6CA bump stock case does a good job of articulating the issue (they are wrong on the facts of the case though) https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0070p-06.pdf The relevant discussion starts on pg 55. They are talking about Chevron, which refers to a particular case, which now requires the courts to be deferential to the government in certain cases.

    The 2A as argued is ambiguous. The government certainly does have the obligation to protect society and that certain rights do get curtailed because of this. On the other hand we need to protect the individual right. The way these cases get argued is that they appear to be two separate issues, one about public safety and the other about self defense.

    2A cases are generally not Chevron deference cases, but one's personal beliefs certainly play a role in how deferential you are to particular arguments. Liberals/Democrats tend to focus almost exclusively on harm and fairness while Conservatives and Libertarians include other values (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory). You see the court tending to divide along political lines because the arguments presented make the issue ambiguous and the decisions are really based on one's moral foundations.

    What is needed are different arguments that make the issue unambiguous. We need to focus on the other sides data and explain why it is wrong. We also need to shift the focus from an individual right to an argument based on public safety and how the only way society can protect itself is through individual self defense because the government can not protect its individual citizens.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,263
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom