Connect with us

On Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense.

That ruling was a reversal of a decision by the U.S. District Court in Hawaii, which had ruled that state officials did not infringe on a citizen’s rights when they twice denied him a permit to carry a gun outside.

Two of the three 9th Circuit judges agreed to reverse the decision by the district court; Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote, “We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence. But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

The majority opinion stated:

The panel acknowledged that while the concealed carry of firearms categorically falls outside Second Amendment protection, see Peruta v. County of San Diego, it was satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense. Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the County’s and the State’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home. The panel stated that once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public.

The opinion added:

We are not the first circuit to grapple with how far, and to what extent, the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Two circuits, looking closely at the text and history of the Amendment, have held that the Second Amendment indeed protects a general right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. See Wrenn v. District of Columbia, Moore v. Madigan.

The right to keep guns at home, derived from the Second Amendment, was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Advertisement
11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. Chuck

    July 25, 2018 at 4:25 am

    Thank you Captain Obvious.

  2. Stephen Russell

    July 25, 2018 at 4:38 am

    Wow 9th Circuit court OKs concealed carry.

    • John Campbell

      July 25, 2018 at 5:21 am

      Correction, “Open Carry”.

  3. Elijah Bell

    July 25, 2018 at 4:43 am

    Seems like the 9th really got it right this time. I have often wondered why I couldn’t carry my weapon when and where I might want to. I know states have taken some steps to deny a citizens right to open carry and I hope now that will go away.

  4. John Campbell

    July 25, 2018 at 5:21 am

    Say what?
    The Ninth Circuit? Someone slap me. This must be a trick. The Ninth Circuit, the most overturned federal court of appeals in the nation, actually gets one right? Was this a publicity stunt?
    Excuse me. I have to go back to bed to sleep this one off. Is it April first? I haven’t had anything to drink. Really! No, I’m not a doper! Is this fake news?

    Note to the writer:
    When you state, “The majority opinion stated:”, it is the signification that you are about to quote the actual statement of the majority. Typically that is followed by an actual quote and not the summation of it in your own words. In fact, I want to see the actual quote. Since I’ve not seen the news yet today I’ll be investigating this immediately as this is the most wonderful news I’ve heard in a very long time regarding the Second Amendment and I’m nearly in shock that this allegedly came from the Ninth Circuit, of all places.

    Now all we have to do is get the rest of the states to send their law enforcement personnel to Arizona to properly train them in how to deal with an armed citizenry since Arizona has always respected rights and never forgot how.

    • John Campbell

      July 25, 2018 at 6:23 am

      In quoting from the actual ruling we find this:

      We start, as we must, with the text. The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. It is apparent from the face of the text that the Amendment protects the right not only to “keep” but also to “bear” arms. The latter verb is central to Young’s challenge.
      Heller provides useful guidance. To “bear,” the Court explained, means to “wear” or to “carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defense action in a case of conflict with another person.”
      Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). And Heller explained that “bear arms” did not solely refer to carrying a weapon as part of a militia.
      Id. at 585. Rather, to “bear” an object means to carry it, and “[w]hen used with ‘arms,’ . . . the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose — confrontation.”
      Id. at 584.
      The prospect of confrontation is, of course, not limited to one’s dwelling. See Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 657 (“After all, the Amendment’s core lawful purpose is self-defense, and the need for that might arise beyond as well as within the home.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); Moore, 702 F.3d at 941 (“[T]he interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.”). Thus, carrying firearms outside the home fits comfortably within Heller’s definition of “bear.”

      The ruling continues:

      “Indeed, the fact that the Second Amendment protects bearing as well as keeping arms implies some level of public carry in case of confrontation. A right to “keep” arms, on its own, necessarily implies a right to carry those arms to some extent. For instance, in order to “keep” arms, one would have to carry them home from the place of purchase and occasionally move them from storage place to storage place. Cf. Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding that the right to possess firearms “implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use”). The addition of a separate right to “bear” arms, beyond keeping them, should therefore protect something more than mere carrying incidental to keeping arms. See Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America 271 (1880) (“[T]o bear arms implies something more than mere keeping.”). Understanding “bear” to protect at least some level of carrying in anticipation of conflict outside of the home provides the necessary gap between “keep” and “bear” to avoid rendering the latter guarantee as mere surplusage. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174 (1803) (“[I]t cannot be resumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect . . . .”).”

      I closing, the ruling states:

      “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. We would thus flout the Constitution if we were to hold that, “in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of [the State] has no other limit than its own discretion.”
      Reid, 1 Ala. at 616. While many respectable scholars and activists might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the right to a privileged few, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
      Heller, 554 U.S. at 636.”

      “YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII 59

      Young has indeed stated a claim that section 134-9’s limitations on the issuance of open carry licenses violate the Second Amendment. 22

      REVERSED as to the County, DISMISSED as to the State, 23 and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2”

      Reading from the dissenting opinion reads what anyone would expect to find from a lefty activist judge, thus easily identifying who is who on the bench. I’ll let readers look it up for themselves. The case is:

      No. 12-17808 D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00336-HG-BMK

  5. when

    August 1, 2018 at 3:37 pm

    Well, I am shocked you all left the very further greatest one for me.?
    Daddy stated with a teasing smile. ?It?s that һe despatched Jesus
    to die for us and provideѕ us life ceaselessly
    and ever and that because of that well be a family in heaven foг millions of years.
    That?s pretty good isnt it?

  6. Guy

    August 10, 2018 at 11:05 am

    Won’t do any good if you can’t get a gun in California Oregon or Hawaii. That is a bigger issue that really needs addressed before people get stupid about it. The boiling point is nearing. Wish I had the funds to file the law suites.

  7. Donald

    August 14, 2018 at 12:09 am

    A water-primarily based system typically doesn’t use media,
    and so the plants will should be supported in some method out of the water.

  8. Renaldo

    October 20, 2018 at 7:33 am

    You need to use all kinds of lighting sorts in your hydroponic backyard:
    gro-lights, CFLs used together with normal incandescent bulbs, metallic halide lamps
    or sodium vapor lamps.

  9. kolesterol

    October 22, 2018 at 5:44 am

    Although you may lose weight for this sort of diet
    it is not like other weight reduction diets.

    The facts are one’s body needs a certain quantity of cholesterol to produce vitamin D and certain hormones in addition to help the digestive process.
    They’re good cholesterol – actively vacuuming
    up cholesterol deposits out of your artery walls and returning
    them for a liver for disposal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CF