Americans have 'no right' to carry guns in public, 9th Circuit Court rules

[thughes]

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” the court ruled in an “en banc” decision that involved 11 of the panel’s judges.

“We can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense,” the majority wrote, claiming that the Second Amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home.”

“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,” the judges wrote.

The court noted that “we have previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public,” which means people in the West Coast states the appeals court covers have no right to carry a firearm.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...y-guns-public/

[usmcveteran]

This pandemic has opened my eyes to a lot of things and I've started to really notice the "playbook" as it were.

This is what pops in my head immediately.......

Like with the vaccine and pandemic this sounds like one of those statements of "we find no evidence" fill in the blank. Basically a cop out that allows them to do what they want knowing it's wrong but gives them wiggle room.

Here are my question though. They admit that the second amendment applies to the individual and claim it's for hearth and home.

The second amendment and constitution makes no reference to only applying at home. What is there rationale that it only applies at home? Where does it say that anywhere? The constitution does NOT limit that right to be at home. Just like your right to free speech extends past home, your right to religion isn't just for home, your right to due process isn't only at home.

This decision clearly oversteps there constitutional authority and shows a clear bias and they should be investigated for ethics violations and dare I say deprivation of rights under colour of law charges.

If anything this mass shootings has shown time and time again that they happen in public. The victims have a right to self defense not only at home but in public. It would be a public benefit to carry in public to help deter and minimize the loss of life with events like these and would likely have a bigger impact then there current approach of laws that criminals by definition won't follow.

[dwa12479]

Welcome to clown world. Honk honk!!

I smell a trip to SCOTUS with this one. Could end up being a good thing for the 2A.

[WARFAB]

I smell a trip to SCOTUS with this one. Could end up being a good thing for the 2A.

That's what I was thinking. The 9th circuit is blatantly thumbing their noses at SCOTUS decisions. SCOTUS needs to smack this down fast and hard or they'll be relegating themselves to the dust bin.


The way the courts are ruling on a variety of issues lately, my guess is we're headed towards a point where states just start doing as they see fit and not paying much attention to the courts. The Democrat controlled states are already doing this. The right leaning states tend to be the "follow the rules" types so they're following the court decisions, even to their own detriment. Give it time, and my guess (maybe it's a hope) is that the red states will start to say "If the blue states don't have to abide by the rules they don't like, why should we?".

It could mean a return to the federalism the founders envisioned, or it could be the beginning of the breakup of the country.

[usmcveteran]

So I've been reading the actual decision and basically they said the only question before them is if the law in question violates second amendment protections regarding openly carrying in public.

They said that it our history we have had such bans therefore and since it was ok then it should be ok now.

That's not really a good argument in my opinion though. It's like saying discrimination doesn't violate the constitution because we allowed it to happen in the past.

The fact is the second amendment is clear and does not put any limitations on it and goes a step further saying it shall not be infringed. Any reasonable person would have to agree that shall not be infringed means it has EXTRA protections afforded not given to the other rights. Our founding fathers found it necessary to include that extra line for a reason.

[thughes]

So I've been reading the actual decision and basically they said the only question before them is if the law in question violates second amendment protections regarding openly carrying in public.

Ummm......The court noted that “we have previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public,”

[usmcveteran]

Ummm......The court noted that “we have previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public,”

That was a different case they decided a few years back.

[usmcveteran]

And that decision only effected california and hawaii as other states in there district are shall issue

[usmcveteran]

https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/01...-of-san-diego/

Yea it's not about justice or what's right it's about twisting things and using technicalities to avoid facing the truth.

[thughes]

There may be a bright side to this. The SCOTUS is meeting today to determine whether they will hear what could be a landmark case for right to carry OUTSIDE the home.

It's the NYSRPA case: https://www.wkyt.com/app/2021/03/25/...ass-shootings/

The timing is perfect now, as the 9th circuit ruling of earlier this week creates a conflict in the circuit courts (as other circuit courts have ruled that carry IS legal outside the home)


*(this is the kind of news you get from your local news channel in a free state)