9th Circuit Court at it again. No Right to Carry.
On Wednesday, an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms does not citizens include the right to carry a firearm, either openly or concealed, in public .
The court issued the ruling in the case of George Young Jr. V Hawaii, a lawsuit challenging a Hawaii firearm licensing law, which states residents seeking license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.” The court said, “There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.”
This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT.
-
The 9th, the most overturned court in the land.
6 -
Ah Yes..........................The infamous 9th Circus Court.
Talk about a lack of Credibility? 🤔
3 -
I note they cite to Heller as a reason to deny the right to carry openly. It's interesting that Heller was, in fact, a suit that granted Heller his right to carry concealed.
0 -
Heller only overturned the DC law that banned handguns purchased after 1975, and that required all firearms to be stored unloaded and disassembled or unloaded and with a trigger lock installed.
Scalia was no friend to liberty:
From Heller:
Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”
The majority decision in Heller narrowly focused on the overturning of the subject law in the District of Columbia.
Basically, it confirmed an individual's right keep a bear a weapon in his home for self-defense, while recognizing that limitations to the right clearly stated in the 2nd Amendment are Constitutional, and, sadly, does not pretend to suggest limits upon the power to limit that right.
Scalia, by stating that his short list 'does not purport to be exhaustive', is saying that the door is wide open, and innovative tyrants can pretty much do what they want as there no specific limit upon their power.
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
4 comments