First circuit courts of appeals rule no right to bear arms outside the home

[MindWars]

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home. From uscourts.gov:

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally.
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2202P-01A.pdf


Well the morons will turn them in when they offer you money for them, pushed into hard times hard up for money why turn in your guns we will give you money for them , that way we can sell them back out into the streets.

That way it takes away all your methods that are free will and a right to protect your home, family etc...

They are pushing for the COPS to lose their guns too.

It is a sad day when ppl are so dumbed down they haven't a clue the 2nd amendment is for . MORE THAN TO OWN A GUN ILLITERATE IDIOTS.

 

[Windparadox]

`
"The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claims that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment, holding that the statute bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests.

Plaintiffs sought and received licenses to carry firearms in public, but the licenses allowed Plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities, denying them the right to carry firearms more generally. Plaintiff argued that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute violates the Second Amendment. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the statute bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights." - Gould v. Morgan, No. 17-2202 (1st Cir. 2018)
`

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Shall not be infringed

 

[Silent Warrior]

Erroneous ruling by an activist judge. Will be overturned if taken to the Supreme Court.

 

[satrebil]

I guess I missed the part where the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes"

 

[Preacher]

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home. From uscourts.gov:

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally.
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home
View attachment 228714

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2202P-01A.pdf


Well the morons will turn them in when they offer you money for them, pushed into hard times hard up for money why turn in your guns we will give you money for them , that way we can sell them back out into the streets.

That way it takes away all your methods that are free will and a right to protect your home, family etc...

They are pushing for the COPS to lose their guns too.

It is a sad day when ppl are so dumbed down they haven't a clue the 2nd amendment is for . MORE THAN TO OWN A GUN ILLITERATE IDIOTS.

The North East. No surprise there.

 

[bendog]

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home. From uscourts.gov:

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally.
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home
View attachment 228714

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2202P-01A.pdf


Well the morons will turn them in when they offer you money for them, pushed into hard times hard up for money why turn in your guns we will give you money for them , that way we can sell them back out into the streets.

That way it takes away all your methods that are free will and a right to protect your home, family etc...

They are pushing for the COPS to lose their guns too.

It is a sad day when ppl are so dumbed down they haven't a clue the 2nd amendment is for . MORE THAN TO OWN A GUN ILLITERATE IDIOTS.

I disagree with your characterization of the opinion, but thanks for the link

 

[Windparadox]

`
I'd just as soon get my facts from another source other than "AmmoLand.com".

 

[Wyatt earp]

`
I'd just as soon get my facts from another source other than "AmmoLand.com".

What do you suggest " dork.com"


.

 

[bendog]

`
I'd just as soon get my facts from another source other than "AmmoLand.com".

Well there was link to the court's opinion. I didn't check the court website.

It's a cultural difference. Down here local govts are prohibited by state law from objecting to people openly carrying

 

[Preacher]

`
I'd just as soon get my facts from another source other than "AmmoLand.com".

What do you suggest " dork.com"


.

CNN LMAO......

 

[Windparadox]

Well there was link to the court's opinion. I didn't check the court website.It's a cultural difference. Down here local govts are prohibited by state law from objecting to people openly carrying

I'm just saying I look for sources where the posters have a legal background and training.

 

[bendog]

Well there was link to the court's opinion. I didn't check the court website.It's a cultural difference. Down here local govts are prohibited by state law from objecting to people openly carrying

I'm just saying I look for sources where the posters have a legal background and training.

No argument. I think the links are hilarious. "Guns up the ass reports on carry restrictions."

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Everyone knows you have no need for self defense once you walk out your front door.
That's just common sense.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Erroneous ruling by an activist judge. Will be overturned if taken to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[DOTR]

`
I'd just as soon get my facts from another source other than "AmmoLand.com".

Why? Did the facts change when you went elsewhere?

 

[Toronado3800]

Shall not be infringed

a bunch of commas and militia talk. Its pretty poorly written or needs translated into real English.

What to do is look at how it was enforced in 1800 and that seems to be that folks could own guns and carry them around. I don't see the debate there.

Maybe guns can be registered, maybe guns can be restricted from certain places but it seems clear the application of the 2nd during the lifetimes of its writers even if it was poorly written.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Shall not be infringed

a bunch of commas and militia talk. Its pretty poorly written or needs translated into real English.

What to do is look at how it was enforced in 1800 and that seems to be that folks could own guns and carry them around. I don't see the debate there.

Maybe guns can be registered, maybe guns can be restricted from certain places but it seems clear the application of the 2nd during the lifetimes of its writers even if it was poorly written.

Only because people like you are anti gun nutters

 

[Toronado3800]

Shall not be infringed

a bunch of commas and militia talk. Its pretty poorly written or needs translated into real English.

What to do is look at how it was enforced in 1800 and that seems to be that folks could own guns and carry them around. I don't see the debate there.

Maybe guns can be registered, maybe guns can be restricted from certain places but it seems clear the application of the 2nd during the lifetimes of its writers even if it was poorly written.

Only because people like you are anti gun nutters

Smart politics would be to be friends with the guy who says the writers of the 2nd obviously intended folks to own firearms.

But yeah, if you wanna argue, I think your guns are effectively registered if you have a Google or Facebook app on your smartphone and the NRA is a bunch of idiots or scared sissy team worshipers for not realizing it and defending privacy rights.

Once again though, the implementation of the 2nd is clear, the NRA are idiot sissies or team worshipers and I'm just bringing the latter up since you poked me.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Shall not be infringed

a bunch of commas and militia talk. Its pretty poorly written or needs translated into real English.

What to do is look at how it was enforced in 1800 and that seems to be that folks could own guns and carry them around. I don't see the debate there.

Maybe guns can be registered, maybe guns can be restricted from certain places but it seems clear the application of the 2nd during the lifetimes of its writers even if it was poorly written.

Only because people like you are anti gun nutters

Smart politics would be to be friends with the guy who says the writers of the 2nd obviously intended folks to own firearms.

But yeah, if you wanna argue, I think your guns are effectively registered if you have a Google or Facebook app on your smartphone and the NRA is a bunch of idiots or scared sissy team worshipers for not realizing it and defending privacy rights.

Once again though, the implementation of the 2nd is clear, the NRA are idiot sissies or team worshipers and I'm just bringing the latter up since you poked me.

That's nice....but...shall not be infringed. Suck on it