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

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MindWars, Nov 14, 2018.

  1. MindWars
    Offline

    MindWars Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    33,439
    Thanks Received:
    7,740
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Ratings:
    +34,241
    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
    upload_2018-11-14_10-15-42.png

    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Windparadox
    Offline

    Windparadox Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    4,568
    Thanks Received:
    890
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Northern WI.
    Ratings:
    +4,667
    `
    "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)
    `
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2018
  3. SassyIrishLass
    Offline

    SassyIrishLass Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    59,151
    Thanks Received:
    16,202
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Ratings:
    +102,052
    Shall not be infringed
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 5
    • Winner Winner x 2
  4. Silent Warrior
    Offline

    Silent Warrior Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Messages:
    2,280
    Thanks Received:
    435
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Location:
    Midwest
    Ratings:
    +2,616
    Erroneous ruling by an activist judge. Will be overturned if taken to the Supreme Court.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. satrebil
    Offline

    satrebil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    794
    Thanks Received:
    261
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Ratings:
    +1,301
    I guess I missed the part where the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in their homes"
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
  6. Odium
    Offline

    Odium Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    26,882
    Thanks Received:
    4,327
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Georgia Mountains
    Ratings:
    +24,351
    The North East. No surprise there.
     
  7. bendog
    Online

    bendog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    29,659
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Dog House in back yard
    Ratings:
    +12,077
    I disagree with your characterization of the opinion, but thanks for the link
     
  8. Windparadox
    Offline

    Windparadox Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2017
    Messages:
    4,568
    Thanks Received:
    890
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Northern WI.
    Ratings:
    +4,667
    `
    I'd just as soon get my facts from another source other than "AmmoLand.com".
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. bear513
    Offline

    bear513 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2012
    Messages:
    51,610
    Thanks Received:
    6,716
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +34,402
    What do you suggest " dork.com"


    .
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. bendog
    Online

    bendog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    29,659
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Dog House in back yard
    Ratings:
    +12,077
    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
     

Share This Page