Ninth Circuit Court Just Ruled Against Constitution

[postman]

They have to go back to 14th century English laws?

How ridiculous can they get?

I guess you never quote the bible?

the bible isnt the law,,

Then why do so many republicans quote the bible, when they prescribe new laws.

 

[progressive hunter]

A disgusting move by a scofflaw court.

What these tyrants don't grasp is that they rule based on provisions of law. When they openly piss on the law and the very foundations of the rule of law, they destroy the authority for their own rule.

If there is no law, why should I view these petty dictators as anything other than a criminal gang seeking to do harm to me and mine?

Why does the USSC allow prohibitions of carrying firearms by the citizenry on airplanes, into courts of law, or into the seats of government?

because they are corrupt fascist that dont care about individual rights,,,

 

[postman]

So they have to go back to times before we even had a constitution lol
Goddamn hacks

it's called history. They showed that there is no historical precedence for a right to the open carry of weapons. Not then, not now, and not in the future.

 

[progressive hunter]

They have to go back to 14th century English laws?

How ridiculous can they get?

I guess you never quote the bible?

the bible isnt the law,,

Then why do so many republicans quote the bible, when they prescribe new laws.

they can quote all they want,, it doesnt have the power of law in this country,,

and all laws have a basis from something,,, still doesnt make them law,,

 

[blackhawk]

Not really a surprise the Ninth Circuit is one of the most overturned courts out there.

 

[justinacolmena]

Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”

The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.

What the fuck are those blue-blooded shape-shifting reptilian British royal judges doing in U.S. Court?

“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”

And now he's completely overturning the Second Amendment with Civil-War-era Confederate "States' Rights" rhetoric.

Do we need a Second Revolutionary War to throw off the British Government for the second time?

 

[progressive hunter]

So they have to go back to times before we even had a constitution lol
Goddamn hacks

it's called history. They showed that there is no historical precedence for a right to the open carry of weapons. Not then, not now, and not in the future.

you ever heard the expression "AMERICAN EXPERIMENT"??
we threw out all the old ways of thinking and started something new,,

 

[postman]

Partially, the 2nd though was a direct abrogation of the Kings declaration that his subjects could bear no arms. Apart from History the Constitution cannot be understood.

The 2nd in text, gave that right to "a free state"

 

[deannalw]

lol

Smartest post you've ever made.

 

[miketx]

A disgusting move by a scofflaw court.

What these tyrants don't grasp is that they rule based on provisions of law. When they openly piss on the law and the very foundations of the rule of law, they destroy the authority for their own rule.

If there is no law, why should I view these petty dictators as anything other than a criminal gang seeking to do harm to me and mine?

Why does the USSC allow prohibitions of carrying firearms by the citizenry on airplanes, into courts of law, or into the seats of government?

Because they want to give criminals every chance they can.

 

[deannalw]

Soon to be overturned

Aren't they just about the most overturned court on the planet?

 

[TNHarley]

So they have to go back to times before we even had a constitution lol
Goddamn hacks

it's called history. They showed that there is no historical precedence for a right to the open carry of weapons. Not then, not now, and not in the future.

Its irrelevant.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Partially, the 2nd though was a direct abrogation of the Kings declaration that his subjects could bear no arms. Apart from History the Constitution cannot be understood.

The 2nd in text, gave that right to "a free state"

We're free, the Kings subjects weren't. Semantics won't work on me.

 

[Turtlesoup]

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.

Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”

The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.

“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”

Writing for the dissent, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the majority failed to properly interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columba v. Heller, which overturned Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-lock device.


The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right,” O’Scannlain wrote.

Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun. A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public.

Under a Hawaii County regulation, the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “reason to fear injury” to their “person or property.” No one other than a security guard has ever obtained an open-carry license in Hawaii, lawyers for the county acknowledged during a Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018.


On July 2018, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii cannot deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right.

On Wednesday, the en banc panel majority reversed that decision, finding the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision is not inconsistent with state laws that restrict the right to carry arms in public.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

Nothing to see here.....

Wrong.

This is a lie.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

This ruling is perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Supreme court never ruled on it before because everyone except for idiots doesn't understand "the right to bear arms" means to have and carry weapons.

 

[JustAGuy1]

“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion.

Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found “overwhelming evidence” that the law has never given people “an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.”

The seven-judge majority traced legal texts and laws back to 1348 when the English parliament enacted the statute of Northampton, which banned carrying weapons in fairs or markets or before the King’s justices. It also cited multiple laws from colonial and pre-Civil War America in which states and colonies restricted the possession of weapons in public places.

“The Second Amendment did not contradict the fundamental principle that the government assumes primary responsibility for defending persons who enter our public spaces,” Bybee wrote. “The states do not violate the Second Amendment by asserting their longstanding English and American rights to prohibit certain weapons from entering those public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic violence.’”

Writing for the dissent, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said the majority failed to properly interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columba v. Heller, which overturned Washington D.C.’s total ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger-lock device.


The Second Amendment’s text, history, and structure, and the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Heller, all point squarely to the same conclusion: Armed self-defense in public is at the very core of the Second Amendment right,” O’Scannlain wrote.

Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun. A Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public.

Under a Hawaii County regulation, the police chief may only grant such licenses to those who need a gun for their job or who show “reason to fear injury” to their “person or property.” No one other than a security guard has ever obtained an open-carry license in Hawaii, lawyers for the county acknowledged during a Ninth Circuit hearing in 2018.


On July 2018, a divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled that carrying a gun in public is a constitutional right and that Hawaii cannot deny permits to all non-security guard civilians who wish to exercise that right.

On Wednesday, the en banc panel majority reversed that decision, finding the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision is not inconsistent with state laws that restrict the right to carry arms in public.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

Nothing to see here.....

Wrong.

This is a lie.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of prohibiting the open carrying of firearms.

This ruling is perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Supreme court never ruled on it before because everyone except for idiots doesn't understand "the right to bear arms" means to have and carry weapons.

They wasnt to do with the 2nd what they accomplished with the first, They "Freedom of Religion" and successfully turned it into "Freedom From Religion".

 

[postman]

This is the US, we are bound by the constitution of the US, which has some basis in English law, but that was decided when the founders created the constitution. English law also said that you had to worship according to the king's wishes and we know what the first amendment says about that. You can keep bowing to your queen all you want--we don't do that here.

Then it might come as a shock, that many early USSC decisions were based on "English law" as the foundation of their interpretation.

Course Hero

courses.lumenlearning.com

Law of the United States was mainly derived from the common law system of English law.

All U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted “reception statutes” which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge -made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.

Therefore, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form. An example is the heightened duty of care that was traditionally imposed upon common carriers.

 

[Turtlesoup]

So they have to go back to times before we even had a constitution lol
Goddamn hacks

it's called history. They showed that there is no historical precedence for a right to the open carry of weapons. Not then, not now, and not in the future.

What a nonsense claim.

Our founders put in the clause to have and bear arms specifically because of what the royal leaders of england had done to disarm and then attack people. They understood from history that tyrants like to disarm their populous in order to make them better victims. Our founders predicted that we would have to eventually rise up against our eventually corrupt government using our arms to defend ourselves.

To lie about history not showing historic precedence to own and carry weapons is complete bullshit propaganda.

The Founding Fathers and the Right to Bear Arms | 1776tv.com

The Truth about just what the Founding Fathers thought about the 2nd Amendment and the Individual's right to keep and bear arms. From the Revolution to the Bill of Rights and 1791.

1776tv.com

 

[Obiwan]

English law prior to 1775 is irrelevant. The second amendment is very clear--the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.

English law is the basis for our common law, and the basis for our understanding of what a right to bear arms meant.

You do know that the framers of the Constitution actually SHOT the individuals that tried to enforce that "English law", don't you????

 

[Concerned American]

to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions.

Guess again moron. This ain't England.

 

[postman]

you ever heard the expression "AMERICAN EXPERIMENT"??
we threw out all the old ways of thinking and started something new,,

We did not start over. States continued under English common law. The federal government was the only one to start anew.