Ninth Circuit Court Just Ruled Against Constitution

[Rye Catcher]

“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.....

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

It also talks about a well regulated militia.

It also talks about a well regulated militia.

The Right was given to the People, not the militia.

Nope ^^^; now you are just being silly.

and you're proving your ignorance

Well, I suppose you have your opinions, yet your efforts*** to make a point lack merit. I will therefore post a link which presents a long and complex discussion to refute your claim:

http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

Which you will certainly not read nor consider.

*** "The Right was given to the People, not the militia."

A long winded opinion.

you're right, I didn't read it.


Didn't need to.

the site itself is reason enough not to give it consideration.

Ignorance is bliss. What is absurd is anyone who claims "shall not be infringed" has ever been a reality.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Soon to be overturned

9th Circuit...most overturned court in country.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

This isn't a hot issue for me but your post was so dishonest and misleading I felt compelled to respond.
People don't conduct their daily business in courts or on airplanes.
No one robs or assaults you on a Seattle to Boston direct flight. No one attacks and robs you in traffic court.

Maybe you aren't as underhanded and dimwitted as your post indicates you are.
But for the average citizen living in a high crime area where assaults are common your post is
irrelevant and absurd.

 

[westwall]

“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.....

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

It also talks about a well regulated militia.

It also talks about a well regulated militia.

The Right was given to the People, not the militia.

Nope ^^^; now you are just being silly.

and you're proving your ignorance

Well, I suppose you have your opinions, yet your efforts*** to make a point lack merit. I will therefore post a link which presents a long and complex discussion to refute your claim:

http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

Which you will certainly not read nor consider.

*** "The Right was given to the People, not the militia."

A long winded opinion.

you're right, I didn't read it.


Didn't need to.

the site itself is reason enough not to give it consideration.

Ignorance is bliss. What is absurd is anyone who claims "shall not be infringed" has ever been a reality.

Yes, the COTUS has indeed been violated repeatedly by fascists,, such as yourself,, who are trying to turn this Republic into a third world dictatorship.

 

[Pete7469]

Ignorance is bliss. What is absurd is anyone who claims "shall not be infringed" has ever been a reality.

Yes, the COTUS has indeed been violated repeatedly by fascists,, such as yourself,, who are trying to turn this Republic into a third world dictatorship.

I'm always amused by how bed wetters believe everything they parrot on the web is based on reality and logic, and that the entire history of their political dogma isn't soaked with the blood of over 100 million innocent people and counting. They actually expect the rest of us to believe their objective is "public safety" when it comes to their attacks on the RKBA.

They will have a fuckin tantrum when it's pointed out that The Bill of Rights equally protects the individual's rights to carry a gun in public just as much as it protects their ability to tell a bed wetter they're a fuckin retard, pray to Jesus, keep troops from sleeping in their house uninvited, keep from being arbitrarily searched in the street or at home, repeatedly prosecuted, and to not have their houses burned down for trivial offenses.

What really makes me laugh though, is when TurdSmasher prattles on about "ignorance". There are few people more ignorant, arrogant, condescending, stupid and miserable than that insufferable piece of shit. If it wasn't for oxygen thieves like that swollen asshole, there would be no need for Planned Unparenthood clinics.

.

 

[Concerned American]

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

This isn't a hot issue for me but your post was so dishonest and misleading I felt compelled to respond.
People don't conduct their daily business in courts or on airplanes.
No one robs or assaults you on a Seattle to Boston direct flight. No one attacks and robs you in traffic court.

Maybe you aren't as underhanded and dimwitted as your post indicates you are.
But for the average citizen living in a high crime area where assaults are common your post is
irrelevant and absurd.

Add to that fact the possibility of armed sky marshals being on any given flight.

 

[Dadoalex]

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

Hilarious!
The people constantly bringing up the Federalist Papers in defense of their relationship with guns don't want references from before the Constitution was passed?

Hilarious!

 

[Dadoalex]

Ignorance is bliss. What is absurd is anyone who claims "shall not be infringed" has ever been a reality.

Yes, the COTUS has indeed been violated repeatedly by fascists,, such as yourself,, who are trying to turn this Republic into a third world dictatorship.

I'm always amused by how bed wetters believe everything they parrot on the web is based on reality and logic, and that the entire history of their political dogma isn't soaked with the blood of over 100 million innocent people and counting. They actually expect the rest of us to believe their objective is "public safety" when it comes to their attacks on the RKBA.

They will have a fuckin tantrum when it's pointed out that The Bill of Rights equally protects the individual's rights to carry a gun in public just as much as it protects their ability to tell a bed wetter they're a fuckin retard, pray to Jesus, keep troops from sleeping in their house uninvited, keep from being arbitrarily searched in the street or at home, repeatedly prosecuted, and to not have their houses burned down for trivial offenses.

What really makes me laugh though, is when TurdSmasher prattles on about "ignorance". There are few people more ignorant, arrogant, condescending, stupid and miserable than that insufferable piece of shit. If it wasn't for oxygen thieves like that swollen asshole, there would be no need for Planned Unparenthood clinics.

.

No court anywhere has ever ruled that the 2nd Amendment rights cannot be regulated.
Disagree?
Try carrying a gun to Trump's house.
Try carrying a gun into the courtroom.
Try taking a gun into a prison.

Let us know how it works out for you.