9th circuit court of appeals ruling

[Bill45]

The 9th federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Hawaii officials had violated George Young’s 2nd ammendment rights when he was denied a permit to openly carry a loaded gun in public to protect himself.

This is amazing ruling from what is normaly a bunch of crazy liberal judges.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

That threshold question is: “Is the Scope of the Second Amendment limited to the inside of our home?”

I'm at a loss... can anyone think of any other Constitutional protection that only applies inside one's domicile?
Freedom of speech? Assembly? Right to not make incriminating statements?

 

[color of law]

That threshold question is: “Is the Scope of the Second Amendment limited to the inside of our home?”

I'm at a loss... can anyone think of any other Constitutional protection that only applies inside one's domicile?
Freedom of speech? Assembly? Right to not make incriminating statements?

The answer is that the Heller court ruled well beyond the home.

In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

We seen the limits forced on us by dishonest interpretations of these court rulings by the anti freedom types.

The case was about a house so it only applies in the house, the case was only about open carry so it only applies to open carry, the case was about carry in a car so it only applies to a car, the case only applies to private property so it only applies to private property, the case was about tasers so it only applies to tasers.

Then we well appeal and appeal until the cows come home, then we well pass a new law with a couple of word changes then say the ruling doesn't apply to the new law. Then start the process all over all the times denying the rights of the people over and over.

Or they just say the ruling was not about our state law and we well not change anything until we are force to and then we well appeal that.

Or the courts just refuse to hear any further cases thus denying rights for decades.

Thus what appears to be a good court ruling is defeated thru the process and the peoples rights are denied for many years.

 

[solus]

We seen the limits forced on us by dishonest interpretations of these court rulings by the anti freedom types.

The case was about a house so it only applies in the house, the case was only about open carry so it only applies to open carry, the case was about carry in a car so it only applies to a car, the case only applies to private property so it only applies to private property, the case was about tasers so it only applies to tasers.

Then we well appeal and appeal until the cows come home, then we well pass a new law with a couple of word changes then say the ruling doesn't apply to the new law. Then start the process all over all the times denying the rights of the people over and over.

Or they just say the ruling was not about our state law and we well not change anything until we are force to and then we well appeal that.

Or the courts just refuse to hear any further cases thus denying rights for decades.

Thus what appears to be a good court ruling is defeated thru the process and the peoples rights are denied for many years.

Thanks FI, perspective(s) I apparently had never considered per se which causes me to wonder if the powers to be sit in a smoke filled, elegant wood paneled, of course sitting comfortably in overstuffed & well worn leather chairs, chatting about how to consciously decide which aspect of a particular subject the courts will screw with next.

Again appreciate the perspective presented.

 

[color of law]

We seen the limits forced on us by dishonest interpretations of these court rulings by the anti freedom types.

The case was about a house so it only applies in the house, the case was only about open carry so it only applies to open carry, the case was about carry in a car so it only applies to a car, the case only applies to private property so it only applies to private property, the case was about tasers so it only applies to tasers.

Then we well appeal and appeal until the cows come home, then we well pass a new law with a couple of word changes then say the ruling doesn't apply to the new law. Then start the process all over all the times denying the rights of the people over and over.

Or they just say the ruling was not about our state law and we well not change anything until we are force to and then we well appeal that.

Or the courts just refuse to hear any further cases thus denying rights for decades.

Thus what appears to be a good court ruling is defeated thru the process and the peoples rights are denied for many years.

Based on your scenario the only way to settle this is by the hard way or as some may say by the easy way.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Based on your scenario the only way to settle this is by the hard way or as some may say by the easy way.

There is always hope that a good solid shall not SHALL NOT INFRINGE ruling could rectify the situation.

 

[OC4me]

There is always hope that a good solid shall not SHALL NOT INFRINGE ruling could rectify the situation.

BINGO!

Every court (so far) to consider the 2nd Amendment mentions 'shall not be infringed' in passing, then proceeds to spill much ink arguing over which level of scrutiny is required to justify the very INFRINGEMENT at issue in the case.

 

[bugly]

That threshold question is: “Is the Scope of the Second Amendment limited to the inside of our home?”

I'm at a loss... can anyone think of any other Constitutional protection that only applies inside one's domicile?
Freedom of speech? Assembly? Right to not make incriminating statements?

sure can, the third Amendment.
Besides that, no.

 

[rapgood]

1st Am, 2nd Am and 3D Printed Guns

For an interesting and legal discussion on the subject, see First Amendment, Second Amendment and 3D Printed Guns law review article from 2014.

 

[Thundar]

The Deadline

Saturday 15 September 2018 is the filing deadline. No Enbanc petition by the 15th, then it is out of the 9th Circuit’s hands.

Hawaii is definitely prepping for an Enbanc hearing, but the filing is down to the wire. I hope they screw it up and file late.

Good link: http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

 

[OC Freedom]

Saturday 15 September 2018 is the filing deadline. No Enbanc petition by the 15th, then it is out of the 9th Circuit’s hands.

Hawaii is definitely prepping for an Enbanc hearing, but the filing is down to the wire. I hope they screw it up and file late.

Good link: http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Thanks for info. I hope they screw it up too.

 

[color of law]

Saturday 15 September 2018 is the filing deadline. No Enbanc petition by the 15th, then it is out of the 9th Circuit’s hands.

Hawaii is definitely prepping for an Enbanc hearing, but the filing is down to the wire. I hope they screw it up and file late.

Good link: http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

If the last day falls on the week-end or holiday it goes to the next business day or 9/17/18.

 

[BB62]

Saturday 15 September 2018 is the filing deadline. No Enbanc petition by the 15th, then it is out of the 9th Circuit’s hands.

Hawaii is definitely prepping for an Enbanc hearing, but the filing is down to the wire. I hope they screw it up and file late.

Good link: http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

Live Free or Die,
Thundar

Looks like it was filed. :-(

Thanks for the link.

 

[Thundar]

Young’s response is due 9 October if I counted right.