9th Circuit Rules No Right To Carry in Public

Open Carry
1

Disappointing ruling for 2A civil rights advocates in those states under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction (West Coast).

I haven’t read the decision yet. Apparently, it’s a 215 page opinion. I’ve been practicing law for over 25 years. And although I’m not an appellate attorney, I’ve never heard of a written decision of that length. I’m guessing the length also includes one or more dissenting opinions.

Anyway, with the new make-up of the Supreme Court, I’m wondering if the justices will finally vote to hear a case like this, assuming it’s appealed. Hopefully it will be.

11 Likes
2

One can only hope

8 Likes
3

You DO realize this is the same scotus that refused to hear what is probably the most significant case is U.S. history that was in their exclusive jurisdiction right? All them hearing this case does for me is to motivate me to make my aim sure and my draw quick.

8 Likes
4

Yes, it’s disappointing the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to hear so many 2A cases ever since the McDonald case. Many legal scholars suspect it was because Roberts is too much of a swing vote that conservative justices had decided to pass and wait until a new, more 2A favorable make-up of the Court is in place. Roberts probably would’ve ruled against the 2A and in favor of state restrictions. But now with Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on the bench, there’s hope they now have a 5-justice majority (with Alito and Thomas) to overturn these anti-2A state laws.

I’ll admit, I’m still somewhat leery, though. In my opinion, “conservative” justices usually rule in favor of business and corporate interests. Those same interests, along with the “ruling elite” among both parties, appear terrified of an armed citizenry, especially with the American middle class in decline. I guess we’ll see what happens with this case, though.

10 Likes
5

:pray:

7 Likes
6

In other news, I just ruled that the 9th circuit court has no right to make judgments of any sort.

I don’t know if my judgment is enforceable by anyone but me, but my ruling stands.

9 Likes
7

It’s not a surprising ruling from the 9th activist, I mean circuit court

7 Likes
8

Will we even still have an America by then let alone the 2A? Probably not.

5 Likes
9

“longstanding prohibition” against bearing firearms in public, so therefore open-carry and concealed-carry fall “outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.”

That’s complete and utter bullshit. The state of Hawaii doesn’t dictate what is the historical scope of the United States. They’re literally the youngest state in the union. What an idiotic comment!

Furthermore, the constitution clearly states “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” it doesn’t say the right to keep arms shall not be infringed. These trash bag ass monkey judges can’t read.

6 Likes
10

This is the part that I don’t understand them having such trouble with, I don’t.

5 Likes
11

Oh I think they get it to a certain extent but they argued the definition and wording for a bit. It was bullshit and people knew it so now they have professors and journalists trying to rewrite history to gain momentum in getting rid of that “racist” 2A.

These lefties are right along the lines of Stalin and the soviet unions propoganda scheme. They are not really idiots but they are morally corrupt.

https://www.laprogressive.com/after-boulder/?amp=1

"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference—see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, an action necessary to get Virginia’s vote to ratify the Constitution.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with making sure mass murderers could shoot up public venues and schools. Founders including Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that, and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South they were called “slave patrols,” and were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings. "

5 Likes
12

That shouldve went in the idiocracy thread but it was relevent here too, go figure :laughing:

6 Likes
13

I agree that their rationale makes no sense to me. I think the 9th Circuit opened itself up for a reversal on those grounds.

5 Likes
14

Unfortunately, that’s only part of the 2nd Amendment. The first part clearly states “A well REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” It’s not two separate sentences, either. It’s all one sentence and must therefore be taken as a whole. That’s where the confusion arises and the debate over differing interpretations ensues.

Strict gun control advocates believe the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure only the right of those who were members of a well regulated militia. But let’s stop for a minute. What was considered a “well regulated militia” back then? Did such a militia have to be officially recognized? If so, by whom and under what authority? Who’s to say which militia is well regulated and which one isn’t? And what does “well regulated” even mean?

Gun controllers claim the various state national guards have now replaced the militias of old. And so, much like the 3rd Amendment (no quartering of soldiers in people’s homes), the 2nd Amendment has now been rendered moot. Just so everyone knows, I don’t agree with any of these interpretations, but I’m not a Supreme Court justice who gets to decide these things.

My own personal interpretation is that the people have a right to form their own militias for the purpose of defending and ensuring the security of their own state (from whatever - attacks from foreign armies, space aliens, etc.), AND they also have the right to keep and bear arms (for self defense, hunting, collecting, target/recreational, etc.), both a collective and an individual right. But I admit I haven’t read all of the legislative history behind the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Again, I’m no constitutional scholar nor a judge, so I don’t get to decide what it all means. I do know that Scalia, a re-knowned 2nd Amendment proponent, did mention the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute right, but neither of the Bill of Rights are absolute. For instance, inmates don’t have the right to keep and bear arms, and no one has the 1st Amendment right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. But where the lines are drawn is constantly in dispute. It’s up to us to advocate in a peaceful, educated manner our narrative, our interpretation of what our rights are. Anyway, that’s just my opinion on the matter.

4 Likes
15

Not really confusing at all if you look at the context of why it was wrote and the times they were in. Why did they write it? Why did they fight? What supporting documents do we have to form the bigger picture? Tons of questions that if we connect the dots lead us to the answers we seek…which totally appalls the left. Pretty much the left’s most recent theory is that freedom and liberty is racist.

There is a reason these revisionist attempts at history dont go anywhere. It’s utter bullshit. The left makes a more credible case by trying to get rid of the 2A than by rewording and misinterpreting it.

Also there is this

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

— George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”

— Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

7 Likes
16

Excellent response!!! That’s what I’m talking about! It’s quotes like those that form the legislative history behind the law, in this case the 2nd Amendment, that help us all decipher what it means. I admit I haven’t taken the time to do a search and find great sources like you have, but huge thanks indeed for your work and effort on that!!

6 Likes
17

The comma in the English language is a separation points. It doesn’t need a period. Just as the first amendment has comma’s so does the second and it also gives the states rights to a militia, and the people rights to arms. The Supreme Court has already ruled in 2008 that the right to bear is an individual right.

On June 26, 2008, in [District of Columbia v. Heller], the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.

7 Likes
18

Again, great response! And I’m not arguing with your interpretation at all. I agree with it completely. But I thought the Court ruled in Heller and McDonald that an individual has the right to keep a handgun in his home. It didn’t go so far as to say that the right extends outside the home. I believe the right does extend outside the home. Otherwise, the word “bear” would be meaningless. But unfortunately, the Court has not expressly said so, at least not yet. That’s why the 9th Circuit so brazenly ruled the way it did recently, almost inviting, if not daring, the Supreme Court to overrule them.

6 Likes
19

Yup that is it. Funny though when the slaves were freed after the Civil war (now there’s an oxymoron) they were denied gun ownership by guess who…THE DEMOCRATS!!! So now they say the 2A is racist??? Only the parts they voted for and that would be to limit it’s intent to the group of elitists they think they are.
I would like to start a new coalition we could call it Lead for the brain dead. LFTBD

5 Likes