9th Circuit Rules Americans Have No Right to Carry Guns, Either Open or Concealed

[Sniper 6,372]

I'm sure the SCOTUS, with the 3 new Conservative judges, will be along quickly to overturn this ruling.

......"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling stating Americans do not have an inherent right to carry firearms, whether it be concealed or open carry.

“The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just ruled that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY – either openly or concealed in public. This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT. This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this,” the tweet noted.

The court ruling, handed down on Wednesday, could have wide ramifications for lawful gun owners around the country.

“After careful review of the history of early English and American regulation of carrying arms openly in the public square, the en banc court concluded that Hawai‘i’s restrictions on the open carrying of firearms reflect longstanding prohibitions, and therefore, the conduct they regulate is outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment,” the court decided. “The en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense.”

https://beckernews.com/breaking-9th-circuit-rules-americans-have-no-right-to-carry-guns-either-open-or-concealed-38059/

[b47356 21]

9 minutes ago, Sniper said:

I'm sure the SCOTUS, with the 3 new Conservative judges, will be along quickly to overturn this ruling.

And some people say sarcasm doesn't work in print...

[1LtCAP 4,262]

boy they stretch to find reasons to steal our rights.

 

 also, i won't hold my breath for the scotus.

[EdF 323]

That's a lot of writin' . . . I worked through the first 150 pages or so without taking notes.  I appears that they make a good argument but actually fall short with a pretty big miss.

In analyzing British Common Law they seem to complete miss the fact that the founders, while accepting Common Law in many places, specifically wished to escape the rule of the King, or any other king.  The King's edicts about who could do what, when and where, was a large part of British rule that was rebelled against.

I'm thinking about printing this and pulling it apart but I'm about as busy as I can get right now.

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

Man they really are going for broke....  why?

Why are they afraid....and i do not think they r emboldened 

[Sniper 6,372]

Interesting note from the ruling, two justices voting FOR the ruling were Bush appointees... the Conservative judges fail us..... AGAIN:

....."In a 7-4 decision, an en banc panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said restrictions on carrying guns in public except for hunting do not violate the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms.

“The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places — including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets — the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,” Judge Jay Bybee, appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote for the majority.

Bybee was joined by another Bush appointee and five Democratic appointees.

https://archive.fo/dBME0#selection-2271.0-2271.74

 

2 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

Man they really are going for broke....  why?

Because they know Republicans won't push back.

[revenger 473]

Not to worry,  Didn't Trump appoint more conservatives to the 9th circuit,  America should have nothing to fear from them now.  When it gets heard enbanc they will surely rule in our favor,   Oh wait  this was enbanc.   

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

9 hours ago, Sniper said:

 

Because they know Republicans won't push back.

Possibly,  I think it is other reasons.

I think the 'elite ruling class' - fears the armed up citizenry.

The extent that arms have been purchased in the past year is staggering

I have seen people come in, that have never thought of owning a gun before, now state in not so many words...  " i fear my government and the direction we are going "

whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, mothers grandmothers, young women, men, young men, gay, trans, etc....

The pandemic, the riots, the fractured democrat and republicans - the media race baiting, the defund the defund the movement, the overly militaristic police forces...antifa etc.

Are all the reasons...they have stated...

The elites are afraid......both demo repubs progressive socialist etc......for they are a different side of the same coin....all of them.

They are about power control money in their pockets, of about getting ahead over the common man.

They are afraid....  so now they need to enact rulings, fiats, 'laws' - create more strife to once again keep the nation on edge...

 

[USMC1341 36]

You guys crack me up thinking Republicans want to protect your rights.

[revenger 473]

-

5 minutes ago, USMC1341 said:

You guys crack me up thinking Republicans want to protect your rights.

You are correct                                                                                                                                                                                                                     The republicans want and support us for the votes just as the democrats want and support the illegal mexicans for the votes.

At least the gun control issue is coming before the midterm elections,   I just hope that the gun owners who voted democrat or against trump have woken up.

 

on a second note,   could this be the case that inadvertently clears open carry through out the country? , I think as many free states as possible will try to pass constitutional carry as soon as possible.

[EdF 323]

1 hour ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

I think the 'elite ruling class' - fears the armed up citizenry.

I'm sure that you hit it on the head.  As noted, I only read the first half last night but they provide a history lesson that they SAY is on British Common Law and they note that, over and over again, kings from 14th century on, issued orders that prevented no-one but the military and royal guards could go about their everyday business while armed.  They were talking about swords, armor and long knives primarily.  

Well of course, the king wanted the commoners unarmed.  The king ruled by divine right and could be unseated by arms almost exclusively.  The king feared the people.

In our country, in theory, the right to rule, to the extent that there is one, is derived from the people.  The founders KNEW that the king feared the people because he didn't answer to them.  They knew that this wasn't what they wanted in the new country and they made that clear in the Second Amendment.

Additionally, the court extends their discussion to the fact that many states continued the prohibition to carrying arms until well AFTER the Constitution was ratified.  But, they also point out that, initially, the Constitution was not considered to limit the powers of the states until after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.  After the Due Process clause was enacted, Constitutional restrictions extended to the states.  

At the time that the Constitution was ratified, there were still several states with "state religions".  The Establishment Clause was included to ensure that the new federal government would not infringe on the states, already established, religions. 

If the Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibition of state religion to the states, it extends the Second Amendment protections in the same way.  If it does not extend the limitations of the Second Amendment, it does not extend the limitations of the First.

It should also be noted, that this ruling affirms a prior Ninth Circuit ruling.  This isn't new law.  As you read the decision, it is clear that the court expects this to be decided at some point by the justices sitting in D.C.

[Sniper 6,372]

1 hour ago, revenger said:

on a second note,   could this be the case that inadvertently clears open carry through out the country? , I think as many free states as possible will try to pass constitutional carry as soon as possible.

No... there's not enough free state left.

Remember this?

[ChrisJM981 924]

13 hours ago, Sniper said:

Interesting note from the ruling, two justices voting FOR the ruling were Bush appointees... the Conservative judges fail us..... AGAIN:

....."In a 7-4 decision, an en banc panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said restrictions on carrying guns in public except for hunting do not violate the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms.

“The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places — including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets — the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,” Judge Jay Bybee, appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote for the majority.

Bybee was joined by another Bush appointee and five Democratic appointees.

https://archive.fo/dBME0#selection-2271.0-2271.74

 

Because they know Republicans won't push back.

George W. Bush was/is a progressive globalist that ran under the Republican ticket. 

My opinion, but certainly not only my opinion. 

[fslater 62]

I would say the solution is simple: Put "Gun free zone" signs on "the public square". They're argument doesn't describe any other restricted location, therefore should only apply to the location they used to come to their decision