Liberal 9th Circuit backs right to carry firearms in public, in latest pro-2nd Amendment ruling

[The Legion]

Published July 24, 2018

FoxNews.com

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the right of individuals to carry firearms in public in a ruling Tuesday, striking down a lower court argument that the Constitution only protects that right at home.

“Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the county’s and the state’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home,” the ruling states.

The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied twice in 2011 as he sought to carry a handgun. Two of the three judges ruled against a lower court upholding the restriction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/24/liberal-9th-circuit-backs-right-to-carry-firearms-in-public-in-latest-pro-2nd-amendment-ruling.html

 

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his opinion that “for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.

9^TH CIRCUIT SURPRISES WITH PRO-2^ND AMENDMENT DECISION BLOCKING CALIFORNIA AMMO BAN

It’s the second time this month that the three-judge panel issued a pro-Second Amendment decision, after backing a lower court’s decision last week to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines.

The Second Amendment states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state's ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction last week.

Based in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for being one of the nation's most liberal courts. Critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. This includes an infamous 2002 ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of its use of the phrase “under God.”

Republicans have been working to fill vacancies with conservatives, but suffered a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate. He faced criticism over past college writings.

[Garufa]

The Ninth Circus must have been smoking that stuff the last couple of weeks.  That’s two pro-2A rulings.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Garufa

[The Legion]

Just now, Garufa said:

The Ninth Circus must have been smoking that stuff the last couple of weeks.  That two pro-2A rulings.

I am thinking the same thing!!!

[eRay]

This might be a good time to have a pro 2nd Admendment  Supreme Court.

[Sidecarist]

They want to avoid this going to SCOTUS. This will be as far as this one goes.

[macville]

14 hours ago, The Legion said:

In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,”

 

This is consistently the kind of thinking I've found from people coming from law school. Precedent matters more than the actual text. It's also scary that Judges like this don't understand that they are supposed to look at what the Constitution says, not what states have allowed. They are supposed to enforce the Constitution, not protect whatever crazy ideas states think the can do.

[DaveTN]

Quote

In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton said states have “long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms,” the order said.

Yes, but the SCOTUS has allowed reasonable restrictions; not extensive regulations and limitations. Since the SCOTUS has rejected any gun, anywhere, any time; we will now go through years of what reasonable restrictions by the states are.

The 10th Circuit ruled that New York was okay with requiring people to show a special need to defend themselves by carrying in public. The SCOTUS refused to hear that case without comment.

I’m surprised to see these rulings out of the 9th. I don’t think they care even one little bit if the SCOTUS overrules them. Maybe they have decided to do their job. Okay, well maybe not, but we can hope. 

The 7th also ruled that Illinois could not totally ban carry. This year they ruled a ban on carry near parks was unconstitutional.

[JayC]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Yes, but the SCOTUS has allowed reasonable restrictions; not extensive regulations and limitations. Since the SCOTUS has rejected any gun, anywhere, any time; we will now go through years of what reasonable restrictions by the states are.

The 10th Circuit ruled that New York was okay with requiring people to show a special need to defend themselves by carrying in public. The SCOTUS refused to hear that case without comment.

I’m surprised to see these rulings out of the 9th. I don’t think they care even one little bit if the SCOTUS overrules them. Maybe they have decided to do their job. Okay, well maybe not, but we can hope. 

The 7th also ruled that Illinois could not totally ban carry. This year they ruled a ban on carry near parks was unconstitutional.

I suspect if the current opening is filled before the midterm elections, we'll see SCOTUS taking up a LOT more 2nd amendment cases.  Remember up until this point, nobody knew exactly where Kennedy would vote on the 2nd Amendment, Heller was a massive compromise of the conservative justices, to get Kennedy to vote their way.

It's unlikely to be any question where the line will be drawn after the current vacancy is filled, and I suspect we'll see a lot more 2nd Amendment cases taken up by the court. 

[2.ooohhh]

19 hours ago, Garufa said:

The Ninth Circus must have been smoking that stuff the last couple of weeks.  That’s two pro-2A rulings.

IMHO the State of Hawaii did such a poor job of making and defending their case they left the panel NO other option. I would ALMOST say that this attorney representing the state is secretly pro 2A, it would look better than to admit he was just this bad at his job.

TLDW- HI Attorney defending the current number of issued HI permits- "simply the fact that there were none, doesn't mean that none could have been."