The 9th Circuit has ruled Americans have no constitutional right to carry firearms— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) March 24, 2021
March 24, 2021
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Hawaii gun regulation, ruling Wednesday that states can restrict the right to openly carry a firearm in public. The 7-4 decision said restrictions on carrying guns in public do not fall within the scope of what is protected by the Second Amendment.
"We have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces," the majority ruled. "Indeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self defense."
"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. Accordingly, Hawaii�s firearms-carry scheme is lawful."
The case was brought by George Young, who applied for a license twice in 2011 to carry a gun in public either openly or concealed and was denied both times because he didn't prove the "urgency or the need" to openly carry a firearm in public, the decision said. Instead, Young relied on his "general desire to carry a firearm for self-defense."
Under Hawaii's law, residents have to show the "urgency or the need" to carry a firearm in public and must be of good moral character and "engaged in the protection of life and property." .
Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain authored Wednesday�s dissent, calling the ruling "extreme."
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'. Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says," the minority dissented.
"Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one�s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear-i.e., to carry -- that same firearm for self-defense in any other place."
"This holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme." "We now become the first and only court of appeals to hold that public carry falls entirely outside the scope of the Amendment�s protections," O'Scannlain continued. "In so holding, the majority reduces the right to 'bear Arms' to a mere inkblot."
The black robes of gov't can suck it.
ALL RIGHTS (endowed by our Creator as DECLARED [so we don't have to hem and haw about what our Founders were 'thinking'] in the Declaration of Independence, Para. 1) are Freedoms
F R O M [protections against]
Therefore government cannot also be the protector of those rights, nor the arbiter of who/how/what/or where the means of protection of those rights comes about.
Further. Our Founders got rid of a bunch of their idiot ay-whole neighbors who needed a job (their "gov't" [England]), but knew the next batch of idiots that needed replacing would be coming along in the not too distant future (on into infinity) so they wrote into the Declaration (Para. 2) 2 x in the flesh language, that you should get rid of all of your idiot ay-whole neighbors who needed a job (your "gov't") "whenever" you deem necessary. One of those times states that it is your "duty" to.
They could not have written that, but yet still wanted you to have to ask, that gov't that needed replacing, for the means OR THE PERMISSION TO OBTAIN THE MEANS, to do so. NO f n WAY.
LOGICALLY then, the 2nd Amendment demands PARITY of "Arms" (not just guns) with our gov't, and it's not our fault what that parity might entail.
Once again, the 9th, and all other black robes, can #NaCL on this, and they better get it straight.
Post a Comment