Guns International

9th Circuit must be using some of that medical mary jane, another 2A win

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,586
    96
    Twice in one month...

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

    1532114411214.jpg

    By Alex Pappas | Fox News


    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.

    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.

    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.
    Military Camp
     

    popper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 23, 2013
    3,060
    96
    This is prelim., and per our constitution, laws must be changed by legislative branch. Probably will go to SCOTUS eventually.
     

    Shady

    The One And Only
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2013
    4,691
    96
    meh it was just a 3 judge ruling It will now go to the full 9th Circus court and be overturned and get a ride to the USSC
     

    AustinN4

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Nov 27, 2013
    9,853
    96
    Austin
    that's what I think also because if SCOTUS gets it and sets a precedent it will be hard to overturn that.
    I am not following this line of thought. This decision was a 3 judge (all conservative) panel of the 9th. Their decision will likely be appealed to the 9th en banc where it will get overturned by the liberal judges. Appealed once again and it will be at SCOTUS, which is a good thing, IMO.
     

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    Houston & BFE
    This was a panel decision which traditionally have been more 2A favorable. An en banc review will overturn this ruling as we've seen happen more than once with the 9th Circuit.
    Whether Hawaii chooses to ask for cert. directly or they ask for rehearing en banc (and if overturned), the case WILL be headed to the Supreme Court . . . and by that I mean a Supreme Court that includes a Justice Kavanaugh. In a way, I hope that it goes for rehearing en banc, as it will waste more time which will ensure that Kavanaugh is seated prior to it going up.

    The thing that separates this case from Peruta is that with Kavanaugh, there WILL be enough votes to take the case on cert. (remember the Rule of Four).
     

    SQLGeek

    Muh state lines
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    9,591
    96
    Richmond
    You're absolutely correct, diesel. Having lived under the regime of the 9th Circus, I am quite jaded about these things. The high and subsequent disappointment experienced by many from Peruta are fresh on the minds of many.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    24,103
    96
    Spring
    The case resulted from Hawaii resident George Young being denied...
    Many years ago I did some research and found out that, at that time, Hawaii had concealed carry. However, in the entire state only one permit was in force; it belonged to a civilian armorer with the Honolulu police department.

    Apparently Hawaii is still denying out of hand all permit applications. I can only hope this case helps change that.
     

    pronstar

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2017
    10,576
    96
    Dallas
    I am not following this line of thought. This decision was a 3 judge (all conservative) panel of the 9th. Their decision will likely be appealed to the 9th en banc where it will get overturned by the liberal judges. Appealed once again and it will be at SCOTUS, which is a good thing, IMO.

    Yup, exactly like the Peruta case.

    People got all worked up that 2A rights were upheld, only to be smacked-down by the en banc ruling.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    Houston & BFE
    Many years ago I did some research and found out that, at that time, Hawaii had concealed carry. However, in the entire state only one permit was in force; it belonged to a civilian armorer with the Honolulu police department.

    Apparently Hawaii is still denying out of hand all permit applications. I can only hope this case helps change that.
    Yep. If there's one lesson that these liberal bastions need to understand is that they can't have it both ways--meaning that you can't both deny open, loaded carry AND concealed carry (may issue winds up being an effective denial). To do both of those things absolutely, positively denies the right to self-defense (via 2A means) outside the home. Heller and McDonald mean what they mean, and the appellate circuits have got to respect those decisions.
     

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    Houston & BFE
    Yup, exactly like the Peruta case.

    People got all worked up that 2A rights were upheld, only to be smacked-down by the en banc ruling.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    But only because the Rule of Four allowed the Supremes to sidestep the issue. I've said it before and I'll say it again--the Supreme Court decides its own docket and the ONLY way to get there (with VERY limited exceptions of right) means that you've got to get four justices to agree to hear the case. If you've only got four conservative justices, you lose if you lose even one on the front end. It's one thing to lose on the appeal, but the first step is getting the appeal to be heard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four
     
    Top Bottom