BREAKING: The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that there is no right to carry - ei

[soothsayer]

Link to tweet

?s=21

Link to tweet

?s=21


Mark Elliott
@markmobility
BREAKING: The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that there is no right to carry - either openly or concealed in public.



Mark Elliott
@markmobility
·
Mar 24, 2021
Replying to @markmobility
The @NRA is having a bad day...

NRA
@NRA
BREAKING: 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.

Mark Elliott
@markmobility
Basically this ruling means laws that limit carrying guns in public are constitutional.

AG Gurbir Grewal
@NewJerseyOAG
Today the Ninth Circuit agreed that laws that limit carrying guns in public are constitutional. Proud that NJ led a brief for 10 states in that case, & proud to support firearm safety laws that protect both the public & law enforcement officers. Read more: https://bit.ly/3d200LB

[JI7]

1. So what do I do if I want to feel like a 'tough manly man'

while at Starbucks or subway ?

[Shermann]

6. Grab a hot latte without one of those cardboard sleeves? nt

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Owie, Owie, Owie!

I mean, nobody is that manly!

[iscooterliberally]

13. HA! Excellent!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Lol.

[Rebl2]

22. That and

spill it on yourself

[Evolve Dammit]

51. Yeah dump it on your crotch and smile. The chicks will dig it. Sarcasm.....

[chowder66]

66. Hilarious!!!

[calimary]

92. That'd do it.

Make it an extra-tall. LOTS of space on the cup for your hands.

[Mr.Bill]

8. Yell at people who are not wearing masks.

[Jerry2144]

10. Stick a potato

Stick a potato in your underwear to make people think you no longer need to carry a Glock PNS X-10dr (sound it out). Just make sure you put the potato in the front. If you put it in the back, you might help with social distancing

[Dave in VA]

20. Now that's funny!

Now I'm cleaning my keyboard covered in soda!

[calimary]

35. Hey, whatever works...

[chowder66]

67. lololol

[ShazzieB]

77. BWAHAHAHAHA!

[sarge43]

17. Slap on some Axe Body Spray. n/t

[csziggy]

82. That would help with sociual distancing! nt

[localroger]

24. Cucumber in pants. /nt

[LastDemocratInSC]

39. Just like Derek Smalls of Spinal Tap.

[mzmolly]

41. Extra jalapeno

on your sub and a loud belch when you're finished.

[Hekate]

2. Good to know the 9th Circuit still functions despite Trump's appointments

Good news, this

[lagomorph777]

80. I hope SCROTUS upholds this ruling.

[FBaggins]

86. The opinion was written by a GWBush appointee

The uber-panel (the 9th has an odd form of "en-banc&quot was actually split 6-5 Republican appointees... yet the decision split 7-4 in the other direction.

[malaise]

3. Get thee to the greatest page

RFN!

[Sympthsical]

4. It'll get overturned

The 9th Circuit is very, very liberal. The SC is . . . not. It's even more conservative now than it was during Heller.

[ashredux]

5. Not so sure...the Worm may have turned

[KPN]

26. We can hope anyway. Think positive.

[BComplex]

40. No. I posted a thread about that earlier. It's worse than you can imagine.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215263040

This supreme court is sneaky as hell.

[Hoyt]

45. Not so sure. In Heller, even Scalia was very careful to talk about pistols in the HOME,

not on the streets.

[hunter]

70. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 1 percent of the petitions it receives.

They probably won't touch this hot potato.

[FBaggins]

91. Yes and no

They hear a pretty high percentage of appeals where two or more circuit courts split on a supposed constitutional right.

[honest.abe]

87. I dont think so.

SCOTUS is not slam dunk conservative even with the majority.

[msongs]

7. SCOTUS odds to overtun about 100% nt

[NewJeffCT]

9. Yep - Roberts, Kavanaugh, etc are salivating at the thought

of overturning gun restrictions

[Blasphemer]

37. Agreed. 6-3 decision. nt

[lindysalsagal]

38. Agreed. Not getting excited about gunz anymore, either way.

Never gonna change.

[onetexan]

46. unless Dems expand SCOTUS

[wnylib]

54. I was doubtful about that when it was

first suggested months ago. But I would be for it now. Trouble is getting approval for the additional justices through the Senate. Not likely to happen unless we can get more Dem Senators.

[LanternWaste]

42. Same odds as DUers prophesizing the future.

I offer as much objective evidence to support my prophecy as do you.

[Kingofalldems]

12. The gunswarming has begun.

Great news though!

[hlthe2b]

14. It's a start... A GOOD start.

[ripcord]

15. It will be overturrned

In Heller SCOTUS said self defense is a central component of the 2nd Amendment.

[Duppers]

18. It's a tough one but I fear you're right.

Need new laws or a flat-out amendment to the 2nd? Possible in an ideal world.

[ripcord]

31. The problem is that is was made hard to limit rights on purpose

I don't think this situation was taken into account though.

[uponit7771]

25. Isn't the context supposed to be in a well regulated militia?

[ripcord]

29. SCOTUS says no in Heller

The right of an individual to possess firearms is independent of serving in a militia.

[uponit7771]

56. Thx, did the say what a regulated militia was? I remember the case but not why

[KPN]

32. That is the context for those who are able to read,

comprehend, and not impute one’s “beliefs” to what they read.

[Hoyt]

47. Scalia was also careful to limit his opinion to gunz in the HOME,

not on the streets.

[FBaggins]

81. He was careful to do so because he needed to convince Kennedy

Kennedy no longer needs to be convinced.

[fescuerescue]

16. Sounds like the Supreme Court stacked with Trump justices will weigh in now

I bet the NRA is excited at this turn of events.

Now the NRA will get another nationwide ruling expanding carry.

[The Mouth]

93. Hell they might overturn the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts

Or follow one logical avenue rule that any concealed permit issued in one state is valid in all of them, which would be consistent with any other such permit.

[UTUSN]

19. K&R for, HUZZAH!

[Karadeniz]

23. A well-regulated militia... so what's their problem with being regulated?

[former9thward]

52. The Constitution was ratified in 1789.

The word "regulated" meant "supplied" in 1789. The word "Regulate" or "Regulations" with the meaning as we know it did not exist in 1789.

[FreeState]

55. That's not factual or true

https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate

regulate (v.)
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule, straight piece of wood" (from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule&quot . Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating.

[former9thward]

72. It is factual and it is true.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

What did it mean to be well regulated?

One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings
of words change or diverge.

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed,
well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in
that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight."

In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather
that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

[Mopar151]

74. In a modern context, shouldn't the availability of guns be an issue?

How can a state call up an anonymous "milita", if gun owners will not be registered or licensed?

[Karadeniz]

63. Well that stinks!

[C Moon]

61. Well-regulated referred to their daily fiber intake.

[Karadeniz]

64. I should have known there was a logical explanation!

[C Moon]

94. :D

[gldstwmn]

27. Good news.

[brooklynite]

28. Golly! Wonder what will happen when it gets to the Supreme Court?

[pecosbob]

30. States rights comes full circle to bite them in the ass

Can't rule for right-to-carry and for states rights simultaneously.

[Cha]

33. Rt TY & Mark Elliot!

[Sancho]

34. Read this book for some prospective...

The Second Amendment: A Biography

Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

36. So there is now a Circuit split

I believe Illinois lost a case at the 7th Circuit over carrying guns and wound up passing a "shall issue" law in response. I can't remember the name of case at the moment. But if that is the case, then we have a Circuit split, which means SCOTUS has a high chance of taking this issue up.

[FBaggins]

83. You're thinking of Moore v. Madigan

"The interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home"

The majority here goes out of their way to reject any as-applied aspect of the claim here. IMO - largely to avoid this implied split.

[Stallion]

43. Reminder that the SCOTUS granted a restricted Writ of Cerftiorari in Heller

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Further, even Scalia's opinion recognized reasonable restrictions and that the right to carry weapons under the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Technically, Heller never reached the right to bear arms outside the home

[Hoyt]

49. This is why I am hopeful the current SC might not be in a rush to overturn

the lower courts. Heck, the Justices don’t want to get shot in the streets either, they have kids, and at least they are not as beholden to rubes. And, they found a way to say NO to trump numerous times. We’ll see.

[empedocles]

62. Thank you

[uponit7771]

68. thx !!

[FBaggins]

84. Reminder that the Heller court had Kennedy as the mid-point.

The midpoint has shifted well to the right since then.

[WHITT]

44. The Last SCOTUS Ruling

held that states had the right to reasonable limitations. Maryland enacted a statewide ban on assault weapons and extended clips. The gun nuts sued, lost all the way to the federal appellate court, they appealed to the SCOTUS, who refused to hear it and allowed the appellate ruling to stand.

[leftieNanner]

57. The State of Colorado

is now looking at implementing similar restrictions.

[BobTheSubgenius]

48. The NRA wants to "rectify" this.

F the NRA and F the ground it's standing on. I bet the majority of Americans - maybe even a large majority - celebrate this ruling. I hope that evil institution goes broke before they can win another single decision.

Funny....I was expecting to read that the 9th had ruled that carrying into Congress wasn't legal. I hope to read that soon, as well.

[ancianita]

50. Yeah.

Agree with you. Aren't they bankrupt yet?

One good thing is that the ruling at least keeps the Greenes and Boeberts from challenging restrictions on their carrying or concealing in Congress.

[BobTheSubgenius]

78. One would think so.

But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they'll find some ridiculous argument - or maybe plain petulance - on which to dig in their heels and keep on packin'.

[elleng]

53. "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope

of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[49]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Issues_addressed_by_the_majority

[Silent3]

58. I'm not going to get too excited knowing the SCOTUS in its current form...

...will likely rule on this case in due course.

[joshcryer]

59. States rights, baby.

[spanone]

60. Hey nra, it was just rectified.

Rot in hell.

[CaptainTruth]

65. This makes me happy, but I know it will appealed...

...all the way to SCOTUS. Fingers crossed...

[Ford_Prefect]

69. The language and reasoning are unlikely to be overturned as they applied only to the specific case

Last edited Wed Mar 24, 2021, 10:02 PM - Edit history (3)

brought by Young. Second amendment never enters into it. The NRA and the OP headline have it wrong there. This is about the rights of public institutions like the state regulating the privilege of open carry in public places. Young never made his case. He assumed 2nd amendment applied where it does not and never has. He also made claims of lack of due process under the 14th amendment which the court also ruled as incorrect application since Young did not correctly challenge the refused open carry application. Young was refused because he did not demonstrate a critical need to protect himself and asked for the license simply because he wanted to open carry. He is not a security officer, or sworn peace officer, nor does he do work which would require such protection. We call that all hat - no cattle.

The original case began in 2012. We are now in 2021. That's how long it took to arrive at the en banc session (all 12 justices). The current SCOTUS would have to reinterpret established law quite broadly to overturn this case. The court of appeals makes it quite clear that Young was not denied 2nd Amendment rights. Their language in so stating and the use of “Heller and McDonald" to make clear what is permissible make Young's a specific case which is unlikely to be overturned due to that specificity. Young originally tried to make a very broad case out of this and included many charges which were dropped during the appeal process. Once dropped they cannot be revived on appeal of the 9th Circuit's judgment.

You will probably hear and see all kinds of hype about this case. Had it included all of the extraneous charges there might be wiggle room for Roberts et al to expand it. As it is now the case is so narrow and specific they are unlikely to bother. As someone else poste above they would be attacking State's Rights in a way that IMO would be self defeating. Young tried a shotgun approach favored by NRA advocates:

He brought separate counts under the Bill of Attainder Clause, the Contracts Clause, the Second
Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Young asked for the permanent enjoining of HRS § 134, the issuance of a permit, and compensatory and punitive damages.

Don't let all the hype get you in a knot. Here is what the majority ruled and why:

George Young wishes to carry a firearm in
public—concealed or unconcealed—but does not fall into one
of Hawai‘i’s categorical exceptions for law enforcement and
military personnel. In 2011, Young applied twice for a
license in the County of Hawai‘i. In both applications,
Young cited a general need for “personal security, self preservation
and defense, and protection of personal family members and property.”
Hawai‘i County police chief, Henry Kubojiri, denied both of Young’s
applications. Chief Kubojiri determined that Young had neither
shown an “exceptional case[] or demonstrated urgency.”

In 2012 Young filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against the State of Hawai‘i, the governor, the
attorney general, the County of Hawai‘i, the mayor of the
County of Hawai‘i, the Hilo County Police Department, the
County of Hawai‘i chief of police, and unnamed persons and
corporations.2 He brought separate counts under the Bill of
Attainder Clause, the Contracts Clause, the Second
Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Privileges or
Immunities and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Young asked for the permanent enjoining of
HRS § 134, the issuance of a permit, and compensatory and
punitive damages.

The district court dismissed all of Young’s claims in a
published order. Young v. Hawai‘i, 911 F. Supp. 2d 972
(D. Haw. 2012). Although the district court dismissed
Young’s claims on various grounds, the only grounds
relevant here relate to his Second Amendment and Due
Process claims; his other claims have been abandoned on
appeal. With respect to the Second Amendment, the district
court first determined that Hawai‘i’s firearm licensing
scheme did not implicate conduct that is protected by the
Second Amendment. Young, 911 F. Supp. 2d at 987–91.
Looking to “the weight of authority in the Ninth Circuit,
other Circuits, and state courts,” the district court concluded
that “Heller and McDonald establish only a narrow
individual right to keep an operable handgun at home for self defense.”
Id. at 989. Because Hawai‘i’s law permits individuals to
possess firearms in the home and in a place of business,
HRS § 134-9 did not impose on a right protected by
the Second Amendment. Id. at 989–90.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20521668/3-24-21-young-v-hawaii-9th-circuit-en-banc.pdf

[FBaggins]

90. They can do quite a bit to it without striking at the core reasoning

They could, for instance, decide that the 9th erred in foreclosing the as-applied challenge... vacate the ruling... and remand it back with instructions to have the district court weigh in.

[malthaussen]

71. 9th Circuit, bunch of flamin' Liberals.

I doubt not that the USSC will overturn this ruling when it comes to them.

If a hardworking Amurrikan can't fondle his firearm in public, what's the point of having one?

-- Mal

[Calista241]

73. Yeah, the NRA didn't fight this case because they're bankrupt.

But I'm betting they're loving this. This is the PERFECT kind of case that they're looking for to get new case law on. The SC has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right. This would seem, on its face, a limitation of the right to bear arms.

[Ford_Prefect]

76. Read the language in the ruling above in post #69 to see what was actually said.

The 9th did not rule that young could not possess a gun. They ruled he had no right under the 2nd to demand and receive a carry permit. The NRA stayed out of this because Young didn't and could not prove he needed a carry permit. The local Chief of police decided he did not do so.

[Iggo]

75. That's funny.

I know a couple of guys who may never leave their house again! 😂😂😂

[bucolic_frolic]

79. 30-50 years ago, people left their guns home

Many people took instruction courses from or sponsored by the NRA. If you transported a gun it was to be in the trunk of your car, unloaded. That was a police recommendation or request or maybe the law, but that's the way you did it.

[oldsoftie]

88. Down here in the 70s during deer season people would come to school with rifles in their gun racks.

I wasnt a hunter, but used to ride to school with one of them. I'd take the bus home after school & he'd go to the woods

[housecat]

85. "better to light a candle than curse the darkness"

[oldsoftie]

89. Open carry is for suckers & showoffs anyway.

If someone wants to mess with you, the FIRST thing they'd do is go for the openly carried gun. And since they have the element of surprise, i'd bet most times they'd be successful getting it from you.