U.S. appeals court upholds right to carry gun in public
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Reuters
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, finding that Hawaii overstepped its authority to regulate firearms possession outside the home.
The extent of the right to gun ownership is one of the most hotly contested debates in the United States, where there has been a steady stream of mass shootings.
In a 2-1 decision on Tuesday, the panel found Hawaii infringed on the rights of plaintiff George Young when it twice denied him a permit the state requires to openly carry a gun in public.
“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in Tuesday’s ruling. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/us-appeals-court-upholds-right-to-carry-gun-in-public-idUSKBN1KE28C#%3A~%3Atext%3D(Reuters)%20-%20A%20federal%20appeals%2Cfirearms%20possession%20outside%20the%20home
If it is for self defense, does that mean magas walking around with loaded weapons in fear of protesters?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JT45242
(4,026 posts)Apparently the knuckleheads who made this decision have never read the full text of the second amendment which starts with "well regulated". It is not supposed to be an absolute .... and of course the militia part gets ignored as well.
These 'originalists' don;t start at the origin of the statement.
Sickening.
rwsanders
(3,180 posts)ability of the human mind to read what they want in a document based on their foregone conclusions.
Frightening either way.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,068 posts)The right of the well regulated State Militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)where the state constitution says all males are automatically part of the state militia? Actually that wording is common in state constitutions.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,068 posts)Also, does your question apply to how the second was actually written, or my hypothetical language to attempt to exclude individual ownership of arms?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)However you (or more importantly the courts) would want to define it. I don't think your hypothetical language would ever be passed.
nykym
(3,063 posts)If it states that all males are part of the state militia then that could be considered discriminatory in that it leaves out women.
Additionally if it is a state militia, then isn't the state required to provide training and periodic exercises as well as outfitting and supplying each member?
Polybius
(21,868 posts)The first part strongly implies that it was only intended for well-regulated militias, not us. However, it also says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That part makes it seem like we all have a right to keep and bear arms. So it's very confusing.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)It is helpful to know that if you are going to challenge the court on originalist grounds.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,068 posts)I once heard it meant a well stocked militia, that was trained to engage in battle. As I got older, I learned that people lied to me about a great deal. I kinda quit thinking I know anything now.
Polybius
(21,868 posts)You accidentally left it out, right?
OrlandoDem2
(3,234 posts)OneCrazyDiamond
(2,068 posts)They have been causing an imbalance on the courts for years. They are like 3 away from flipping the 9th. We all know about the Supreme Court.
progree
(12,935 posts)then and this is now.
Open carry by any bozo? Well regulated militia? Give felons back their guns?
Auggie
(33,116 posts)It protects the right to form an armed militia by a civilian population.
cstanleytech
(28,445 posts)Or I should say it's that it's the Second Amendment of the Constitution and that it needs really to be amended and better clarified on the ownership of guns.
cstanleytech
(28,445 posts)The only way to resolve the entire gun situation is actually with an amendment to the Constitution that addresses it because that cannot be thrown out by any Court.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,068 posts)We need to address a lot of divisive issues.
47of74
(18,470 posts)The 2A must be replaced with an amendment that has clear limits on who can possess firearms, and have limits on what people can possess and where they can carry their weapons.
Sgent
(5,858 posts)but which one of these state legislatures is going to vote for such an amendment? If we add PR and DC as states then they would need one more to block it.
AL
TX
MS
GA
FL
TN
NE
AK
MT
WV
AR
OK
ID
cstanleytech
(28,445 posts)continue to strike down a number of gun laws that local and state governments try to enact.
Liberal-Of course
(18 posts)The 2nd Amendment was included to get southern colonies to sign on to the Constitution. You see, southerners needed roving bands of armed white men to prevent slave rebellions. And they wanted these "militias" to be beyond the jurisdiction of a federal (a/k/a northern dominated) government. They wouldn't become a state without state militias.
Two other points: the Amendment is premised on "well-regulated militias", not "manhood challenged" white men. Without state authorization and regulation...you ain't militia. Second, the Amendment refers to groups (iow, organized and regulated militias) by saying "the people", that is plural or group; it does not say "persons". Reference to persons makes an amendment an individual right. "People" meant groups.
The SCOTUS effectively rewrote the Amendment in 2008 by declaring, incorrectly, "the people" actually meant individuals (oh, those silly founding fathers. Didn't know what "the people" really meant)....Majority: Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito....all rightwing nuts.
stillcool
(34,407 posts)
hack89
(39,181 posts)It was the model for ours.
hack89
(39,181 posts)There is a lot of case law that says otherwise.
Btw - check out the definition of military in the Federal Code. Especially the unorganized militia. You might be surprised.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,758 posts)...that the phrase "right of the people" in the Bill of Rights names those protected the same way the first and sixth articles do and specifically that the Bill of Rights acts to protect those who inhabit the country by restraining the government and providing a foundation upon which may be modeled subsequent laws. It is critical to understand that a war was fought against an abusive government that was guilty of capricious restraints on the colonies and the people. Adding the BoR was a condition favored by many to prevent the new government from becoming the next capricious abuser.
By enumerating individual rights, the courts were given clear criteria to use when judging new laws.
The purpose of the Constitution and the federal government it created was to unify the states. In the body of the Constitution the term "right" is used exactly once. The words "power"and "authority" are mentioned when referring to government or agencies or officials thereof.
cstanleytech
(28,445 posts)work on amending the 2nd amendment in such a way that the Court cannot pervert it in the future.
The Mouth
(3,414 posts)Here's hoping that the SCOTUS rules that the *only* places firearms can be prohibited is on private property.
It is not in any way the business of any extrinsic authority what I eat or drink, carry about on my person, which adult (s) I marry or make love to, or what kind of art I create or consume, unless or until I deprive someone else of life, liberty, or property.
rockfordfile
(8,742 posts)The only exceptions are if you're a policeman, hunting, or military.
Response to rockfordfile (Reply #26)
Post removed
ripcord
(5,553 posts)Or does it apply to the area covered by the 9th Circuit or the entire country?
former9thward
(33,424 posts)So its law was invalidated and if any state within the 9th circuit had a similar law those would be subject to the same ruling. The 9th circuit is mainly the western states and most of those states do not have restrictive laws on open carry like Hawaii has.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)And was wondering what effect it would have here since we allow no open carry and have no permit.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)In 1967 Black Panthers came into the capitol building in Sacramento with guns and the legislators passed the racist Mulford Act which banned open carry. The law may be challenged now. It was passed for purely racial reasons because black people were openly carrying guns.
Response to OneCrazyDiamond (Original post)
Post removed
rockfordfile
(8,742 posts)Polybius
(21,868 posts)You can only get a carry permit here if you're rich.
hardluck
(781 posts)The Ninth Circuit has agreed to hear the case en banc so this decision is not in effect. The full Ninth Circuit should be hearing the case soon.
sl8
(17,109 posts)
Omaha Steve
(109,081 posts)Article is two years old.
Statement of Purpose
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.