US Appeals court rules Americans don’t have right to open carry guns in public

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates as more information becomes available.

On Wednesday, an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms does not citizens include the right to carry a firearm, either openly or concealed, in public .

The court issued the ruling in the case of George Young Jr. V Hawaii, a lawsuit challenging a Hawaii firearm licensing law, which states residents seeking license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.” The court said, “There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.”

The majority opinion also states “we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.” The majority further argued that the second amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home” and “the power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.”

The majority ruled opinion covers Hawaii’s law regarding open carrying a firearm and the court further states, “We have previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public” meaning they believe no right to carry a firearm in any capacity in public exists.

Four judges dissented from the majority decision in two different dissenting opinions. In one of the dissenting opinions, three judges argued, “The majority’s suggestion that the values of federalism somehow preclude the Second Amendment from guaranteeing an individual right to carry arms for self-defense in the public square is fundamentally misguided” adding, “Hawaii’s severe deprivation of the core right to carry a firearm in public can only be understood as amounting to a total destruction of such right.”

Responding to the decision, the National Rifle Association tweeted, “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.”


The appeals court’s en banc decision could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, though the Supreme Court has not heard a second amendment case in more than ten years. In April of 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case regarding a rescinded New York City rule that prohibited residents from transporting firearms to shooting ranges, competitions and even their secondary residences outside of the city.

https://americanmilitarynews.c...carry-guns-in-public

Fuck that. Can we start shooting now? These fuckheads have no regard for natural rights or the constitution. We need to educate them. Hard, so they never forget again. We won't win it via due process since they own it and have corrupted it. Force is necessary.

If you own guns and don't back some 2A group or groups, for whatever reason, phone calls, mail, email, the suits the guy that runs it wears, whatever, yes I know its gonna turn into a bash LaPerre/NRA thread

Consider joining 2A, they are the legal action people for gun rights. Click this link and look at all the lawsuits the 2A Foundation is involved in to protect the rights...

https://www.saf.org/category/legal/

Here is my legal opinion.

How much of this BS are you Mericans going to tolerate before something is done to show the leftists that they have finally woke a sleeping giant?

So does this mean that my Oregon CHL is now null and void? What about my Utah non-resident permit (Utah not being within the 9th circus's jurisdiction)?

Apparently the 9th Circus Court hasn't read Marbury vs Madison SCOTUS decision of 1803....

In layman's terms it states that "any rule or law that is repugnant to the US Constitution is null and void".

See the case here:
https://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

And see his firearm litigation tracker:
https://michellawyers.com/fire...gation-case-tracker/

Lineman

Just a common man’s thought, but how can this coexist with the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed? Seems there’s much more infringement than was ever intended to start with.

quote:

Originally posted by Expert308:
So does this mean that my Oregon CHL is now null and void? What about my Utah non-resident permit (Utah not being within the 9th circus's jurisdiction)?

No, it means that the Oregon Legislature is free to pass laws outlawing rights that we now have, and once passed we have less chance of it being overturned by the courts now that this established ruling has been set.

(not a lawyer, but that's what I've been told)

In the past, I would have said, no problems, SCOTUS. But, finally knowing last year that most of the occupiers there are commies and cowards, I now say, FUCK THEM.

Beat me too it.

As posted above - what will this do to CPLs?

Or, how about at your home/business? How are you going to 'bear' arms if you're not not allowed to carry them?

Are they trying to make everyone/everywhere soft targets??? Rhetorical question. Cuz ya know, that'll work out real well.

Just yet another attack on the law-abiding. Cuz ya know, the violent criminal guys/gals go get CPL's.

Appeal to SCOTUS. Now.

$.02 worth,
Boss

The 1st Circuit Court of Sevenplusone just issued a ruling that the 9th Circuit Court can go fuck itself.

As I grow older, I find myself growing more and more selective about which unjust laws I choose to obey.

I've quick browsed the pertinent language and here's my take:

1. This only involved Hawaii and their grounds for carry, open or concealed. Young wanted to openly carry and that words "open" and "openly" are everywhere in the majority decision. Hawaii makes little distinction on the grounds for a CCW between open carry in public or concealed carry but Young went down the open carry path.

2. This does not invalidate any of the states CCW laws that the 9th covers. Not at all and not even close.

3. It did not make a ruling that all CCW is unlawful. Not at all and not close.

4. It did say that Hawaii has a good cause requirement that the local chief didn't think was established. Young might not have exercised his full administrative rights with the chief but that seems to be side dish.

5. States remain free to adopt good cause requirements if they wish or not, if they wish. That was not addressed, overruled, modified or changed with this decision and there's no indication the court intended such an inference.

6. The dissenters believed that this is a 2nd A violation because the criteria to obtain a permit in Hawaii effectively leave it up to local officials who routinely deny permit requests to the point that one will never obtain a permit unless you are in a specific class of jobs.

7. You can carry all you want at home and work, provided your employer allows it.

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
Apparently the 9th Circus Court hasn't read Marbury vs Madison SCOTUS decision of 1803....

In layman's terms it states that "any rule or law that is repugnant to the US Constitution is null and void".

That isn't really what Marbury is about. It is true, but isn't the point of the case.

This doesn't do anything to licenses in other states. It means that Hawaii's current rules survive as they are, and suggests that other similar rules in other states subject to the 9th could make similar rules if they want. It doesn't mean some other state cannot legislate differently. Flashlightboy is right about the things he said.

I am sure this will be appealed. The Supremes have been avoiding cases about the contours of the 2d amendment for a long time. They will eventually take one or more up. It is hard to say when. Some think with Barrett on the Court, they may be more likely to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
Apparently the 9th Circus Court hasn't read Marbury vs Madison SCOTUS decision of 1803....

In layman's terms it states that "any rule or law that is repugnant to the US Constitution is null and void".

Not really. That’s dicta. Marshall’s opinion in Marbury was the first blow to federalism and pretty much threw open the door for judicial activism to become a thing. We’ve been suffering from it every since.

-Rob

So constitutional rights only apply when people are inside their own homes??

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
So constitutional rights only apply when people are inside their own homes??

Well, there, and outside the 9th Circuit.

They forgot to mention protection from a tyrannical government.