Hawaii Wants Second Chance In Open Carry Court Case

several federal appeals courts do not accept that the 2nd Amendment recognizes a right to bear arms in public outside militia duty.

 

He does this on purpose, and takes pleasure in the fact people take the bait.

 

Open carry is stupid. Conceal carry is how it should be done.

 

I would opine they were rejected because they were unsure they had the votes to overturn them, despite the Heller "in common use for lawful purposes" precedent. Once Kavanaugh is seated, they will have the votes, they will take a case, and any and all "assault weapon" (a category that is made up) bans will be struck down nationwide. That is why DIFI is desperate enough to pull out the dirty tricks bag.

 

Unless and until it is repealed, absolutely. What, you think we stealth-repeal stuff now?

 

How many times has the ACTUAL Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation? How many will it take for you to stop regurgitating this nonsense?

 

that's why we need more Trump judges-we have lots of judges who ignore McDonald

 

Two specific citations from the Wrenn v DC case that overturned the concealed carry restrictions for the district of columbia.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1868771.html

The first.

Reading the Amendment, applying Heller I's reasoning, and crediting key early sources, we conclude: the individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense—even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs—falls within the core of the Second Amendment's protections.

The second.

To watch the news for even a week in any major city is to give up any illusions about “the problem of handgun violence in this country.” Heller I, 554 U.S. at 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783. The District has understandably sought to fight this scourge with every legal tool at its disposal. For that long struggle against gun violence, you might see in today's decision a defeat; you might see the opposite. To say whether it is one or the other is beyond our ken here. We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows—but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1791 and flagged in Heller I. And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen's right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.

We vacate both orders below and remand with instructions to enter permanent injunctions against enforcement of the District's good-reason law.

So ordered.

This ruling came a year after the citation of yourself, meaning it takes greater current precedent on the matter.

The citation on the part of yourself is further undermined by the latest ruling by the ninth circuit court of appeals regarding the state of Hawaii.

 

If they were ruled before Heller they mean absolutely nothing. If they were ruled after Heller it means the courts that made such rulings are ignoring established precedent by the united state supreme court, and in essence stating that the law does not apply and does not exist if they do not want it to.

 

I got your stealth-repeal right here.

 

absolutely never.

only the Appeals Courts have ruled on this issue

 

SCOTUS never ruled on a so-called right to carry a loaded firearm in public outside of militia duty.

 

maybe you should spend more time actually discussing the issue, then constantly talking about other members

 

Which means absolutely nothing. A constitutional right cannot apply and exist exclusively within the confines of a home, and then immediately cease to exist outside of the home. The law of the united states simply does not work in such a manner. And the united state supreme court has already ruled that firearms ownership and use is directly connected to the constitutional right of self defense. And self defense is not illegal outside of the home.

 

the public domain is VERY different than your home or your car.

you have Free Speech inside your home, while your Speech can be regulated in the public square

 

Sure it can. There are lots of things you can do in private that you can't do in public.

You don't need a gun to defend yourself.

 

indeed, there are different legal parameters for things you do on your property, in the public square and on someone else's property.

to claim that Constitutional Rights are all the same in all three spheres is simply false.

for example, I have NO RIGHT to possess a firearm on your property. Its purely at your discretion.

My right to peaceful protest can require a permit on the streets of a big city.

 

Of course. Some people are just highly fearful and the 2nd Amendment caters to them, unfortunately. Most of us can use our common sense.

 

Never mind the fact that the 9th Circuit said the 2nd protect a right to carry a gun outside the home, several other circuits agree, and no other circuit disagrees.
This is why an en banc 9th will not overturn the panel ruling.

 

2nd, 3rd, 1st and 4th Circuit Courts, disagree.

They all have upheld State May Issue laws.

9th Circuit En Banc said there is no right to carry a concealed gun in public.

 

Can you cite the cases referred to here?

TOG 6 didn't limit his statement to concealed carry rights.

 

He knows. Bait and switch. Don't be lured in.

 

Not within the confines of this discussion.

Factually incorrect. Usage of a public venue for public speaking and demonstration purposes is regulated, but not speech itself.

 

Then elaborate as to precisely what such amounts to.

There are those who indeed do need a firearm to defend themselves from harm. Are they being dismissed out of hand because their circumstances do not fit the preferred narrative?

 

None of which pertains to the right of self defense, or its application in a public venue. Unless there is a legal standard holding that one may not legally defend themselves in a public venue, there is no proper comparison to be made.