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

[Ron]

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 left wastes no time, they grab power and use it straightaway.


https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/03/us-appeals-court-rules-americans-dont-have-right-to-open-carry-guns-in-public/?

[Jim147]

What do you think the supremes will do since this is conflict with the 7th court?

[MillCreek]

Upon reading the title, my first thought was: This has to be the Ninth Circuit, where I live.  And I was right. I am also not surprised this decision came out of a case in Hawaii.

Here is the actual decision if you want to read it:
 https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

[RocketMan]

What do you think the supremes will do since this is conflict with the 7th court?

No idea how the current court would rule.  They've proven themselves to be a "wild card" with their recent rulings.  The only justice I would trust to make the right decision is Thomas.

[WLJ]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Looks clear to me.

To the left, either
A) Live with it
B) Complete the process to amend the Constitution
Until then stuff it

 

[zxcvbob]

What do you think the supremes will do since this is conflict with the 7th court?

I think they will refuse to take the case.

[Hawkmoon]

What do you think the supremes will do since this is conflict with the 7th court?

If there is a circuit split (which this would be), they pretty much have to take it.

What's the 7th Circuit decision that conflicts with this?

[Jim147]

They stuck down the Illinois law that banned carrying firearms in puplic.

[Hawkmoon]

They stuck down the Illinois law that banned carrying firearms in puplic.

Citation?

[RoadKingLarry]

Isn't this ruling pretty much in conflict with Heller and McDonald?

[WLJ]

Isn't this ruling pretty much in conflict with Heller and McDonald?

They're "living" rulings

[Jim147]

Citation?

Hard to find with every story pointing to the 9th but I think this is it.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1269/12-1269-2012-12-11.html

[zxcvbob]

If there is a circuit split (which this would be), they pretty much have to take it.

What's the 7th Circuit decision that conflicts with this?

If they have any integrity or respect for the Constitution they have to take it.  I still think they will refuse.

[Hawkmoon]

Isn't this ruling pretty much in conflict with Heller and McDonald?

I started to read the actual decision. It appears that the majority is claiming that Heller determined that the RKBA ONLY applies to firearms within the home, so they claim they are "following" the precedent established by Heller.

That's a lie, of course. The question asked in Heller was whether a D.C. law that specifically prohibited the possession of a functional, operable firearm in the home violated the Constitution. Since that was the question asked, that was the question they answered. ANY laws addressing possession or carry outside of the home were simply not addressed by Heller.

[RoadKingLarry]

I still think it conflicts with McDonald.
The whole "Keep AND BEAR" is meaningless without the ability to actually have it outside of your home or private property.

I also do not think the current SCOTUS will take the case. And, even if they do I'm not optimistic about them reaching the right and proper decision.

[Hawkmoon]

Hard to find with every story pointing to the 9th but I think this is it.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1269/12-1269-2012-12-11.html

I think that's it, and that allowed me to track down the actual decision: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1269/12-1269-2012-12-11.pdf

The Supreme Court rejected the argument. The appellees ask us to repudiate the Court’s historical analysis. That we can’t do. Nor can we ignore the implication of the analysis that the constitutional right of armed self-defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s   home. The first sentence of the McDonald opinion states that “two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S. Ct. at 3026, and  later in the opinion we read that “Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for  self-defense, 554 U.S. at 593, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was ‘one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, id. at 594.” 130 S. t. at 3037. And immediately the Court adds that “Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists.” Id

[Hawkmoon]

I still think it conflicts with McDonald.
The whole "Keep AND BEAR" is meaningless without the ability to actually have it outside of your home or private property.

I also do not think the current SCOTUS will take the case. And, even if they do I'm not optimistic about them reaching the right and proper decision.

If they take it, the only way they could fail to decide correctly would be to reject the extensive historical analysis presented in Heller, additional historical context in McDonald, and -- if the plaintiffs are smart enough to introduce them -- additional historical analyses by the United States Senate in 1982 and another extensive analysis by the Department of Justice in 2004.

[MikeB]

Personally I’m still not sure I trust the SCOTUS on this case. I’ve said before I’d rather they punt than rule when we had a weak constitutional court. I had hopes with Trump’s picks, but I have concerns about Kavanaugh and I don’t have enough rulings by Barret to have a comfort level there. Robert’s I wouldn’t trust to rule on anything. At this point I think there is still too much chance of a Robert’s a tax isn’t a tax even though the government is arguing it is while arguing it isn’t type ruling.