Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
want a real laugh go back and check out the state at oralThe NINTH circuit no less!NRA-ILA | Federal Appeals Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public
FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action applauded (NRA-ILA) a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday [July 24, 2018] that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”
The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.
*****************************************************************************************
This court is the three-judge Ninth Circuit, and the decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is considered the furthest left appeals court in the country.
After that it presumably will be appealed to the Supreme Court at some point, because federal appeals courts have found both ways, for and against more freedom to bear arms.
This Hawaii case turned on the word "bear." The Constitution did not say we are free to "keep" arms, meaning inside the home, perhaps: it said we had the right to "bear" arms, meaning carry.
--LOL
How to Lose a Lawsuit in 10 Minutes or Less
The case was not made for everyone to carry willynilly. It appears that the real question was can a citizen get a permit to open carry if he has a compellying reason to have one. It means that the person must apply for a permit and qualify. But there is nothing in place that outlines the qualifications.
Even if they got the 9th to go into an En Banc session and won
where do you think it would go next
--LOL
Even if they got the 9th to go into an En Banc session and won
where do you think it would go next
--LOL
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a couple years --- by then Trump should have put in three or four justices. So it might well become law of the land that everyone is presumed to have the right to bear arms outside the home.
I would hope some people could have that right denied for cause -- convicted felons, madmen, and the like.
It seems to me this finding strikes down "compelling reason" limits and just says ---- the Constitution says everyone can bear arms, period.
The concealed carry laws generally say you have to have a good reason to be allowed to carry a gun. So I see those laws being struck down if this finding survives appeals.
Would the state be able to say that certain people are not allowed to carry guns? For instance, a known homicidal maniac -- we seem to have a lot of those.
[
Anyone convicted of a felony or adjudicated for mental issues can be denied the RKBA, just like they can be denied their freedom and their other rights.
[
Anyone convicted of a felony or adjudicated for mental issues can be denied the RKBA, just like they can be denied their freedom and their other rights.
Huh. Good point. If people can be denied their physical freedom by the state, and that has long been a prime reason for government, dealing with madmen and criminals, then carrying guns could likewise be denied.
Good answer, so the only issue here really is whether the state can arrogate to itself the right to grant gun carrying, or whether we can assume a right to bear arms that can be taken away for cause. This 9th Circuit finding shifts the right from the government to the people. It's a big deal, I'd say, potentially. I realize it has to go thru a couple more iterations, and it would be surprising if the 9th Circuit sitting en banc were to allow it. But other appeals courts have been getting very close to this -- the DC Circuit is one -- and so other areas of the country may bring these cases if the balance is shifting, and it seems to be. "Time's they are a changing."
well at least they didn't argue the 2nd's punctuation.....,,,,,,::::"""???////(*)&^%$#@
~S~
The Hawaii case is perfect for open carry to be appealed to the SCOTUS. The state infringement on the right can get no worse. The SCOTUS will have no choice except rule for the plaintiff since Hawaii effectively banned the right outside the home. The case is perfect to establish open carry.
May issue is what this case is all about. You either have the right to carry or you don't. That is the question this case clearly places before the court. Constitutionally, they can only rule one way and thus codify the right.The Hawaii case is perfect for open carry to be appealed to the SCOTUS. The state infringement on the right can get no worse. The SCOTUS will have no choice except rule for the plaintiff since Hawaii effectively banned the right outside the home. The case is perfect to establish open carry.
Actually it would probably end up being a choice between open or concealed. The way the court would go is probably "you have to allow one or the other or both, but you can't ban both of them"
The real test is if they go after "may issue" restrictions, which are the real issue in many States.
exactlyEven if they got the 9th to go into an En Banc session and won
where do you think it would go next
--LOL
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a couple years --- by then Trump should have put in three or four justices. So it might well become law of the land that everyone is presumed to have the right to bear arms outside the home.
I would hope some people could have that right denied for cause -- convicted felons, madmen, and the like.
Anyone convicted of a felony or adjudicated for mental issues can be denied the RKBA, just like they can be denied their freedom and their other rights.
May issue is what this case is all about. You either have the right to carry or you don't. That is the question this case clearly places before the court. Constitutionally, they can only rule one way and thus codify the right.The Hawaii case is perfect for open carry to be appealed to the SCOTUS. The state infringement on the right can get no worse. The SCOTUS will have no choice except rule for the plaintiff since Hawaii effectively banned the right outside the home. The case is perfect to establish open carry.
Actually it would probably end up being a choice between open or concealed. The way the court would go is probably "you have to allow one or the other or both, but you can't ban both of them"
The real test is if they go after "may issue" restrictions, which are the real issue in many States.
Those who think the majority of the population desires to have large numbers of people walking around with firearms think incorrectly. When this gets pushed too far, the push back will be too far, as well. And it will be thanks to firearms extremists.
Actually it would probably end up being a choice between open or concealed. The way the court would go is probably "you have to allow one or the other or both, but you can't ban both of them"
The real test is if they go after "may issue" restrictions, which are the real issue in many States.
Thugs don't carry openly because they're all fucking felons.It should be fun when the open carrying thug encounters the open carrying walmart redneck on the street. What's the accuracy rate of handguns in live shootings? I heard it's less than 50%. Where do the rest of those defensive bullets go? Probably defending someone else out there.NRA-ILA | Federal Appeals Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public
FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action applauded (NRA-ILA) a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday [July 24, 2018] that confirmed the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”
The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.
*****************************************************************************************
This court is the three-judge Ninth Circuit, and the decision could be appealed to the full 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court, which is considered the furthest left appeals court in the country.
After that it presumably will be appealed to the Supreme Court at some point, because federal appeals courts have found both ways, for and against more freedom to bear arms.
This Hawaii case turned on the word "bear." The Constitution did not say we are free to "keep" arms, meaning inside the home, perhaps: it said we had the right to "bear" arms, meaning carry.
Actually it would probably end up being a choice between open or concealed. The way the court would go is probably "you have to allow one or the other or both, but you can't ban both of them"
The real test is if they go after "may issue" restrictions, which are the real issue in many States.
Huh. That's very interesting. It's an issue for women, many of whom might not much care for toting guns around in holsters, but would carry one in a purse if lots of people are armed. Still, we could get used to open carry if we had to.
I am not clear on why there SHOULD be a problem between concealed carry or open carry? Why not whichever anyone cared to do?
So many states have "Shall issue" already. So where are the OK Corral shootouts predicted by gun control freaks?
So many states have "Shall issue" already. So where are the OK Corral shootouts predicted by gun control freaks?
The OK Corral was what happened in front of that convenience store in Clearwater, Florida. So it is an issue. Well, duh, of course it's an issue. The more people carrying, the more hot-headed crazies taking offense at pretty much everything. That's what the movie Tombstone showed so well. A lot of those cowboys and outlaws were just tempermentally unfit. And of course they were drunk most of the time. The movie showed that clearly. Worrying idea.
