Just saw this in the Co. shooting thread in GD

WTFs going on here??


Attached File

Uncanny timing:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/23/politics/scotus-second-amendment-new-york-boulder-colorado/index.html

$.02 worth,
Boss

Sounds like some civil disobedience is in order!!

Was there a follow up tweet requesting donations?

I'll get the same permit criminals do then. They get to carry guns everywhere.

As said in a GD post on this same topic: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

9th Circus Court decision has no fucking bearing on this as far as I’m concerned. The constitution is pretty fucking clear on this point.

Isn’t Turd Ferguson on the 9th Circus? That is telling.

There are 47 judges on the 9th Circuit List of judges 9th circuit none with the last name of Ferguson.

If you are talking about Bob Ferguson, he is the Attorney General for the State of Washington.

Here is Washington State House of Representatives member Jim Walsh's (LD19) thoughts on the 9ths ruling:

Full Text of the Ruling (large pdf)


Here's the text of Young v. Hawaii, the 9th Circuit Court opinion that would allow states to prohibit open carry of firearms.
It's long and its logic is...complicated. It includes a debatable reading of the US S Ct's Heller opinion. And a straight-up eccentric "historical" reading of English common law. Also, it was a split decision, 7-4, with one majority opinion and three separate dissenting opinions. The dissenting opinions are shorter, stronger and better-written.
Some quick thoughts:
1) WA is not Hawaii. WA has a longstanding tradition and practice as an "open carry" state.
2) The 9th Circuit majority clearly subscribes to the "living document" theory of the US Constitution.
3) This majority opinion will almost certainly be appealed to the US S Ct, which doesn't hesitate to overturn eccentric 9th Circuit opinions.
4) The US S Ct might take some issues with the 9th Circuit's interpretation of the Heller opinion. And its long, weird lesson in English common law. The dissents definitely do!
Finally, here are a couple of relevant excerpts from the 9th Circuit opinion.
From the majority opinion:
"Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square. History is messy and, as we anticipated, the record is not uniform, but the overwhelming evidence from the states’ constitutions and statutes, the cases, and the commentaries confirms that we have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces. Indeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self defense."
From one dissent:
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.' U.S. Const. amend. II. Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self defense in any other place.
"This holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme."
From another dissent:
"It is hornbook constitutional law that 'to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping.' Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America 271 (1880). Indeed, the Supreme Court in Heller was clear about what it means to 'bear'arms: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” That the Constitution delineates a specific right to carry a firearm—as distinguished from the right simply to keep a firearm—strongly implies the right to take one’s firearm outside the home in which it is kept."
And:
"In the face of this damning factual record, both Hawaii and the majority urge that we should simply look the other way.
"No thanks!"

Hopefully the Supreme Court will slap this decision down. Relying on Politicians and Lawyers for personal Freedoms seems a bit archaic, how about we rely on ourselves?

I personally interpret that to "keep" would be at home, and to "bear" would be away from home.

Ah, thanks for the clarification! For some reason, I always see Bob Ferguson’s face in my mind every time I think of the 9th Circuit.

I dont get it. Why did this ruling suddenly come out? Was it in response to colorado? Was this already in the pipline?

Are we suddenly now screwed? Is Wa going to start pulling CCW permits?

I dont need a piece of paper to tell me i can or can't protect my family

This guy in Hawaii was getting denied his concealed carry permit so he sued the state and it ended up in the 9th Circus.
I think Hawaii was telling him that he had to have a good reason before they would grant him a concealed carry permit.

Nothing to do with Colorado.

I read this as a reaffirmation of states rights to ignore the us constitution, which they already do.

The court seems to be engaging in an appeal to consensus logical fallacy in its reasoning. A majority of states ruling/legislating in a particular way or manner does not validate the constitutionality of those decisions; defying the definition of terms & use of language in a contract does not justify reinterpretation. Language matters.

iirc this was about open carry

Hawaii does not allow CC AT ALL and they require a permit for OPEN carry which he was denied

so the case potentially limits OC

You are right, it was for unconcealed carry.  But they didn't feel any need for any kind of carry outside of the home.

Here is a link to a story:  https://reason.com/2021/03/24/the-9th-circuit-says-the-right-to-bear-arms-does-not-extend-beyond-your-doorstep/

Seems like a strange hill to die on if you are Hawaii. What if just open carry gets upheld by SCOTUS? Instead of concealed carry being the law with little visual distress for the easily frightened, now everyone that lives there can carry a pistol in a drop holster along with a rifle slung if SCOTUS upholds the 2nd.