9th Circuit punches big hole in gun NUTS' "open carry" myths!

[UTUSN]

I'm sure this has been posted over the past days, but it is such a breath of long-depleted OXYGEN! The gun nuts have distorted the 2nd A. to be *UNLIMITED*. Uh, what part of "well regulated militia" (for defense against national tyranny) is not clear?!1 And good luck battling a national tyranny with individual arms.

*********QUOTE****** https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/hawaiis-open-carry-ban-is-lawful-federal-appeals-court-rules/

Hawaii’s open-carry ban is lawful, federal appeals court rules

…. The ruling by the 11-judge panel on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a legal blow to Hawaii resident George Young, who is suing the state over his inability to get a license to carry a loaded gun in public for self-defense, the Associated Press reported.

Young had argued that his Second Amendment rights are being violated by the state’s rejection to his license applications.

But the panel, “held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense,” the news service reported.

“Accordingly, Hawaii’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.”

Young, the panel ruled, did not show “the urgency or the need” to carry a gun in public.

“Instead, Young relied upon his general desire to carry a firearm for self-defense,” the ruling noted.

His lawyer, Alan Beck, said he will ask the Supreme Court to take up the case, the report said.

A lawyer for the state, Neal Katyal, had argued that Hawaii does not outright ban people from carrying loaded guns in public, saying those with a good cause can obtain them. ….

*********UNQUOTE****

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. "Uh, what part of "well regulated militia" (for defense against national tyranny)"

That's only tangentially what the well-regulated militia's existed for.

What the 2nd was really for is formally allowing for state-controlled citizen armies, meant to defend the state (and hence country) from foreign invaders, which we would have instead of a standing, federal army.

Basically it was 'the Feds will never usurp your state's rights to have its own armed citizen armies to protect your state from bad guys'.

And it was mainly the Southern states that were most adamant about it's inclusion. Guess why?

[lastlib]

2. "A well-regulated militia (COMMA)......

...being necessary for the security of a free state (COMMA) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (COMMA) shall not be infringed."

I have long argued that the punctuation of the second amendment is critical to understanding its meaning. "A well-regulated militia" is the superior clause--THAT is what "shall not be infringed." The words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" constitute an inferior, subordinate clause--a modifier of the superior clause. In essence, the two subordinate clauses are an explanation of WHY the subject of the superior clause "shall not be infringed."

[Straw Man]

4. Except that ...

... "a well-regulated militia" is not a clause at all. It's a noun phrase, as is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." If we parse the sentence in the way that you suggest, the latter serves absolutely no purpose and creates a grammatical anomaly. If, as you suggest, the main sentence is "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, shall not be infringed," to what does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refer? In what way does it modify the superior clause? Noun phrases are not modifiers: they are subjects, objects, or subject complements. It would just be a random noun phrase dropped into the middle of the sentence for no discernible reason. The only way it makes sense is as the subject that pairs with the predicate "shall not be infringed." The subordinate clause, stripped of its stray comma, can only be "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, ... ."

Weigh the odds: one misplaced comma vs. a ten-word noun phrase randomly and meaninglessly inserted into the sentence. Unless you can explain the syntactic function of that stray noun phrase, you have long argued incorrectly.

[lastlib]

8. Read it without the subordinate clauses and it makes perfect sense

A well-regulated militia... shall not be infringed.

The second subordinate clause is a justification for why a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed--this is where the said right is vested.

Anything separated by commas is a clause. Argument stands.

[PTWB]

12. Straw Man won this one. Sorry, friend. You're simply incorrect.

[Straw Man]

18. It's not a clause at all.

What you're calling a "second subordinate clause" is nothing of the kind. As I said, it's a noun phrase. You still haven't explained what it's doing there and how it functions. That's because you can't. The only possibility is, as I said, that it is the subject of the main clause.

If you can paraphrase the entire sentence, including that "clause," in such a way that demonstrates how it functions as a modifier for what you're calling the "superior clause," then you might have a case. If you can't, then you don't.

A clause is not "anything separated by commas." That's a non-starter, as any grammarian will tell you.

[Straw Man]

23. No. It doesn't make sense.

Read it without the subordinate clauses and it makes perfect sense

A well-regulated militia... shall not be infringed.

I've heard of rights being infringed, and patents, and legal protections, etc. But militia? How does one "infringe" a military organization? "Have you heard? The new budget bill infringes the army." Nope -- doesn't fly.

I've heard this formulation before. It doesn't pass muster, for the numerous reasons I have presented.

[Kaleva]

3. I don't believe this ruling is about "open carry" alone.

It looks like it affects conceal carry too.

"In practice though, Hawaii concealed carry permit applications are very rarely ever granted. The state issues CCW permits to active or retired law enforcement officers. Security professionals and high-ranking military members also form a part of that list.

According to Wikipedia, there are zero Hawaii concealed carry permits issued to private citizens. This statistic is from 2017 and out of a population of one million four hundred thousand people."

https://gunlawsuits.org/gun-laws/hawaii/concealed-carry/

From the article in the OP:

"The ruling by the 11-judge panel on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a legal blow to Hawaii resident George Young, who is suing the state over his inability to get a license to carry a loaded gun in public for self-defense, the Associated Press reported.

Young had argued that his Second Amendment rights are being violated by the state’s rejection to his license applications."

https://nypost.com/2021/03/25/hawaiis-open-carry-ban-is-lawful-federal-appeals-court-rules/

Apparently, Young applied for a license, which covers both open and conealed carry, but was rejected and he sued.

[SheltieLover]

5. K&R!

[roamer65]

6. If upheld, it strikes down "shall issue" on CPL licenses.

We definitely need to go back to “may issue” as sit used to be in most states.

[FBaggins]

20. No it doesn't

It merely recognizes that states don't have to pass "shall issue" laws. It doesn't overturn them

[roamer65]

25. Hopefully in MI we reverse the shall issue law.

Once we regain the majority in both states houses we can reverse it.

[hack89]

7. Considering that the right of self defense is central to Heller

I wouldn’t be surprised if the SC uses this case to apply Heller to public carry. Hard to argue that one’s right to self defense goes away when you step out of your house.

[hunter]

10. I'll be surprised if the Supreme Court picks up this hot potato.

The Supreme Court only hears about one percent of the cases presented to them.

In many parts of the U.S.A. the majority of people, including the police, don't approve of "public carry."

A bunch of angry cops would be buzzkill for law-and-order gun enthusiasts.

[hack89]

11. Given how many states have liberalized their public carry laws in the past 20 years

I would disagree. Those angry cops didn't stop it then so why should we think they will stop it now.

20 years "shall issue" concealed carry licensing was extremely rare. Now:

37 states are shall issue

9 states are may issue

4 states don't require permits for concealed carry.

[hunter]

14. I don't give a shit about gun fuck U.S.A.

Most people in the U.S.A. don't care enough about guns to bother owning one.

Many others, like me, think gun fetishes are disgusting.

I live in a place where open carry is illegal. Most of my neighbors want it that way.

[hack89]

15. That's nice nt

[hunter]

17. You should see me when I'm mean...

[PTWB]

13. Have any statistics to back up your assertions?

[hunter]

16. Eventually public acceptance of gun fuckery is going to evaporate.

Just as public acceptance of drunk driving did.

[PTWB]

26. So, that's a no, then?

[hunter]

27. I will make it so.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

[PTWB]

28. Enjoy your fantasies my friend!

[fescuerescue]

9. The NRA is actually quite happy about this ruling

Because it now it sets up the scenario to take it to the Supreme Court.

Which is packed with Trump judges.

So this is a short term win, and probably a permanent loss in a few years.

[rockfordfile]

24. The National Russian Association. The entire pos group should be jail

[Kaleva]

19. Ruling applies to the case in Hawaii.

It does not strike down "shall issue" laws in other states.

This part of the OP is incorrect:

"Hawaii’s open-carry ban is lawful, federal appeals court rules"

Hawaii does not ban open carry as long as one has a permit.

[FBaggins]

21. Well... it applies to the nine states of the 9th circuit.

But yes... allowing states to regulate so-called "open carry" is not at all the same thing as striking down other states' "shall issue" laws.

[Kaleva]

22. Basically, the laws in place stay in place.