U.S. appeals court: Constitution gives right to carry gun in public

[inwiththenew]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home.

The extent of the right to gun ownership protected by the Second Amendment is one of the most hotly contested debates in the United States, where life has been punctuated by a steady stream of mass shootings.

The ruling issued by a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, came a year after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule either way on the carrying of guns in public.

Two of the three 9th Circuit judges voted to reverse a decision by the U.S. District Court in Hawaii that state officials did not infringe on the rights of George Young, the plaintiff, in twice denying him a permit to carry a gun outside.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/u-s-appeals-court-constitution-gives-right-to-carry-gun-in-public-idUSKBN1KE28C

---

Here we go again.

[HopeAgain]

1. Guns before people...

Welcome to America and its demented obsession with guns.

[jalan48]

2. Trump's paramilitary followers will be exercising their rights rest assured.

It won't be about intimidation at all.

[mahina]

3. Noooo

My beautiful home has been mostly spared, till now.

[turbinetree]

4. Oh boy whats next gun duels on the streets...............bringing back Aaron Burr and Hamilton

or Matt Dillon and some other hombre................posters being put on telephone poles or...................

Oh fucking boy a country that already has over 270 million fucking guns, and some psychopath can now walk freely outside on the streets with one, because the back ground checks are fucked up..................and I don't want to hear the bull shit of the second amendment.............or this court said this ..............

I just wonder how this respectable organization is going to classify this bull shit court ruling.............


http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

[ArizonaLib]

5. Serious if it is the 9th circuit

Makes it easier for the supreme court to back up such a ruling. Why is the 1st amendment not protected when someone yells 'Fire' in a movie theater where people may get hurt but have a less chance of dying when someone carries in an assault rifle into the same theater? The easiest way to fix this is a fair minded supreme court.

[FBaggins]

11. This was just a 3-judge panel from the circuit

Two Bush and one Reagan appointee. They could appeal to the entire circuit en-banc and have a pretty good chance of reversing the decision... though I doubt that SCOTUS would uphold such a ruling.

Why is the 1st amendment not protected when someone yells 'Fire' in a movie theater where people may get hurt

I think that would have been the better argument. Specifically... yes, 2A does explicitly protect the right to "bear" arms - but the state has a compelling interest to restrict that right.

Arguing that 2A is "only has force within the home" borders on nonsensical.

[ArizonaLib]

12. Thanks for the info.

Good to know.

[X_Digger]

17. Stop using that example, it's wrong and the case was horrible.

You absolutely can falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. And the case that quote is taken from is one of the most horrible examples of butchery of the first amendment in the country.

Just don't.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

[ArizonaLib]

18. True or not, it symbolizes many examples of the SCOTUS's willingness to make exceptions

for the general well being/safety/welfare of the population. I also like to use it because it drives numb nut conservatives crazy. Going to continue to use it.

[X_Digger]

19. There are better examples, like time/place/manner restrictions.

You should read the article I posted above.

You're using a case that was about it being illegal to protest war as your example.

A more odious case, I can't imagine off the top of my head.

But sure, continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the subject by using something that's actually legal and calling it illegal.

[elleng]

6. 'The decision did not change the court's earlier ruling that the Second Amendment does not

guarantee a right to carry concealed firearms in public.'

[ArizonaLib]

7. Republican judicial appointments

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, appointed by Ronald Reagan. Both D-bags.

[petronius]

26. O'Scannlain also wrote the 2-1 opinion in Peruta two years ago,

which was then reversed by the court en banc. The USSC didn't take that one up; I wonder how far history will repeat itself...

[TexasProgresive]

8. Is that true for Blacks or

Are they 3/5 of a person? This is sort of sarcasm but I ma sick of my black brothers being shot by out of control police and others.

On an other note, can armed black people stand their ground in Florida?

[marshmallow_man]

14. if anything this should reduce police shootings.

A lot of cops unfortunately operate on the assumption that anyone with a gun is a dangerous criminal. Hopefully decisions like this one can lead to better training for officers so they know how to interact with law-abiding armed citizens.

Re: stand your ground, in Florida black defendants were actually more likely than whites to be found not guilty when using stand your ground as a defense.

[JonLP24]

21. I doubt it

There are so many guns out there they can use all sorts of justifications because of guns. Especially if someone has a gun.

[mr_lebowski]

29. Yeah, but black defendants are also a hell of a lot less likely to EVER MAKE IT TO COURT ...

Seems pretty self-evident why they might be (assuming you have stats to back this up) found not guilty at a higher rate ... cause any black person even remotely guilty ... is already dead by cop.

Welcome to DU, btw ...

[mr_lebowski]

9. So ... wait ... did the 9th f'ing Circuit just effectively declare 'open-carry' to be the law of the

Land? Am I reading this correctly?

Sounds to me like no state will henceforth be allowed to ban open-carry.

Do I have that wrong, and if so, why?

Or can people at least still be required to have permits for open carry, at least?

[sl8]

15. Well, just the states in the 9th Circuit

[cstanleytech]

23. They really need to redo that in my opinion.

Shift the 3 Pacific states into a new district with Hawaii and Alaska and move NY into the 3rd and Vermont and Connecticut into the 1st.

[mr_lebowski]

28. You sure that's how it works? How come these courts can like stop the Muslim ban

Nationwide (or at least, they did at one time I thought).

I thought decisions like these, barring the SC deciding different, are applicable nationwide.

[sl8]

30. Decisions made by a circuit court of appeals are binding within their circuit.

Decisions made by a circuit court of appeals are binding on other (lower) federal courts only within that circuit. If a similar open carry case comes up in an Arizona district court, their decision must be made in accordance with this 9th Circuit decision. If a similar open carry case arises in a Louisiana district court, they are not bound to follow 9th Circuit decisions. They are, however, obligated to follow any relevant 5th Circuit decisions. The different circuits can, and do, reach different decisions in similar cases and then we'll have different binding precedents in different parts of the country. At that point, when the circuits are split, hopefully SCOTUS will take and decide a case that will resolve the split. Of course, their decision is then binding on all circuits.

With regard to courts stopping the Muslim ban, I believe you're talking about the various federal district courts that issued restraining orders to prevent enforcement of Trump's travel bans. The federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions, although I don't know very much about that.

Here's an article about the latter that you might find interesting:

Nationwide Injunctions and the Lower Federal Courts
https://www.lawfareblog.com/nationwide-injunctions-and-lower-federal-courts

[Blue_Adept]

10. Looks like I'll be using amazon more and more

[forgotmylogin]

13. I hear you.

Next stop - the rise of home security businesses straight out of THE PURGE movies.

I already don't like going places I don't have to now.

[X_Digger]

16. No amendment 'gives' any rights.

Christ, reuters, take a class on the enlightenment. Rights exist; governments are instituted among people to protect them.

Sloppy thinking like that is what got us in this position in the first place.

[rwsanders]

20. I thought making it through law school required more than a first grade reading comprehension...

I'm not getting where "well-regulated" or "militia" come to play in this case. I've heard the non-sense that "militia" is supposed to be all of us, but even if we concede that word (which I don't), open carry doesn't meet "well-regulated".

[marshmallow_man]

24. well-regulated meant "well-equipped" at the time

Carry outside the home comes from the "and bear" part. I don't see this ruling defining whether that means "concealed" or "open" or what level of training (if any) will be required.

[rwsanders]

31. Even if that were true, I doubt that at the time that militia meant anyone who owned a gun.

Overall, it just reinforces my belief that there is will be no end of the twisting of the meaning of the Constitution until it is essentially meaningless. i.e. the concepts that corporations are people, money is speech, militia is any clown with a gun, etc., etc.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

27. Militia Act of 1903

Made all members of State Defense Forces, National Guard, and Naval Militia part of the Organized militia. It also put all able bodied males, ages 17-45, who are not in any of the previously mentioned groups, as part of the unorganized militia, which is known as the Reserve Militia. So, if you are an able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the Reserve Militia.

[rwsanders]

32. Based on that law then, it would appear that the "organized" the well regulated and the others...

can get their guns when the organize.

[cstanleytech]

22. What needs to happen is the 2nd amendment needs to be amended otherwise

a number of laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people that should probably never be allowed to even own them will remain at risk of being ruled unconstitutional.

[ManiacJoe]

33. Not at all.

The laws just have to be well written.
Who is to be not allowed needs to be well defined and narrowly defined.
Due process for removing their rights needs to be well defined.

While the current federal laws are not great examples, they are not bad ones either.

[cstanleytech]

34. Yes but SCOTUS can always throw the laws out still down the road they cannot

however do anything about an amendment to the Constitution itself.

[Devil Child]

35. Unexpected, but good news to me