BREAKING. Ninth Circuit Just Made a Second Amendment Ruling That Will Leave You Shaking Your Head

BREAKING. Ninth Circuit Just Made a Second Amendment Ruling That Will Leave You Shaking Your Head

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has just ruled that the right to openly carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense is a protected activity under the Second Amendment. The case is Young vs. Hawaii and the lawsuit challenges a Hawaii law, much like that in my own state of Maryland, that severely restricts possession of firearms: Section 134-9 acts as a limited exception to the State of Hawaii’s “Place[s] to Keep” statutes, which generally require that gun owners keep their firearms at their “place of business, residence, or sojourn.” A concealed carry or open carry permit is only issued once you’ve convinced the local police chief that you are engaged in an activity “[w]here the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated” and the applicant “is engaged in the protection of life and property.” Here are some key points. The Heller and McDonald cases were absolute game changers in this decision…it is refreshing to see the Ninth Circuit has heard of them. They take pains to point out that, by the logic of their Peruta vs. San Diego , if concealed carry is not a right, then open carry must be: In short, the text of the Amendment, as interpreted by Heller and McDonald, points toward the conclusion that “bear” implies a right to carry firearms publicly for self-defense. They cite to Dred Scott’s use of bearing firearms as a marker of citizenship to show that this is a historical right, which is a pretty […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.