Ninth Circuit holds there is no right to bear arms

Ninth Circuit holds there is no right to bear arms

The en banc Ninth Circuit last week held that the Second Amendment does not extend to open public firearm carriage. The new in Young v. State of Hawaii complements the Circuit’s en banc from five years earlier, Peruta v. San Diego , which held that concealed carry is outside the Second Amendment. According to the Ninth Circuit, carrying arms in public for defense is "not within the scope of the right protected by the Second Amendment." By statute, Hawaii has a restrictive "may issue" carry licensing system. If an applicant proves "sufficient" "urgency or need," then a police chief "may" issue a permit. In practice, Hawaii is "never issue." Carry permits are issued to security guards for use while on duty, and never to private citizens. George Mocsary (U. Wyoming Law) and I examine the decision in a new article, Errors of Omission: Words Missing from the Ninth Circuit’s Young v. State of Hawaii . We argue that when the Ninth Circuit’s sources are examined in detail, they support the conclusion opposite from the one reached by the court. While carrying defensive arms may be regulated, it may not be prohibited. Below are some arguments from the article. Supreme Court opinions Young avoids quoting the language from the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller that is directly on point: Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on […]

Leave a Reply

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