Northwest 9th circus does it again - Rules states may restrict people from openly carrying guns in public

[Member 5605]

Earl Grey party due soon

This is highly unlikey for reasons I wont' discuss in depth on this forum.

Simply put; too many who are too comfortable to check the balance.

 

[PiratePast40]

News flash, if you're currently a CHL holder, you've already agreed to the 9th Circuit's ruling. It doesn't matter if it's shall issue or not, a CHL is a state level restriction on your right to carry.

Only people in constitutional carry states without a CHL are truly unrestricted.

Not sure what your point is. You may be a tough guy that has no responsibility to anyone but yourself, but not many of us are in that situation. Taking the chance of being imprisoned and unable to provide for our families is more important than being movie character patriots. You can go ahead and spout off about those of us following the law being creampuff turncoats but you're only turning up the volume in your own echo chamber. Please take your trolling somewhere else, we don't need it or tolerate it here.

 

[BigDog67]

You see folks, when the founders wrote, "..., the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed," they were codifying the right to carry a gun from your bedroom to the kitchen.

Do you really think they would have meant for people...like the militia...to carry guns outside the home? PuhLease! That's absurd! Because guns are dangerous Yo!

*sarcasm*

This is far from over. They can either request a full court en banc...which seems unlikely to me given that it's the 9th and they'll just uphold this decision...as ridiculous as it is...or appeal to SCOTUS. And who the hell really knows what SCOTUS will do it.

 

[CamoDeafie]

This is highly unlikey for reasons I wont' discuss in depth on this forum.

Simply put; too many who are too comfortable to check the balance.

Indeed. It's going to have to get much worse before any significant number of people get off their butts and get into action... probably oh long after Biden/Harris perhaps when China claims much of the United States as its slave colony... simply due to the massive debt it owns..perhaps after the economy finally crashes and die.

 

[Member 53328]

I live near Portland. I am now claiming to be homeless. My gun goes where I go. My home is constantly changing. I identify as a bum from this point forward. A well armed bum. Haha.

 

[JRuby]

I have tried to act lawfully in my life however if they have decided to make me a criminal with no wrong doing on my part there is little incentive to care or obey the laws. I no longer need to renew my CHL for instance. I hope the SCOTUS does their job and at least hear this case.

 

[Boss]

Only a politician could so blatantly contradict themselves within seconds with a straight face. 'Nobody is coming for your guns...we need to get these these weapons of war off our streets [ie. ban them].'

Sorta like 'buy back.' How do you 'buy back' something you've never owned? But many a sheeple are duped by this term...Same types of folks who believe lies like 'gun show loop hole' or believe that when you buy a firearm online, they just ship it straight to your house. Was watching a YT video yesterday having a discussion on guns, and one of the participants admitted he just learned that during the discussion - online sales still require shipment to a local FFL for paperwork/BGC and transfer/pickup. Seriously... Of course, a lot of folks (particularly D's/libs) got that education last year when this whole situation kicked off and found out that it doesn't work that way (but, but, but...the [fake news] MSM always says it's soooo easy to buy a gun!).

Like most of their positions, they collapse under actual rational scrutiny.

$.02 worth,
Boss

 

[Soli]

You should all read the opinion and dissents. Comentary is helpful but not always right.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

The nut of their decision is based on the notion of "threats to the King's peace;" open carry in itself causes "terror" and shows that the state has lost control of maintaining peace in the community. That mandate to "keep the peace" allows the state to deny open carry.

The decision never squares the circle of their exceptions (eg, someone with a direct threat being granted the right to open carry, which Hawaii allows) not being a perceived threat to peace (how does the community know that this guy is open carrying for "good reason" while another is not?). If carrying a gun on my hip is a threat to peace because it "terrorizes" those who see me, how is it not a threat if I carry and the reason why is known only to the state who gave me permission? I'm not in uniform or anything. I'm just a schmo wearing chinos and a t-shirt with my revolver.

Anyway... just my non-lawyer take after a quick read. Probably misread something.

At any rate the dissent will win in the supreme court IMO. The practical blanket ban is too much.

 

[CamoDeafie]

At any rate the dissent will win in the supreme court IMO. The practical blanket ban is too much.

I wish I have your optimism regarding SCOTUS

 

[E4mafia]

NSSF Denounces 9th Circuit Ruling Ignoring 2nd Amendment Language

The NSSF rejects the legal gymnastics the 7-4 en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

www.ammoland.com

 

[Burt Gummer]

I've taken a lot of heat for it over the years, but I had to agree with George Carlin in that we really don't have any rights. We have liberties which can be defined as 'permission' to do something which can be taken away. We all live under a draconian gov in its infancy/transition to Communism. Just look at the lockdowns and muzzles. A person's 'right' to earn a living has even been taken away in most states. If you believe these actions are about a virus you are naive. It is an exercise in power and control.

Americans have once again proven ourselves (speaking of the 95%, not you folks) as gutless, ignorant spineless cowards and boot lickers ready to comply with anything. Just looking at the sheep walking around outdoors with their muzzles is nauseating. Now in just one year the proverbial bent knee is global and everything has changed. Oh mighty gov, save us; anything you want just please make us safe.

The global - tired term, but let's call them elites - must be overjoyed and baffled at how easy their media has turned the average person's brain to mush. For those who are not aware a small handful of corps control all MSM since 1996. Conveniently five years prior to 2001. Those who control the media run the world.

There will be no revolt as firearm 'rights' slowly drift away over time. That is what the Oligarchs - or again as Carlin referred to as 'our owners' want. Unfortunately, and especially with a muzzle happy, fearful and compliant populace our owners will eventually get everything they want.

Just have their media peddle fear fear fear constantly 24/7/365. If they are not getting far enough, fast enough, just expect a rash of shootings across the country like no time before. Other than that, enjoy the buffet. Was hoping to be expired before seeing all this happen, including the eventual collapse of our economy and society, but no such luck.
Interesting video. No, I won't be leaving. Too old, too slow, too embedded.

 

[billdeserthills]

Conventional that they left out Idaho although I do recall Arizona having a Constitutional Carry thing?

Well. It opens up a SCOTUS potential case because.. Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana.. these 4 States have a form of permitless/Constitutional Carry laws.

Over 1,200 jurisdictions in 37 states are 2nd Amendment sanctuaries

Second Amendment Sanctuaries: Are They Realistic? - U.S. LawShield

The number of states declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries is on the rise. This means a question being asked with increasing frequency is coming to the forefront: Is the decision to make states “sanctuaries” legally binding, or does it only do lip service to the gun rights community...

www.uslawshield.com

 

[saxon]

Can you give us the Cliff Notes version for the legally challenged? 215 pages is a bit much for some of us.

he did not challenge that he could not get a CHL, but sent to the court that he could not OC, the court said that he did not go through the prosses of getting or finding out why he cold not get a CHL FIRST ergo the court filing was premature in regards to him getting a CHL of finding out why he could not. the decent comments from the 9th are very telling if the case was measured on the right to carry period, but HW gives the person the ability to get a CHL instead of a permit to OC.

 

[L84Cabo]

The article I read said it WAS an en banc decision, 11-4.

There's either a typo in the article you read or in what you posted.

The initial en banc hearings in the 9th consist of 11 judges. The decision here was 7-4, not 11-4. The case is Young v. Hawaii so you can google it and confirm the 7-4 outcome...but here is an ABA Journal article confirming 7-4.

Gun owners have no unfettered right to carry their weapons in public, en banc appeals court says

The Second Amendment doesn’t protect an unfettered right to openly carry a gun or pistol in public, according to the en banc 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco.

www.abajournal.com

The parties now have 90 days (if memory serves) where they can request a subsequent second en banc with the entire 29 judge panel. My bet, however, is that they won't since there are still more Democrats than Republicans on the 9th, so it's unlikely this would be overturned...even as ridiculous as this finding is.

 

[The Heretic]

Judges erase ‘and bear arms’ from Second Amendment - Washington Examiner

Even before the ink dries on a controversial new gun-control decision by the San Francisco-based 9th District Court of Appeals, firearms advocates are preparing to push it to the U.S. Supreme Court because it appears to rewrite the Second Amendment.In deciding Young v. State of Hawaii, the split...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[AirWolf]

but HW gives the person the ability to get a CHL instead of a permit to OC.

It's telling that Hawaii gives the ability to get a CHL, but then as soon as this court case was decided en-mass denied all applications that were pending. So a de facto ban.

 

[GWS]

It's telling that Hawaii gives the ability to get a CHL, but then as soon as this court case was decided en-mass denied all applications that were pending. So a de facto ban.

That act of BS should be worth another lawsuit ASAP!

 

[Rkangel]

Don't worry states like oregon are refusing to prosecute criminals or dropping charges, dismantling measure 11 and making it retro active, releasing prisoners, welcoming illegals, allowing rampant homelessness and mental illness, and celebrating rioting, theft, and trying to harm/kill police officers, defunding the police, decriminalizing drugs, while deliberately tanking the economy.

I mean in this liberal (socialist) utopia we shouldn't need guns

They won't prosecute these crimes but will make darn sure concealed carry holders go to prison for driving too close to a school or government building.

 

[Patriot1775]

Time to get your "musket" from the mantle. Check the flint, fill the powder horn, and cast some balls. The Lobsterbacks are marching out of Boston. If you get my historical example.

 

[billdeserthills]

Thing is, I got priors & buying another lawyer gets really expensive with priors. Can't I simply help fund the effort & still get some credit for giving a damn?