The court contradicts the Second Amendment and itself in a bizarre anti-gun ruling.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”~ Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.” ~ Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Who are you going to believe, the Founders who wrote the Second Amendment or the lying despots seated on the Ninth Circuit?
The 7-4 en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit is apparently of the leftist school of thought that insists the Second Amendment is all about militias and not the people. In the original understanding of the Founders, however, the people are the militia, so these leftists are plainly wrong.
The judges added, “We can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.” Instead, they insist, the Second Amendment applies only to the “defense of hearth and home.” They have reduced the word “bear” to utter meaninglessness.
Imagine this onerous restriction in light of any other constitutional right. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech [in the home].” Or even of faux constitutional rights like abortion or marriage. You can have an abortion, so long as the doctor comes to your home. You can marry a same-sex partner, but it doesn’t count once you leave your house.
The absurdity is self-evident. Yet that’s what passes for leftist logic when it comes to guns.
Time to HANG the Judges
Moreover, the offending judges reach around the Constitution by appealing to 150-year-old Hawaii law. “In order to reach their conclusions,” notes gun writer Cam Edwards, “the judges in the majority decided that laws in place in Hawaii before it ever became a state take precedence over the clear and unambiguous language of the Second Amendment, which declares that the right of the people to both keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. According to the Ninth Circuit, those ‘longstanding traditions’ in Hawaii law matter more than the Constitution itself.”
That’s to say nothing of King Edward I, whom the judges also cite in going all the way back to English law in the Middle Ages. Didn’t we fight a war of independence from England in which the first shots were fired over an attempt at gun confiscation? Yes, yes we did.
This bizarre ruling also flies in the face not only of the Ninth Circuit’s own previous jurisprudence but of the Supreme Court’s important rulings in Heller and McDonald. Unfortunately, Heller largely focused on confirming that the Second Amendment is an individual right, while McDonald held that the Second Amendment is “incorporated” against the states. That narrow focus left the question of bearing arms outside the home a glaring example of the Supreme Court’s dereliction on the Second Amendment.
Perhaps that will change now that the Ninth Circuit has somewhat contradicted itself, as well as two other circuit courts. Three years ago, the Ninth struck down Hawaii’s “may issue” gun-permit regime. In Young v. Hawaii, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, who dissented in this week’s case, wrote, “The Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
The current majority nevertheless pointed to a 2016 ruling in which it “held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public.” Yet that ruling was itself an en banc decision overturning a previous ruling to the contrary.
The court, as O’Scannlain put it in his dissent, “has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says.”
Obviously, it’s time for the Supreme Court to provide some clarity on an amendment that is abundantly clear to originalists but has been treated as a second-class right.
Written by Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post ~ March 25, 2021
What about Heller?
Well, I do not want to hang anybody. I would send some lawmen back to training (say, every two years), and suspended their judicial credentials if they flunked a rigorous class in formal logic.
The 9th Circuit has a long history of fallacious reasoning. In some cases it looks as if they were making-up their invalid logic in order to derive their preconceived false conclusions.
One of the driving errors in their invalid reasoning is moralistic fallacy, that is also a typical (but invalid) excuse for legislating from the bench.
Carrying a firearm in public has to be unprotected by the US Constitution (in particular, by 2nd and 9th Amendment) , they speculate. Therefore, carrying a firearm in public IS unprotected by the US Constitution.
To see how dangerous for our Constitutional rights their illogicality is, consider this.
Today, they falsely conclude that there is no Constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. Tomorrow, using the same fallacies, they falsely conclude that there is no Constitutional right to carry a firearm in private. From which they will arrive at another false conclusion that there is no right to carry a firearm anywhere. That would pretty much nix 2nd Amendment and obliterate 9th Amendment.
Clearly, there are many federal judges who are well qualified, wise, and impartial. District Judge, Hon. Roger Benitez is one of them. But there are some that are none of the above.
I would say, Lord save us from stupid judges.
i believe the judges never read the federalist papers or were too stupid to understand what the founders meant when they drafted our constitution and bill of rights. both are easy to understand by any reasonable person.
then again does a leftist liberal have any common sense ?
people, never comply with expo facto laws.
“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.” ~ Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Has anyone bothered to look up the definition of “bear” in a dictionary? If you did, you would see the word “carry” in the definition. I also have many, many quotes from our founding fathers exposing it is an individual right that comes from our “creator”, not government. Funny thing is that someone keeps taking those quotes down on the internet every ime I post them on a website. By the way, governments job is to protect our Creator endowed rights, not to control them. Someone should tell that to the 9th Circuit Court which is one of the most overturned Circuits in the USA. When I hear that a ruling comes from that court, I know the chances are very good it will be overturned by a higher court. Sadly, we have too many idiot Judges in the court system now that you just have to accept this roller coaster ride until it gets to the higher courts. IT USUALLY GETS OVERTURNED AT THAT POINT. That is why the Democrats are pushing to stack the courts again, just like Commie FDR did. You see, the Supreme Court kept ruling all of his socialist ideas UNCONSTITUTIONAL and he got mad about it. His solution was to stack the courts. Is it an wonder that traitors like Hillary Clinton love Elanor Roosevelt? This is why no one should allow Joe Biden to get away with stacking the court today. Impeach him, if necessary! Lord knows he has enough involving Ukraine ALONE to do it!