SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On July 24th, 2018 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Hawaiian officials had violated George Young's rights when he was denied a permit to openly carry a loaded gun in public to protect himself. The decision in Young vs Hawaii (PDF warning) holds that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable citizens to defend themselves, and that the right to openly carry a firearm in public is implicit in the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms". This expands on the Heller vs DC decision, which guaranteed the right to own and keep firearms in the home.
The scope of this decision is currently limited to the 7 States covered by the 9th Circuit. There is little doubt that Hawaii will petition for an en banc review of the ruling and that no matter how that is decided, it is likely to make it to the Supreme Court. The state's only other choice would seem to be compliance with the ruling and allowing the open carry of handguns. For the time being, nothing is going to change, even in Hawaii. The court did not issue an injunction or otherwise impose any requirement for the state to immediately comply with its ruling and state authorities are simply evaluating their options.
One final link to be taken with a grain of salt: a California resident is seeking lawyers who will help file a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against California Attorney General Becerra restraining him from enforcing California's Open Carry bans (California Penal Code sections 25850, 26350, and 26400). The same article calls out the NRA for not taking action:
In any event, you won't see any of the so-called gun-rights lawyers fighting for Open Carry because they, and the organizations which hire them, such as the NRA, CRPA, SAF, CalGuns.nuts, et., oppose Open Carry. How do we know that? They said so in their Federal court filings and/or in their oral argument before Federal judges.
I find it ironic that a Federal judge seems to be taking a more pro-arms position than the NRA itself.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by bobthecimmerian on Tuesday August 21 2018, @12:41PM (14 children)
Open carry makes perfect sense as long as you're not black or Latino. A black college professor in a suit could probably stroll down the road with a sidearm holstered at his hip, and he would get gunned down by a quarter of the cops in the country without saying a word first.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 21 2018, @01:12PM
https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-attack-stokes-open-carry-debate-8476140 [dallasobserver.com]
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Man-Mistakenly-Identified-as-July-7-Shooter-Struggles-to-Shed-Suspect-Label-432726353.html [nbcdfw.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by DannyB on Tuesday August 21 2018, @01:46PM (10 children)
Don't you think that is grossly unfair to cops? They would say a word first.
GUN !!!!
Then the professor would be gunned down in a hail of gunfire. The police would call in surplus military gear to destroy and scorch the entire area. Then police would begin tagging evidence, taking photos, etc. and then asking questions about who this person was, why he was here, where he was coming from, where he was going to, etc.
The police report would indicate that this guy was guilty of obstructing police officers in the performance of their donut eating.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:50PM (8 children)
This is why we need video surveillance drones hovering 390' overhead, with blue-white countershading and near silent props, difficult to notice in the first place, more difficult to target, and inherently unsafe for officers to be discharging their weapons upwards in a populated area.
The drone won't stop you from being shot, but its high definition video - live streamed via 4G, multiply archived and publicly shared, should put a hurt worse than a single death on the cops who did the shooting, and their departments.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Freeman on Tuesday August 21 2018, @04:33PM (5 children)
You can keep your Sci-Fi Dystopian Future. I don't want a web of privacy invading robots flying all over the place. I can see them being used in limited fashion, but as a blanket of robots that see all, no thanks.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:13PM (4 children)
I wouldn't expect them to see all, just to see me, and if the footage is boring - delete it before letting it go public.
However, if I'm a black man open-carrying, I think I'd be making that footage public instantly, just in case - and as an insurance policy for the family.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 21 2018, @09:06PM (3 children)
So, only in the event that it's a black man carrying is it posted publicly. Yeah, that doesn't sound good / better. There are/were rules in place to protect one's privacy. Sure, we may have more or less signed them away with the "Patriot Act", but at least that's not a lets look at everyone, everywhere, for good measure. It's only a we'll look where we want, when we want. Which isn't much, if any better.
The right to the expectation of privacy, especially from the government, is what's at stake there.
The scenario around Benjamin Franklin's famous quote may not have been geared toward this, but the man could write. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."--Benjamin Franklin
The context: https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ [techcrunch.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 21 2018, @09:37PM
So, black is the just shorthand. I'm white, very white, but also have had long hair and/or beards at times, and that can get its own kind of persecution from law enforcement, especially when younger.
If I were choosing to open carry with long hair in a conservative/rural area, I'd like to have that surveillance of myself, and willingly post it openly as insurance. These are two choices made and controlled by me: 1) to open carry, and 2) to publicly disclose what happens while I'm doing so. If I've got things in my life that I don't want to disclose that openly, I have a choice then to turn off the cameras and still open carry - if I've got enough of a reputation for concealed video surveillance it might just protect me even when it's not there - that's a risk at my choosing.
In real life, I still wear the hair, but don't open carry (even though I have lived a couple of places/times where it was legal), because I feel that sidearms are mostly for cowards in today's world.
If you want to talk about the sanctity of the 2nd amendment, that kind of became moot with helicopters, long range sniper rifles, infrared imaging, hellfire missiles, etc. A musket might have evened you up with the Redcoats, but there's no way I want the U.S. populace to be entitled to today's military grade weapons.
The people's weapon of today is transparency. We should protect, exercise and expand our rights to wield it at our discretion, and also demand it of those who would make and enforce laws for us.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:33AM (1 child)
I think people are missing one important point:
To protect himself. Against what? In Hawaii? Feral pineapples? The Hawksbill Sea Turtle? WTF are you so scared of in Hawaii that you feel you need to carry a loaded firearm?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23 2018, @12:31AM
it's not necessarily about being scared. it's about being prepared instead of going around waiting on your masters to protect you. hawaii has a fairly serious meth problem too, fyi.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:07PM (1 child)
How about instead, we just require all cops to wear always-on bodycams while they're performing their civic duty, and if it's found that the camera is turned off at any time, they're automatically fired with no pension or appeal.
I get the feeling that would drastically cut down on the "oops we lost the footage" or "oops we turned off the dashcam" incidents. Why the fuck is it even possible for the patrol officers to turn off these cameras?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 22 2018, @01:05AM
Because it's not just the officers who lose, it's their supervisors and their department and their city/state.
Each layer up helps protect the one beneath, and we the people only have the weakest of leverage on the top positions.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday August 22 2018, @05:07AM
It's OK, if you're black there's a useful reference work How Not to Get Shot [harpercollins.com] by Professors D. L. Hughley and D. Moe for just this eventuality.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:47PM (1 child)
This is not true. Snopes bias is showing in that they purposely word this to pretend they're refuting something they aren't, but even with their bias they admit that you're not more likely to be shot even with a firearm as a minority.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people/ [snopes.com]
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/police-violence-against-black-men-rare-heres-what-data-actually-say/ [nationalreview.com]
. Don't want to get in the way of an awesomely politically powerful narrative though.
(Score: 2) by bobthecimmerian on Wednesday August 22 2018, @04:33PM
Your articles are interesting - especially from the National Review. But I question the validity of the statistics they used. One of the things that caused a public outcry after the Michael Brown shooting was the statistics that came out of Ferguson:
"Ferguson’s population is 67% African American, according to the 2010 census. Yet between 2012 and 2014, 93% of all arrests were of black people and almost nine in 10 uses of force were against African Americans. In all 14 bites by police dogs when racial information of the person bitten was available, that person was African American.
The review found 85% of drivers stopped by police were black, and that African American drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to be searched. Yet black drivers were more than 25% less likely to be found in possession of illegal substances or goods. African American drivers were much more likely than whites to be cited for driving offences when these were observed by police officers in person rather than detected by radar or similar technology."