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: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:37PM (2 children)
The NRA played the long game. For the better part of 200 years the high court never considered the 2nd Amendment to be about personal gun ownership. Then in the 1970s at the famous 1977 convention, they decided to turn into the nutty Washington lobbyists they are today [theconversation.com]. From that point on, they decided to change the legal philosophy. Everyone is pretty familiar with their overt political influence of vote-buying (in fact, they've pretty much defined the stereotype of the K Street vote bribing machine), but they also spent a lot of time and resources behind the scenes [washingtonpost.com] in supporting the "right" kind of thinking legal academics, including establishing chairs at law schools for people who think the right way. Then by the late 80s, the Second Amendment suddenly spoke so clear about personal gun ownership, which was something that it apparently wasn't so crystal clear for the previous 200 years [iit.edu].
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:48AM
Except no. Here is the drafting history of the 2A: https://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=47472&p=654598#p654575 [theliberalgunclub.com]
And note that it didn't arise in a vacuum, but came out of legal oppression and solutions to that oppression back in the Old Country: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/16/the-nice-girl-who-saved-the-second-amendment/ [nationalreview.com]
That the 2nd Amendment may have been treated as an embarrassment by certain people over the years does not change the meaning of it. We should reconsider all these efforts to interpret the Constitution out of existence -- if you want to change it, then follow the process for changing it. Don't do to it what was done to the 4th Amendment, such that the exceptions add up to virtual meaningless today. This "undermine and redefine" strategy is incredibly dangerous -- it turns these principles into mere power-principles and you have to plan for the day when you are out of power. If there is anything people should have learned in the last two years, it is that you don't always win and someone you might hate will then wield power. Let yourselves be constrained by the Constitution so that your opponents are likewise constrained, otherwise, you will suffer at the hand of your enemy.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Wednesday August 22 2018, @04:48PM
Everyone understood the right is both an individual right for the first 200 years and knew they'd be ridiculed as a dunce if they said something different, so there was no need for a high court to take up the matter as it didn't arise.
The Constitutional convention wasn't a mythical event. We have the minutes of the meetings and the letters of the participants. They felt that mere words weren't enough defense for freedom (from the new federal authority in the case of the states) so they intended the 2nd to apply both to states and individuals and spelled that out. Towards the end the document was far to long and wordy so it was cut for length. Most thought the current wording clear enough for all but a dunce, but others figured the unethical would try to use weasel language to deny the plain meaning. Apparently the minority was correct.
You can find the actual things they said gathered in places like the Annals of America. It's not some kind of mystery.
If you want to change the 2nd to mean something else, get an amendment passed.