Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the Shall-not-be-infringed dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:09PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @05:09PM (#724267)

    This is yet another example of the overtly liberal 9th circuit court. I expect the Breitberts of the country will be up in arms at this horrible judicial overreach and travesty of justice.

    Any minute now...

    Yeah...

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:07PM (#724313)

    Jack ass.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @10:25PM (#724418)

    Jack ass.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @12:16AM (#724483)

    Jack ass.

  • (Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:54AM

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:54AM (#724535) Journal

    From the opposite side of the fence, I have to warn you that you are in for a long wait. The pro-gun rights world grabbed its collective chest and fainted away at this news. The 9th circuit has been where gun rights go to die. This ruling is way off script for them.