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) by number11 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:20PM (1 child)
Why just males? Aren't females victims of assault as well? (The supply of spouse abusers and rapists would dwindle quickly if every woman had a .380 in her purse.)
The "militia" aspect is of more concern. A militia needs to be organized (or, in the words of the Constitution) "well-regulated". That requires practice and drilling. How about requiring every gun owner to participate in a weekly (or monthly) militia drill, so that we'd have a "militia" instead of a "mob"?
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday August 22 2018, @01:50AM
"Why just males? Aren't females victims of assault as well? "
Decades ago there was an advertisement (for the NRA?) about that.
Best I can recall:
It showed a woman with scared young children on a dark street with a thug coming after them. She was pulling a gun out of her purse to protect the kids.
The caption "It's not just a right, it's an obligation"
Apparently, there was a huge stink from the usual suspects and it wound up being pulled by whatever magazine(s) it was in.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды