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, 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."