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: 3, Insightful) by Zinho on Wednesday August 22 2018, @02:32AM (1 child)
No, it's an unfortunate aspect of the human experience. Here in the US we're struggling to overcome our all-too-recent history of allowing people with light skin arbitrarily kill people with darker skin [1]; other places around the world had their own problems that they're working to overcome in their own ways. It wasn't too long ago that in Europe a member of the upper class/Aristocracy could literally run over a commoner in the street with their horse and carriage without any remorse or even a suggestion of legal consequences. Japanese warriors were once in the habit of testing the sharpness of their sword by slicing unsuspecting peasants in half. In 1994 the Hutu tribe who ruled Rwanda killed between 500,000-1,000,000 members of the Tutsi tribe, for a combination of the reasons you listed. Immigrant workers in the Middle East today are hardly better off than the european peasants I mentioned earlier.
As another commenter pointed out, even the officer/enlisted split in the military and the boss/employee split in business/industry create barriers to trust, respect, and friendship that are baked into the system intentionally. No matter how much trust, friendship, or respect may exist between a soldier and their commander, if they have sex then in the U.S. Army the commander will be brought up on rape charges because the power imbalance between them makes the soldier unable to meaningfully consent.
You appear to believe [2] that people are generally decent and will treat each other well just because we're all human. Psychology tells us that tribalism is far too common, and that any us/them divide is sufficient cause for some people to distrust, disrespect, and be generally unfriendly to anyone in the "them" category. Our human rights should not be dependent on others being nice. Since we cannot actually legislate civility nor regulate friendship, we should seek a means for preserving the human rights of everyone.
Runaway1956 proposed a solution, which you have dismissed as unnecessary. What alternative do you propose?
[1] Dark-skinned soldiers returning from foreign wars to their homes in the US have been literally told by their neighbors never to wear their uniforms or medals in public, because "we don't hold no truck with negroes getting medals for killing white folk". Our WWII veterans still living bear heartbreaking testimony of this treatment.
[2] call me out, please, if I'm strawmanning you here
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @10:48AM
That's not quite true. If the horse or carriage was damaged, the peasant's family was quite likely to be sold into 'indentured servitude' to pay for it.