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: 1) by khallow on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:28AM (4 children)
There's a good reason to do so. It's not legally relevant.
Then why didn't they say that in the Second Amendment? After all, it's not a stretch to think that well-regulated could merely mean a well-trained and equipped private force, for example.
And yet, even then, guns with a higher fire rate were known and being developed.
Which let us note is still the same today. The least accurate guns are indeed less accurate than a bow and arrow. If it's relevant then, then why isn't it relevant now? And the most accurate guns of that time were more accurate than a bow and arrow and to a greater range.
Or they'd bring a bunch of friends so that they outnumbered who else was there. And why would it be a bad idea to continue to arm people today so that the situation continues as it did then?
Even if it's two orders of magnitude more than the US armed forces can muster? Think about it.
Evidence? Or is this yet another time you just make up shit?
(Score: 2) by weeds on Wednesday August 22 2018, @06:05PM (3 children)
So some of the words in the amendment matter and some don't - I see
I don't know. The amendments and the entire document are brief. They don't expand on the common knowledge or meaning of words. Hence the federalist papers.
Actually it is. well regulated militia meant a state controlled force. You don't have to imagine anything.
I don't think that is really relevant. I give these boys a lot of credit for what they did and what they foresaw. I suppose they could have imagined going into a local department store and buying a semiautomatic weapon.
Well then, we will allow this to apply to all guns since some of them are similar in some way. Makes sense to me.
But that isn't what is happening is it?
As I said, it's because the guns are not the same
I have thought about that. And I suppose it would be along debate. I just don't see it when I think of grenades, RPG's, carpet bombing and drones, etc... vs automatic rifles
Read the federalist papers. It is explained there where so much is explained so that the states would ratify the new constitution.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday August 23 2018, @03:36AM (2 children)
That is indeed correct. The Preamble is another such example.
They don't need to. And the Federalist papers aren't legally binding.
Whatever. It's not what "well-regulated" meant back then or means now.
Indeed.
The point is that the comment was deceptive and I illustrated that by pointing out that it's still true today.
You need better than that. Most things change. If we threw away the rules just because things changed, then we wouldn't ever keep any rules around.
Most gang warfare probably is of that sort.
And sufficient manufacturing capability to make grenades, RPGs, carpet bombing, etc. There is this conceit that the US military will be able to protect its supply lines and manufacturing capability while being able to indefinitely deny the same to a vastly numerous foe.
Which ones? Maybe you ought to read the collective works of Ayn Rand first before telling us to do a lot of work without reason or context.
(Score: 2) by weeds on Monday August 27 2018, @06:55PM (1 child)
This has gotten pretty long and I do enjoy getting these perspectives. Let me make a few comments and you can close it out.
I don't try to say this part is important and this part isn't. To me that gives too much latitude to pick and choose. By the time you are done with that, you don't have anything.
I know the Federalist Papers aren't legally binding. I'm not an expert in constitutional law (or any law for that matter.) The Federalist Papers were written to explain the values of the constitution (and amendments) to the common man. They were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. I respect their opinions and consider this work to be significant.
I can see your point on this. However, I really don't think any number of untrained civilians with guns have much chance against the US military force.
From what I read, Well Regulated meant that the state had good control of the militia. I don't remember where I read that.
I wasn't trying to be deceptive. I think there are very big problems when applying the 2nd today owing to the huge change in what constitutes "arms". There isn't much in the constitution that speaks to technology. It endures because it speaks about values, responsibilities and such. To my eyes, those things change much more slowly than technical items.
This is the same as the previous comment. It's not just things change, its the technology change that's different.
I haven't really heard much about gang warfare. I was thinking more about the single shooter who kills a bunch of people. "The plural of anecdote is not fact" (I love that one) but I'll say that it's hard to conclude that the shooter who kills himself after killing a few others is going to be deterred by the presence of guns. Just my perspective.
Fair enough. It's not that hard to find and I read it some time ago... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46 [wikipedia.org]
Madison wrote
I think he was considering that the arms would be the same. Now it is nowhere the same.
Get money out of politics! [mayday.us]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 28 2018, @11:49PM
And yet it's the opinions of three people.
If they have familiarity with firearms, including care and use, then they're not entirely untrained.
And I've read differently elsewhere. Stalemate on that basis.
The former situation kills a lot more than the latter. For example, this FBI summary [bjs.gov] (for the period 1980-2008) claims that there were almost 1000 known firearm-based homicides from gang warfare in 2008. They also mentioned a variety of other sources of homicide, particularly during arguments and commission of felonies that made up most of the remaining known causes of firearm homicides. In comparison, deaths from mass shootings is far lower (under 20 that year with over 50 the previous year). As I noted [soylentnews.org], that death rate from mass shootings is comparable to death from lightning in the US.