Second Amendment

The 9th Circuit Says the Right To Bear Arms Does Not Extend Beyond Your Doorstep

According to the dissent, the appeals court "has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says."

|

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit today held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to openly carry firearms for self-defense. Combined with a 2016 decision involving concealed firearms, the ruling means that the Second Amendment does not extend beyond the home for residents of the 9th Circuit, which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

According to the majority opinion by Judge Jay Bybee, history shows that legal restrictions on carrying unconcealed firearms, including virtual bans like Hawaii's, are the sort of "longstanding prohibitions" that the Supreme Court has suggested the Second Amendment allows. The four dissenters think history shows nothing of the sort.

"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,'" Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain writes in a blistering dissent joined by Judges Consuelo Callahan, Sandra Ikuta, and Ryan Nelson. "Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one's home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place….We now become the first and only court of appeals to hold that public carry falls entirely outside the scope of the Amendment's protections." The majority's reasoning, O'Scannlain says, "reduces the right to 'bear Arms' to a mere inkblot."

The case involves a challenge to Hawaii's highly restrictive carry permit policy, which requires that applicants demonstrate "the urgency or the need" to carry unconcealed firearms, that they have "good moral character," and that they be "engaged in the protection of life and property." As interpreted by Hawaii County (the "Big Island"), those standards limit open-carry permits to "private detectives and security guards."

Hawaii's concealed-carry policy, which was not at issue in this case, is similarly restrictive. It requires a permit applicant to satisfy the county police chief that he represents "an exceptional case" and that he has "reason to fear injury" to his "person or property."

George Young, a Hawaii County resident, unsuccessfully applied for a carry permit twice in 2011, citing a general need for self-defense. He argued that Hawaii's law was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.

A federal judge ruled against Young in 2012, but a three-judge 9th Circuit panel that included O'Scannlain and Ikuta overturned that decision in 2018. Drawing a distinction between concealed carry and open carry, O'Scannlain and Ikuta concluded that "the Second Amendment encompasses the right of a responsible law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of the home." After the 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the case, seven of the 11 judges assigned to it voted to uphold Hawaii's law.

In the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep guns in the home for self-defense. Although the Court did not address the question of whether the amendment also applies outside the home, it said "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

That exception for "longstanding prohibitions" is the basis for the 9th Circuit's ruling in Young v. Hawaii. "After careful review of the history of early English and American regulation of carrying arms openly in the public square," the majority says, "we conclude that Hawai'i's restrictions on the open carrying of firearms reflect longstanding prohibitions and that the conduct they regulate is therefore outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment."

Bybee reviews English restrictions on the right to bear arms in public and argues that "the colonists shared the English concern that the mere presence of firearms in the public square presented a danger to the community." He cites restrictions in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, although he also notes that some colonies "not only permitted public carry, but mandated it."

After the Constitution was ratified, states initially were not bound by the Bill of Rights, but their laws were governed by state constitutional provisions similar to the Second Amendment. During this period, Bybee says, "states continued to adopt laws that restricted the public carrying of arms." He cites further examples of statutes, cases, and commentaries from the 19th and 20th centuries. The majority concludes that "our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square."

As to the extent of that power, the 9th Circuit says "the government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places—including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets—the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly." It adds that "we need go no further than this, because the Hawai'i firearms licensing scheme Young challenges only applies to 'a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor.'"

The four dissenters strongly disagree with the majority's historical analysis. By their reckoning, "the critical sources on the meaning of the Second Amendment—its text, its historical interpretations by the commentators and courts most proximate to the Founding, and its treatment by early legislatures—unequivocally demonstrate that the Amendment does indeed protect the right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense, even if that right might be subject to some regulation at its edges."

In reaching the "startling conclusion" that "a total ban on carrying a handgun outside the home does not implicate the Second Amendment right to bear arms whatsoever," O'Scannlain et al. say, the majority fails to show that its reading is consistent with the amendment's text, "that early American cases interpreted the Amendment in this way," or "even that open public carry was regularly and uncritically subject to legislative prohibitions across our country's early history." Instead, "the majority has declared that a state may constitutionally forbid all public carry of firearms, based on the utterly inconsequential fact that the lawful manner of open public carry has  historically been subject to modest regulation (but never to outright prohibition)."

You can judge for yourself who has the better of this historical argument between Bybee and O'Scannlain (although be warned that the two opinions together consume 180 pages). But O'Scannlain is surely right that the 9th Circuit's decision is an outlier. While some appeals court have overturned restrictions on the right to bear arms in public and others have upheld them, the 9th Circuit is the only one to say that right does not exist. Some clarity from the Supreme Court would be nice.

Addendum: Charles Nichols, who is challenging California's restrictions on carrying firearms in a separate 9th Circuit case, notes that Young v. Hawaii focuses on "small arms capable of being concealed." He argues that the decision therefore does not foreclose a claim that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry long guns—and possibly even large, hard-to-conceal handguns—in public.

NEXT: When Cancel Culture Comes for the Person With the Pitchfork

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. En Banc result from the ninth. Usual BS. Hopefully the USSC stops punting these cases.

    1. Some of the biggest dissents I remember reading in an appellate opinion. I haven’t begun to digest them yet, but I can’t imagine this doesn’t get looked at.

      1. It’s premature. And when the take your guns away, it’ll be moot.

        1. We will be beyond caring what nine human beings in black robes in Washington do, by then.

          Things are accelerating. I think we’ve created the first big hill on the Chaos Roller Coaster, and it’s all downhill from here. Tom Hanks likely had the right idea; he simply didn’t run far enough. I’d be working on my Spanish or pidgin, if I were him.

          1. Created? Really, autocorrect? “Crested.”

            Sigh.

            1. Say what you want about chatbots, but autocorrect is nowhere close to passing the Turing test.

              1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are DE much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page…..VISIT HERE

                1. You failed the Turing test.

                  1. JOIN PART TIME JOB FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to CV do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                    on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Nearly every judge has violated their oath of office anyways. Their job is to decide disputes involving federal law, enforce the US constitution, and enforce state laws.

      There are no exceptions to the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment cemented the incorporation of the bill of rights as a minimum protection for every US state residen.

      In other words, all gun control laws are illegal and unconstitutional. Void. No effect.

      Background checks…illegal.
      Waiting periods….illegal.
      Automatic weapon restrictions…illegal.

      Its all moot anyways. America is in civil war2.0, so politicians have no powers nor protections and americans can do whatever they want.

      1. Democrats want to do to AR15s what they did to drugs.

        Which is to create black markets for them, increase crime, empower cartels/gangs & make criminals out of nonviolent people – the process of which costs our justice system billions & prevents real crime from being solved.

        Product bans don’t work and it isn’t hard to know that.

        https://twitter.com/HannahCox7/status/1374731100828864512

      2. I think you overreach.

        I would read it as all federal gun laws are unconstitutional.

        The 14th privileges or immunities would allow some nuance to the question of state laws, particularly carry. The operative question being what were white males allowed to do in 1789.

        In some places concealed carry was considered uncivilized. In others it might have been considered polite.

        There were certainly examples of restrictions within town. When the cow hands came in to get drunk, it may not have been unreasonable to ask them to check their guns in with the sheriff.

        So I am not too bent out of shape if a state bans one form of carry or another. Or if they ban carry in saloons.

        But that’s not where we are with this case.

        I’m open to various arguments on state AWB but that isn’t today’s topic.

        1. “No exceptions”? I suggest your re-read the Amendment. Please note the words “well regulated”.

          1. “ The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”

      3. “No exceptions”?
        Did you read the words “well regulated” or just the second half of the sentence?

        1. Sure. The states have failed on their end in maintaining a well-regulated militia. Not a reason to deny the citizens the right to bear arms.

        2. “Well regulated” didn’t mean then what you think it does today…the intent then was that not only should they have arms, but they should be trained well enough to use them, together in a militia, if the need arose.

          It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the
          protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal
          services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official
          exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform
          Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called
          forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.

          George Washington: letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783)

          “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” – George Washington

          To place any dependence upon militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life “unaccustomed to the din of arms“ totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves when opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in arms, makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.George Washington: letter to the president of Congress, Heights of Harlem, September 24, 1776

        3. The militia also is *not* the national guard…

          10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes

          (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

          (b) The classes of the militia are—
          (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
          (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        4. Why do you ignore the verbiage “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. PERIOD. NOTHING AFTERWARD. NO EXCEPTIONS; NOT EVEN FOR FELONY CONVICTIONS. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. PERIOD! IN THE OLD WEST WHEN A MAN GOT OUT OF PRISON, HE WAS GIVEN A HORSE AND GUESS WHAT…A RIFLE!

          1. Guess what? We’re not in the old west any more!

      4. so where does common sense play into this thing? guess all folks need to have several assault rifles and lot’s of ammo. have always thought if there was a shooting war you’ll get one free and be shown how to use it.
        it’s laughable each time some kind of sensible thinking you start hearing the hollering ‘they’ll take our guns away!’ I call BS.

        1. Right, “where does common sense” play into this thing?” So, let’s use some: Where were you for the past several decades? Did you ask about the lack of common sense of focusing solely on guns as the problem, after time and time again we realized we have a problem with mentally unstable people, not guns? Did you ask about the common sense of maybe not passing yet another gun law after thousands and thousands proved not to help? Did you ask about the common sense of why the strong gun control laws in Chicago do almost nothing to prevent the regular, black-lives-don’t-really-matter carnage that goes on there? Did you ask about the lack common sense of ignoring mental instability (so we could burn the tax moneys elsewhere) on the streets? Did you ask about the common sense of restoring traditional values in our children, instead of letting the left systematically destroy it in public schools?

          Your “sensible” thinking has been tried, and tried again, and it’s a massive failure. Time to try and fix the real problem. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who has pointed to a physical, inanimate object as the bogeyman is part of the reason so many people are dead.

          We have more guns than people in this country. We have maybe a handful of nutcase shootings a year. Do the math–if guns were really the problem, we’d already all be dead.

          1. Thousands and thousands of gun laws? Really? You’re exaggerating. How many different gun laws can they possibly be? In truth there should be a dozen!

            Do you actually care what the reality is? It doesn’t sound like it! Goddam right wing nut jobs don’t even believe in science, truth or facts! Can’t even tell when a conman lies to them thirty thousand times! He says there is no virus, and gets HALF A MILLION AMERICANS KILLED and they still vote for him!

            Pray tell, what are these ‘traditional values’ the left is ruining in schools? Do parents not teach traditional values? Your traditional values might not be my traditional values.

            It’s fucking Saint Ronnie who put all the crazies on the street, and the right Wing And their corporate masters that refuses To give people any medical when they need it. But it’s alway blame the left!

      5. The idea that judges are there to “decide disputes involving federal law, enforce the US constitution, and enforce state laws” is all very 18th century.

        Their primary work of judges for the past 40 years is to act as a entirely owned extension of State and Federal Prosecutors and work with them to define our “Rights” so narrowly that they don’t actually offer any protection while we continue to honor the idea of the Bill of Rights like some religious totem from the past no one bothers to actually read.

    3. “One of these days the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may declare the Constitution unconstitutional.” -Thomas Sowell

    4. This is a case SCREAMING FOR CERTIORARI AT S.C.O.T.U.S.!
      If this gets upheld, we the people need to immediately register our outrage with one united voice nationwide. We need to remind these butt-wipes exactly who they work for.

      1. So, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION TO CRAZIES WITH GUNS BESIDES MORE GUNS? There are more guns then people in america, but somehow that’s not enough?

    5. Well, after the USSC Texas vs Pennsylvania ruling I wouldn’t be too eager to have the SC deciding this case. But hey, whatta ya going to do? On another note, did you notice that England’s laws against private ownership and open carry were the 9th Circuit court’s basic guidance for their decision? Colonial America? Basically that was England Colonial America. And certainly England was very much against open carry when the Revolutionary war was being fought. This decision is absurd, illegal and more than verges on legal derangement.

  2. “We aren’t coming for your guns”.

    1. I’m sure there are a lot of democrats on capital hill from Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon, Minnesota, Nevada Etc, that are cringing right now.

      They said the part out loud they weren’t supposed to say out loud.

  3. Guaranteed to be ignored by the public.

    Teed up to the 6-3 Supreme Court. Let’s hope they don’t go all wobbly.

    1. 5-4 at best.

      Count on Roberts to fag out.

      Most likely, however, is that SCOTUS simply ignores this.

      1. Because neither Heller nor McDonald concerned themselves much with carry outside the home? Though they did look at the issue.

        I guess we’ll find out, if they bother taking it. Roberts-Kagan-Breyer-Sotomayor v Thomas-Alito-Gorsuch. God only knows how Barrett and Kavanaugh would rule. Honestly I can see Kavanaugh deferring to State action on this one. Even though he dissented in the circuit court for Heller. I can easily see him distinguishing carry outside the home from possession within it. Hopefully I’m wrong.

        1. Because, with the exception Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court is a gaggle of dishonest statists. Reading ain’t that hard, unless you’re a statist cuck, in which case the words in the Constitution mean nothing.

          1. I think Alito, and maybe Gorsuch would be OK with smacking Hawaii down here. That’s not enough votes.

            Let’s see what Barrett and Kavanaugh do, though I completely lack faith they’ll vote for liberty.

            1. They probably realize that if they vote wrong, their vote won’t mean much for long, so it’s really hard to know for sure how they’ll vote.

            2. Remember, it was Barrett who ruled that a felony conviction should not automatically strip one’s 2nd Amendment rights away.
              Kanter v. Barr

              https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1478/18-1478-2019-03-15.html

              Barrett disagreed with the majority’s view of the historical record (original emphasis):

              History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward— legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

              The historical evidence does, however, support a different proposition: that the legislature may disarm those who have demonstrated a proclivity for violence or whose possession of guns would otherwise threaten the public safety. This is a category simultaneously broader and narrower than “felons”—it includes dangerous people who have not been convicted of felonies but not felons lacking indicia of dangerousness.

              Barrett then walked through a careful historical analysis, observing:

              Those who ratified the Second Amendment would not have assumed that a free man, previously convicted, lived in a society without any rights and without the protection of law. This is not to say that felons could not lose rights under another theory. Indeed, state legislatures did explicitly exclude felons from the enjoyment of particular rights. … But history confirms that the basis for the permanent and pervasive loss of all rights cannot be tied generally to one’s status as a convicted felon or to the uniform severity of punishment that befell the class.

              She then addressed the majority’s point about “virtue,” noting that it was historically applied to other rights, but not the right to bear arms: “While scholars have not identified eighteenth or nineteenth century laws depriving felons of the right to bear arms, history does show that felons could be disqualified from exercising certain rights—like the rights to vote and serve on juries—because these rights belonged only to virtuous citizens.”

              She explained why the Second Amendment is different, citing the Heller precedent (original emphasis):

              The problem with this argument is that virtue exclusions are associated with civic rights—individual rights that “require[] citizens to act in a collective manner for distinctly public purposes.”… For example, the right to vote is held by individuals, but they do not exercise it solely for their own sake; rather, they cast votes as part of the collective enterprise of self-governance. Similarly, individuals do not serve on juries for their own sake, but as part of the collective enterprise of administering justice. Some scholars have characterized the right to keep and bear arms as a civic right, because it was “one exercised by citizens, not individuals …, who act together in a collective manner, for a distinctly public purpose: participation in a well regulated militia.” … Heller, however, expressly rejects the argument that the Second Amendment protects a purely civic right. … It squarely holds that “the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms,” Heller, 554 U.S. at 595 (emphasis added), and it emphasizes that the Second Amendment is rooted in the individual’s right to defend himself—not in his right to serve in a well-regulated militia.
              In sum, the available evidence suggests that the right to arms differs from rights that depend on civic virtue for enjoyment. The Second Amendment confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self- defense, and not limited to civic participation (i.e., militia service).

              Barrett went on to say that while the government has a “very strong” interest in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, the felon-dispossession statute may be too broad when it comes to non-violent felons. In this case, Wisconsin had failed to show that the felon, who was convicted of mail fraud, was likely to be dangerous to public safety.

              1. “ Some scholars have characterized the right to keep and bear arms as a civic right, because it was “one exercised by citizens, not individuals ”

                This is nuts. A felon voting is not a threat to society; presumably they are vastly a minority. Jury DUTY is a duty, not a right, and a felon would easily be rejected by the defense or DA if necessary.

                I agree that not all felons and not only felons should lose the right to K&BA. but a violent felon with a gun is a much bigger danger then a felon voting!

            3. The bad part is if they vote to uphold the 9th’s decision it’s basically over. The Texas vs Pennsylvania decision may have been a warning.

      2. Roberts signed on to Heller, so I think he’s committed.

        As much as Roberts does have the tendency to go wobbly and cave, I don’t think he can admit it to himself, and there is no way he can ignore that Heller was very clear about what bearing arms meant, so it he caves on that he owns it.

        I can’t see that he thinks it would be worth caving like that to be the 4th vote on the losing side.

      3. I don’t know. Most of their whiffing on this was during the Kennedy era, and all of it predates the Barrett era.

        They just tried in the last term to ease into it by taking that case from New York, but it ended up being dismissed because the government caved at the last minute by repealing the contested law.

        I bet they’ll bite on this one.

      4. Chief Justice John Roberts FAGGED OUT BIG-TIME on a 1st Amendment-free speech/freedom of religion case out of GA. He was the ONLY dissenter. This lawsuit was initiated by a Christian who was silenced by the college he was attending, even though he was in their “free speech” zone. He was sharing his faith with other students when someone went to campus police to complain. His lawyer attached nominal damages of $1 to prevent the college from hastily changing its policy and then having their lawyer get the case declared moot. That’s what pissed Roberts off; the legal move that kept the suit alive even after the school changed policy. The thing about the government and other agencies in situations like this is they’ll change the policy when they see they’re about to get burned in court and then when the heat’s off, they change the policy back to what it was before they got sued. This maneuver was ingenious on the part of the student’s attorney.

    2. The SCoTUS refused to hear multiple urgent cases on prima facie cases of election fraud.

      America is in civil war 2.0 that the democrats started….again.

      History tells us that the bloodletting will be starting as the economy shits itself.

      1. Where the hell have you been, Lovecon, and was John with you?

      2. I didn’t see prima facie case, and I was hoping to see some evidence. I do hope that the Arizona State Senate investigation will provide some evidence, but to do that you need a thorough audit.

        The supreme court isn’t where those facts should be decided anyway.

      3. January Sixth just went under your radar?

        1. January 6: Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and the Alamo rolled into one and injected with super steroids, amirite?

      4. “ America is in civil war 2.0 that the democrats started….again.“

        It’s a LIE that Democrats now have anything to do with civil war Democrats.

        “History tells us that the bloodletting will be starting as the economy shits itself.“

        Well, then we better keep tge Republicans out of office because they sit the bed every time!

        1. Of course, they’re the Civil War Democrats. A leopard can’t change its spots, but it can disguise them. Now it’s babies that are 5/6th a human being.

  4. My opinion is that if you want to prohibit open carry, fine, but then you have to allow concealed carry. And vice versa.

    1. That was essentially the prior precedent. Hawaii bans concealed from what I understand and now requires permits for open carry that they almost always deny.

    2. The 2nd amendment prohibits any gun control.

      Change the constitution with 3/4 or any gun laws are void on their face.

    3. My opinion is that you should be prohibited from exercising your first amendment rights in public where strangers can hear you, but if you can whisper with your co-conspe…er, I mean, associates being the only ones to hear you, fine.

      Or better yet, fuck off you authoritarian piece of shit.

    4. What do you mean by vice versa?

  5. “Some clarity from the Supreme Court would be nice.”

    On one hand, if the Supreme Court manages to rule on something like this before the Democrats launch the full frontal assault on our Second Amendment rights that Biden promised on his campaign website, that may preempt the Democrat controlled government from following through on Biden’s awful and unconstitutional threats.

    https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

    On the other hand, if and when the Supreme Court rules in favor of our constitutional right to bear arms, that may provide the excuse necessary to pack the Supreme Court.

    It’s much like the Democrats’ willingness to tolerate the filibuster. They’ve been able to get pretty much whatever they want with the filibuster in place, so why bother to get rid of it until it gets in their way? Likewise, don’t expect the Democrats to get serious about packing the Supreme Court until the Supreme Court gets in the way of their agenda. Ruling that we have a right to bear arms outside of our homes, certainly, would be one way to turn the Eye of Sauron [get the Democrats’ attention].

    1. I don’t think Manchin is going to go nuclear over the supreme court upholding a right to bear arms.

      Warnock is up for anything, but as anti-gun as Chip Kelly is Arizona is not going to reelect him if he flushes the supreme court down the toilet so he can take away Arizonan’s rights.

    2. I still think court-packing will be one step too far for most conservative Americans–the ones who own guns and publicly unpopular opinions. And I imagine that will backfire on the progressives. It won’t cause immediate insurrection, or anything crazy like that, but any judgements from such a packed court will be considered illegitimate, and not worth respecting. When people get pressed up against the wall by “bogus” laws upheld by what they consider to be an unfair SC, then it’ll become an interesting time.

      If it lasts long enough, then 13 or however many justices will just become the new normal. But can the US tolerate widespread disrespect for its laws for that long? I don’t think so.

      1. I agree, if court packing happens, Democrats’ tenuous hold on both houses of Congress will be reversed in 2022. That is likely to happen anyway, but packing SCOTUS would guarantee they lose their hold on Congress. They know that, so I don’t see it happening until after 2022 at the earliest.

        1. You’re missing something very important here. Court packing isn’t something you do in isolation, or when you plan for a continuation of normal politics. That would be like launching a single ICBM, and thinking there won’t be a return volley.

          Court packing is something you only do when you’re planing on the political equivalent of thermonuclear war. You do it so you can enact entrenchment measures that wouldn’t otherwise have a prayer of surviving review, and assure that you never lose control again.

          If they pack the Court, it’s because they intend we never have another free and honest election.

          1. If they go through with it, I hope they like living underground.

          2. Yeah honestly, that’s when the shit hits the fan.

            I’m not a zealot, I think Trump lost the election. But if they pack the supreme court then I will no longer think the law is what they say it is. The law will be what I say it is. The courts will have lost any legitimacy in my eyes.

          3. If they go nuclear by packing the court, there’s still a constitutional remedy, which is to call the second convention, where every state carries the same weight. The Democrats would not like the new rules one bit.

            -jcr

            1. Or just shoot them.

              Whatever works.

          4. Agree, Brett. Many on here don’t seem to get the left’s agenda. They aren’t worried about losing power through elections – they intend to pass laws allowing unchecked election fraud and, with a packed court set to uphold them, have no intention of relinquishing their hold on power. While Republican politicians have sat on their brains and been distracted by issues like pot smoking and abortion or worried themselves sick about being labeled “racists”, the Democratic left has been implementing a plan for total control.

    3. Ha ha! I love the edit at the end. But unfortunately, I’m not laughing about this POS 9th circuit opinion.

    4. You were more right by saying “turn the Eye of Sauron”. Things are starting to pick up behind the gates of Mordor.

    5. People want a solution to gun violence! 70-80%. What do you have to offer them?

      The Democrats are most likely to Chuck the filibuster over the hundreds of new republican vote suppression Laws and laws enabling overturning elections.

      1. Spoken like a True Deplorable. Anyone that votes Democrat is a deplorable, low-brow, knuckle-dragging, blood-stained Morloch.

  6. Lets see, what do we think a group of people who fought off British rule with guns wielded by average citizens meant when they said there was a right to keep and bear arms?

    Obviously it meant that no one should be allowed to have them outside their homes, which is notably where the British were that needed shooting.

    If they wanted to change it, they could try to amend it yet weirdly the group of people who believe most in a ‘living and breathing’ constitution are precisely the same people who are going outside the constitution to try an end run around the amendment process.

    It’s almost like they don’t actually give a fuck about democracy or the constitution, since the majority of people aren’t on board with their fuckery and the constitution expressly forbids their actions.

    1. Ultimately, freedom comes at the price of blood. When your representatives and jurists decide they are your rulers and the rules do not matter, there is only one way to safeguard freedom. It is inevitable. They will keep pushing and pushing and pushing until people start pushing back. These judges should spend the rest of their lives hiding in a fucking corner, in fear and in shame.

      1. Internet tough guy.

        1. Notice you are not going against the government here. Consistent at least.

        2. Fuck off, Slaver.

        3. You really can’t read/comprehend, can you?

      2. I disagree with the ruling but I respect the judges’ decision. The war is online, and must be fought with intelligence and bravery, not weapons and cowardice.

        If you try to intimidate judges, you will surely lose the war.

        Though, I do enjoy the irony that your efforts will vindicate me, so please feel free to double down on your position:

        1. The war is online

          Corrective actions in place on that as well.

          1. The war is online, and you have no justification for force (or intimidation) if you haven’t fought it in enemy territory and can prove it.

            As the Jan 6 insurrectionists are discovering the hard way. They will all turn on Trump.

            1. Fuck off, Astroturfer.
              You’re not tricking anyone.

              1. OK prove you fought for 2A on enemy territory and won:

                1. I didn’t because I’m not even American, Nutbag.

        2. “If you try to intimidate judges, you will surely lose the war.”

          Yeah, right. How do you think they’ve been winning? By intimidating judges.

          It’s just that casual threats don’t intimidate judges. Threats from people willing to camp on your lawn and throw Molotov cocktails do.

          We’re too polite and law abiding for our threats to mean anything. And when that changes, it will be a civil war, not a legal battle.

        3. The war is online…

          lol – you’re retarded. *If* a war actually breaks out, it’s beyond laughable to believe historians will write about the Twitter Battles over actual deaths.

      3. There comes a time when the the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. How far are we from that time?

    2. “Lets see, what do we think a group of people who fought off British rule with guns wielded by average citizens meant when they said there was a right to keep and bear arms?”

      —-BYODB

      “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

      —-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers : No. 29

      https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

      Alexander Hamilton may have been on Washington’s personal staff at Valley Forge and he may have led one of the two columns that forced Cornwallis to surrender at Yorktown, but when he wrote that defense of the right to bear arms, seven years later, he had no idea that there would be rednecks, Trump supporters, and people who question the legitimacy of our elections. And that changes everything.

      Until people believe what we want them to believe, we can’t have Second Amendment rights or First Amendment rights anymore. People are out there spreading their conspiracy theories! Don’t you know that January 6 changed everything? Hundreds of Trump supporters rioted, and now we can never go back to the way things used to be.

      1. I’m not saying the Constitution can’t be amended to achieve what Democrats want, I’m just saying it’s notable that they don’t even try yet still want to claim some mystical attachment to the notion of constitutional governance.

        Sorry, but if you don’t go through the process and try to do an end run around the constitution via an inappropriately empowered court system you’ve given up the ghost and are simply stating that might makes right and the majority is free to be as tyrannical as it wants.

        These types of idiots will never understand the mistakes they’ve made, even when they’re in the minority and wondering why they’re standing against a wall.

        1. “These types of idiots will never understand the mistakes they’ve made, even when they’re in the minority and wondering why they’re standing against a wall.

          They cry and moan about the loss of legitimacy–even while they enthusiastically undermine the stuff that makes legitimacy possible.

          1. That’s one of the most galling things for me.

            Problem: “People think a small number of committed ideologues have captured the institutions and processes that govern our society and turned them against the people!”

            Solution: “Let’s turn all the institutions and processes we’ve captured against anyone and anything that might even vaguely be conceived as a threat to our ideological diktats and obsessions.”

        2. If they tried to amend, it would be tantamount to admitting that their legislative gun control efforts are unconstitutional.

    3. You gun fans never remember the “well regulated” part, huh?

      1. Well regulated means well trained, dummy.

        1. It didn’t say that you Shall have a well-regulated militia, it says to have a well-regulated militia the right to bear arms Shall Not be infringed. Or can’t you read plain English, dummy?

      2. Even if it meant what you think it means, what about the people who are actually in the militia?

        10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    4. The majority of people want background checks.

  7. 1. We who believe in civil liberties want the Supreme Court to write more opinions on firearms while there are a majority of conservatives on the court.
    2. Generally, the only way to get a SCOTUS decision is to appeal a Federal Circuit Court ruling.

    Therefore, this is a good thing, another firearms decision ripe for review.

    1. This delayed an opportunity at the USSC. A decision had already been made, this was an en banc hearing. Likewise the USSC has had other opportunities to address, but Roberts has a bad habit of declining action except for the most miniscule possible interpretation and then denying follow up cases where districts openly flaunt opposition of those prior rulings.

      1. Not to mention, this particular rehearing en banc process dragged out for a ridiculously long time. Almost 2 years, if I remember correctly.

    2. Supreme Court decisions are like a box of chocolates.

      For some reason, we always expect that we’ll get what we want, especially when it’s on an issue we care so much about. In reality, we often get Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzales vs. Raich, Kelo v. City of New London, the “penaltax” decision, and DACA. I don’t know why we always seem to think this time it’s gonna be different, but I’m always trying not to be overly optimistic, too.

      It should be noted, however, that Wickard v. Filburn (surely on the short list for the award of worst Supreme Court decision ever) was decided under the threat of FDR packing the Supreme Court. It ultimately wasn’t necessary for FDR to pack the Court because the justices did what he wanted under threat.

      We shouldn’t ignore that kind of pressure on the Court today, either, and while a decision that recognizes our right to bear arms will be welcome, another “penaltax” like decision could really set us back. It might be better if this case doesn’t reach the Supreme Court until sometime after the 2022 midterms–when the heat’s off the Court.

      1. No, Wickard v Filburn was decided long after the “court packing” nonsense. But don’t let facts get in the way of your narrative!

        1. True. Wickard v Filburn was decided in 1942, well after the 1937 actions toward court packing were put down in Congress.

          1. Well, by that time the court had already gotten the message and mailed their balls gift-wrapped to FDR.

      2. I disagree we need a decission, waiting only puts more rights in danger and in the mean time many states will start to crack down on legal gun owners along with embolding what Biden and all are planning to do on gun control. time is of the essence.

  8. So what does the 9th want from Biden, since they’re carrying water for him?

    1. Dude, it’s the 9th Circuit. I’m surprised the initial panel wasn’t 3-0 against carry. Their bad luck they caught O’Scannlain the first time.

      1. Ninth Circus holds another clown parade.

  9. The opinion is not worth the paper it is written on. We no longer have a rule of law now that the left can pick and choose which laws are to be obeyed and while the courts can twist the Constitution to mean whatever the democrats want it to mean.

    Gun owners can do the same and decide that the courts and congress no longer have any authority because their laws are meaningless if only some people are required to obey them. Gun owners can go their merry way carrying their guns with them.

    1. Yes gun owners can win, but they can’t do it by flouting the law. Instead you have to fight the socialists with intellect and bravery, not force and cowardice. That means, talking to your grandparents about gun control and get them on your side of the issue. If they relentlessly insult and berate you (as you are liable to do to me now), then they’re the enemy not the courts or judges, and your cause is doomed.

      And now that your family is on your side, convince your friends to do the same. And then if you’re really feeling brave, fight for 2A on the internet like I do. Then we can vote to scale down government and we’ll be free. If you try to use force without an ideological basis (other than Might makes right and We hate antifa, no one will join your movement and you will surely lose the war.

      1. Fuck off, Astroturfer.
        You’re not tricking anyone.

        1. I have a long history of defending the 2A and can prove it. You can’t. Therefore you have no justification for violence or intimidation of judges.

          1. No one has to justify themselves to you.
            That’s how liberty works

            1. And he doesn’t have to justify himself to anyone either!

              Funny how that works!

      2. When intellect is ignored then force becomes the only option. are we there yet no i’ll wait for more decision as long as it happens in a timely matter. stone walling is just a tool of the left.

      3. Hey look. There’s a link to you. What a surprise.

      4. I don’t know anything about you, but you sound rather naive. Your faith in law and reason are admirable, but go do some reading on what happened to Zinoviev and Kamenev and Bukharin when they fought Stalin with intellect and bravery.

    2. You already twist the Constitution to whitewash the words “well regulated” right out of there.
      What is good for the goose…

      1. Just because you keep repeating the lie that those words mean something they don’t, will not make that lie true.

        “Well regulated”, in the context of the second amendment, means “subject to discipline”. And it’s a prefatory clause anyway. It’s offering an explanation of why the right to keep and bear arms is important, not limiting the right.

      2. The second amendment doesn’t presume to grant us our right to self-defense. It acknowledges it as already existing, cites an example of why it’s important, and forbids the government from infringing it. It does not make the right contingent on participating in the militia, so you can shove your idiotic attempt at sophistry back up your ass.

        -jcr

      3. STFU idiot.

      4. ‘A well regulated militia’ is the goal. The ‘right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed’ is the method for getting there. Just because we don’t follow through on the goal anymore, that does not invalidate the right. If you don’t like it vote to get it changed. Until then STFU.

        On the other hand realistically all rights have limitations.

  10. All my family and friends are gun rights supporters so I have no need to talk to them to get them on my side of the issue. And, I have no desire or intention of using violence. A wise person once told me to never play by the rules that you are the only one adhering to. You will never win on an issue if you do so. If politicians, judges, and police are not giving up their arms or armed security, then neither am I. If criminals are not giving up their arms, then neither am I.

    Also, I simply do not believe the Courts or Congress have any authority on the issue as it currently stands. The Constitution clearly sets out the 2nd amendment. Unless that Amendment is properly modified, it stands.

    1. LOL you’re afraid to respond to me directly. That’s exactly the problem: when people see you’re a coward online where it matters, they won’t join your cause and you will lose.

      You have to get out on the internet and fight like I do. And not just here in your safe space echo chamber bickering with your allies like me.

      1. Fuck off, Astroturfer.
        You’re not tricking anyone.

      2. Look. There’s you bragging about yourself again. What a surprise.

      3. Jesus you fucking narcissist. Read slowly and learn:

        Not responding to you is not indicative of anything, because you are not the center of everything. IE not responding to you does not equate to cowardice, it simply means the poster was making a separate point to other people or possibly just made a mistake with Reason’s server squirrels.

        No go fuck off you narcissistic coward.

    1. Read up on the community caretaker exception. Grossly misapplied in this case, and I hope Scotus smacks it down.

      The Biden Administration is coming for you. Not just your guns. They simply need a good enough story to where enough Americans will buy its necessity, for long enough.

      I think they’ll find one.

      1. What do you mean Biden is coming for you?

    2. Nevertheless, the court decided to extend that doctrine to cover private homes, ruling that the officers “did not exceed the proper province of their community caretaking responsibilities.”

      Siding with law enforcement, the First Circuit noted that a police officer “must act as a master of all emergencies, who is ‘expected to…provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety.’”

      Kay. I’m good with it.

      1. See, there are a lot of problems with this case.

        First, the guy brought out his unloaded gun when in the middle of a heated argument with his wife, and this scared her enough that she stayed at a motel that night instead of remaining in the house with her angry husband. That right there is a big problem. Who does that? Who thinks it’s appropriate to bring out an unloaded gun as a not-so-subtle threat involving your own wife in the middle of an argument? If he hadn’t behaved in such an irresponsible way, none of the following events would have been triggered.

        Second, the wife calls the cops to check on her husband after he won’t answer her calls. Why call the cops? Because they are, OF COURSE, society’s 24/7 all-purpose problem solvers, in the minds of most people it seems. Whenever there is any problem, call the cops! This is another problem with using law enforcement in this manner. They aren’t supposed to be the ones to solve every problem. Perhaps if there were other resources or institutions that people would be more inclined to call in order to “check up” on their loved ones, not necessarily wanting to put them in jail, but just to see if they are all right, and that some of the money that currently goes to law enforcement for this purpose might be better spent going to these other agencies instead. Calling this idea “defund the police” was entirely stupid, but that is the idea and it is worth considering further, so that events like this don’t happen.

        Third, the cops outright lied about telling the wife that the husband consented to having the guns confiscated. That should be punishable in and of itself.

        Fourth, the “community caretaker” exception to the Fourth Amendment sure smells like bullshit, but the important point here is that this exception is actually a thing because the “community caretakers” are the same as the COPS THEMSELVES. If the “community caretaker” wasn’t the cops, then there would be far fewer Fourth Amendment implications, because the people checking up on individuals in distress wouldn’t be the same people charged with throwing you in jail for committing crimes, and so therefore needing warrants before committing searches. Separate law enforcement from “community caretaking” and this problem largely goes away.

        Fifth, none of this is about some general right for cops to take away everybody’s guns for no reason at all. The Forbes headline is awful, and as usual, Team Red is utterly catastrophizing this case in order to not just disagree, but to condemn as evil their opponents.

        1. Why call the cops? Because they are, OF COURSE, society’s 24/7 all-purpose problem solvers, in the minds of most people it seems. Whenever there is any problem, call the cops!

          CHASE IS ON THE CASE!

          [N]one of this is about some general right for cops to take away everybody’s guns for no reason at all. The Forbes headline is awful, and as usual, Team Red is utterly catastrophizing this case in order to not just disagree, but to condemn as evil their opponents.

          Shocking that you would come to this conclusion, and totally out of character. “Hey guys, sure there’s a bunch of bad things going on here, but the most important thing to remember that the Republicans that publicized the concerns are being histrionic doofuses as usual.”

        2. Regardless of those facts, the legal analysis provided by the written dissent states directly the implications of this ruling and those implications are very scary and limit self defense to the point of being useless. Unless of course you are rich enough to be able to hire private security guards.

          This is all irregardless of your beliefs of course as you’re a known liar and have shown an inability to understand basic legal arguments; therefore it should be safe to assume the written dissent is much more accurate than your ignorant rantings.

        3. You know who thinks it’s right to display a gun, even unloaded during an argument with their wife. A bad, bad person. And if he’s going to do that to his wife what is he going to do with non-family or strangers or anyone he comes into contact with? A person like that should not be able to own a gun. They’re for the good guys. If it could be proved that he pulled a gun on his wife to inspire fear I think that’s a good legal reason to deny him the right to keep firearms and probably jail time should go along with that formaking terroristic threats.

  11. At some point, you’re going to realize the left is waging war on you.
    At what point, and in what condition you’re left in, is something to think about.

    1. At some point you’re going to realize that the rich & powerfull want you to keep fighting with each other while they continue to fuck you over.

  12. Now if we can just stack the supreme court and push this into your livingroom. I believe that the Democrats almost have enough Senators on board to accomplish this.

    Wrong within normal parameters! Return to normal!

  13. If guns were dogs allegory:

    The establishment: I don’t want to take away dog owners’ rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.

    Libertarians: So what do you propose?

    The establishment: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.

    Libertarians: Wait. What’s an “attack dog”?

    The establishment: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.

    Libertarians: Huh? Rottweilers aren’t military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn’t a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?

    The establishment: Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn’t own fighting dogs.

    Libertarians: I have no idea what dogs you’re talking about now.

    The establishment: You’re being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.

    Libertarians: What the #$&@.

    The establishment: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don’t need to own.

    Libertarians: Can we?

    From Cassie Whalen

    1. You’re preaching to the choir. That’s fine but if you want to justify violence you need to fight online in enemy territory and win and be able to prove it.

      1. Yeah posting online will get you there, I’ve 30 years experience there and it doesn’t work.

        1. If you refuse to fight online then fine but you have no justification for violence or intimidating judges. The Jan 6 insurrection proves it: they refused to fight online (or they tried and got their asses handed to them). Now their cowardice is being exposed and they will all turn on Trump at the trials.

          1. You’re a fucking moron.

    2. That’s pretty good, really summarizes the whole thing well!

    3. Mommy Slammer is the type of girl-bullying republican that attracts women to anything the GOP hates. The only reason God’s Own Prohibitionists even try to mimic Libertarians is to smuggle their own agenda into our platform–and it worked. The cowardly faith-based straddle that replaced: We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days. Republican nazis know that the best way to kill the LP is to get voters to associate us with them.

  14. The right to bear arms only applies to one’s own home? We are to believe that the Framers specified the right to “bear” arms because without it citizens would only have the right to “keep” arms, but never the right to actually touch them. Not even in their own homes.

    Alice in Wonderland’s Red Queen strikes again in the 9th Circuit, where words mean exactly what that court wants them to mean.

    1. Actually – –
      “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

      1. OK! I thought it was the Red Queen. Alice did get around.

    2. What do the words “well regulated” mean again?

      1. In good working order.

      2. At the time, well trained.
        As in they have the right to lots of ammunition for practice.

      3. Practiced and ready to fight if needed.

      4. Well regulated certainly doesn’t mean “only within the home”.

        Idiot.

    3. They have the same attitude toward religion.
      And like the right to bear arms, why would freedom of religion need to be codified if it was intended solely for the personal private realm?

  15. The Young v. Hawaii en banc opinion is limited to concealable weapons (page 97).

    For a decade I have criticized lawsuits limited to handguns because of the long history in the United States and England banning the carrying and possession of concealable weapons.

    My lawsuit, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom, et al., is not limited to handguns. My lawsuit is not limited to public places. Under California law, if I step even one inch outside the door to my home carrying any loaded firearm or any unloaded firearm for the purpose of lawful self-defense that is not an antique then I am violating California law.

    Judge Bybee wrote the majority opinion in Young v. Hawaii. He also sits on my three-judge panel, Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom, et al.

    We will have to wait for the mandate to issue in my appeal before we know whether or not the 9th circuit court of appeals is going to recognize any right to bear firearms outside the doors to our home for the purpose of lawful self-defense.

    1. Wow. You’ve been fighting the good fight since May 2014? I know it takes a long to for the cases to gurgle through the system, but it is still something seeing all the filings listed out.

      1. Griffin3, my lawsuit was filed in the district court on November 30, 2011. I am now in my 10th year of litigation.

        1. With all sincerity – thank you.

          That longevity must have cost money which is why many of these bad laws and bad decisions remain, people give up the fight due to the very real obstacles in reaching an unknown end.

          So again – thank you very much.

          1. Peter Mathewson – You’re welcome. It did cost a lot of money, especially in the district court where pro se plaintiffs like myself were prohibited from filing electronically. That, coupled with the district court’s refusal to designate an “attorney to be noticed” until near the end of the nearly two and a half years I spent fighting in the district court cost a fortune in printing and postage costs.

            Fortunately, I have had enough supporters over this past decade donate enough money that has enabled me to get this far.

    2. Dog-shooting First Responders™ are supposed to be defending our selves and maybe even themselves. A consistent interpretation of the 9th People’s Court (Volksgerichtshof) would make it just as illegal for the cops to set foot outside bearing arms. Then we could truly have the Looter State ideal, where Only Outlaws Have Guns. National Socialist judge Friesler would be proud of his gnosse on the 9th.

  16. O’Scannlain is surely right that the 9th Circuit’s decision is an outlier….

  17. don’t worry sheeple king Biden will outlaw the 2nd and then government will go door to door to collect your guns!
    don’t think your on the “LIST”? guess what, if you ever registered a gun anywhere or a gun has been registered to you address (doesn’t matter if you didn’t live there at the time) or anyone in your family has registered, just got a background check, have an opinion that government doesn’t approve of, guess what YOUR ON THE LIST!

  18. Liberals are against gun rights, not because they are particularly concerned about people being shot, but because Conservatives and Libertarians support gun rights, and they want to hurt them.

    1. First off, calling communists “liberals” identifies the writer as a GOP prohibitionist still butthurt over the Dems copying the 1931 Liberal Party plank to win 5 elections in a row. Most of the gorgeous women I know observe that Republicans pretend not to want to ban private guns, but are serious about forcing women to reproduce at the point of Christian National Socialist service pistols. They want revenge just as anyone else would. After the LP cowardly caved in to Prohibition Party and GOP infiltrators and deleted the Roe v Wade plank of 1972-76, most women have ignored or avoided the LP. Cowardice is its own punishment.

  19. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The 2nd amendment is a single sentence which can be broken into two intentions by the congress when it was passed and then ratified by the States.

    1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.
    a) This applies to State militias to defend each individual State.

    2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
    a) This applies to the citizens of each individual State to defend ourselves.

    The majority of the 9th Circuit needs to read the text of the 2nd amendment. Reading a single sentence should not be too much to ask.

    I don’t own arms, but I do have the rights to own arms is I so choose to. I insist that we retain this right and it is imperative that the Supreme Court clarify this and reverse this illogical ruling by the 9th Circuit majority.

    1. Just for the record:
      1a) The state militias are made up of individual volunteers, who choose on a case by case basis, to submit to the militia’s control for a designated circumstance. The major point of the militia is that when the government “calls out” the militia, the militia can say no. THis is why the National Guard, always subject to government orders, is not a militia.

      1. And the Supreme court is on record saying that it isn’t the militia, but is in fact raised under the federal power to raise armies.

        IIRC, several states have both National Guard units AND state militia, for exactly this reason.

      2. Not volunteers…

        10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        Most states have similar laws

        2016 Georgia Code
        Title 38 – Military, Emergency Management, and Veterans Affairs
        Chapter 2 – Military Affairs
        Article 1 – State Militia Generally
        Part 1 – General Provisions
        § 38-2-3. Division and composition of militia; membership of unorganized militia
        Universal Citation: GA Code § 38-2-3 (2016)

        (a) The militia of the state shall be divided into the organized militia, the state reserve list, the state retired list, and the unorganized militia.

        (b) The organized militia shall be composed of:

        (1) An Army National Guard and an Air National Guard which forces, together with an inactive National Guard, when such is authorized by the laws of the United States and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall comprise the Georgia National Guard;

        (2) The Georgia Naval Militia whenever such a state force shall be duly organized; and

        (3) The State Defense Force whenever such a state force shall be duly organized.

        (c) The state reserve list and the state retired list shall include the persons who are lawfully carried thereon and such persons as may be transferred thereto or placed thereon by the Governor in accordance with this chapter.

        (d) Subject to such exemptions from military duty as are created by the laws of the United States, the unorganized militia shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not serving in any force of the organized militia or who are not on the state reserve list or the state retired list and who are, or who have declared their intention to become, citizens of the United States.

      3. Federal and state laws clearly say NG is not the militia.

    2. To me that awkward sentence reads that the ‘right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed’.

      1. That’s because you’re a dummy.

      2. Then you should read the Heller decision and become better informed.

      3. “A well informed electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read publications shall not be infringed.” I changed four words to exact grammatical equivalents. When you read that sentence, does it suggest that children can’t keep and read publications? Because they are not part of the electorate. Does it say that non-citizens cannot keep and read publications? How about people who have not registered to vote? Does it prohibit them? No. The prefatory clause does not limit the secondary clause, it only establishes a vital reason for the amendment. BTW, the word “regulate” increasingly means “circumscribed or infringed by law or the state”. If it had meant that back then, the sentence would directly contradict itself. The most usual meaning back then is less used now: to work reliably and in good order.

      4. You *really* need to familiarize yourself with the contemporaneous writings and speeches, not to mention the state constitutions.

        E.g., Virginia constitution:

        Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

        That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

        Pennsylvania:

        § 21. Right to bear arms.

        The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

        § 22. Standing army; military subordinate to civil power.

        No standing army shall, in time of peace, be kept up without the consent of the Legislature, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.

        Delaware:

        17. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body
        of the people, capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that the
        militia shall not be subject to martial law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing
        armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of
        necessity, and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that
        in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, and
        in time of war, only by the civil magistrate, in such manner as the law directs.

    3. Good points. These also came up in response to Quaker Republican Dick Nixon agreeing with the Soviet commune that the US Armed Forces must let us be nuked by aggressors rather than destroy the incoming weapons. But to chip that away a second time totalitarians would have to start somewhere.

  20. Me and my tribe can do whatever we want, and tell others what to do. Rules and words say what we want them to say.
    – 99% of people, ever

  21. In practice, this means the right to keep and bear arms does not extend beyond the doorstep of those living in the ghetto.

    In our ” racist and prejudiced system and culture that has treated Black bodies as the enemy from the beginning”, people in upper middle-class suburbs can,. in practice, go out beyond their doorsteps with a pistol- unless they are of the “wrong” color.

    1. The Second Amendment does not exclude blacks from bearing arms. Indeed the 9th and 14th make that explicit. Kristallnacht laws banned Jews from having guns in eugenic altruist Germany, and the Christian National Socialist platform had since 1920 excluded them from citizenship. Observe that Both the Dems and God’s Own Prohibitionists zealously defend the initiation of deadly force to violate individual rights. That’s about 98% of the voters. Before the LP added planks to reward murderers, only 95% of voters endorsed the initiation of force and disarming the people.

  22. The mainstream snapback against absolutist gun nuttery seems destined to be severe. I hope it does not overrun a right to possess a reasonable gun for self-defense in the home.

    1. The current crop of gun owners, who have little connection to hunting or sport, are entirely different than the gun owners in America even 20 years ago.

      20 years ago, owning an ar-15 was seen as a bit nutty. You could own one, but you’d be quick to tell people you “weren’t a gun nut or anything” if it ever came up. It was understood that people who bought and kept entire armories of small arms in their houses were irrational and irresponsible. Now that bunker mentality is celebrated in today’s gun culture.

      Less seen in today’s American gun culture: the emphasis on safety and responsibility. Replaced with an emphasis on MY rights.

      Also the NRA is an incredibly corrupt organization who is responsible for funneling up to $30 million of Russian money into political campaigns in the US. Never forget Maria Butina.

      1. No one wants to hear your Blue anon conspiracy theories.

        1. That’s cute. Trying to make it seems as thought there is a Q equivalent for non Trumpians. There is not. But it is rather telling that your best insult is to compare me to a sizable Trump supporting demographic.

          1. Really. Trump won by a landslide. That means a large majority of Americans know that we have a Pretendisent, not a President.

    2. And dems need to either get the votes for a new amendment, or leave guns alone. I get the desire to end the tragedies, but trying to weasel-language your way around the 2nd amendment is harmful to the rule of law and political discourse in this country.

      1. We just want guns to be “well regulated” as the Constitution calls for.

        1. As I am sure you know, it’s the “militia” that is supposed to be well-regulated, meaning organized, supplied, and trained, not their firearms. (If your remark was sarcastic, I apologize in advance)

          1. Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary refines regulate as:
            1. To adjust by rule or method. (So the militia–all citizens–was to have regulation equipment)
            2. To direct. (To the militia was to have competent officers).
            The Kleptocracy has imported e Euro-Soviet and banana republic meaning: 3. To coercively meddle, harass, nitpick, tax, extort and bully with niggling detail. This is the meaning America’s enemies want the Second Amendment to be assigned ex-post-facto.

            1. Yeppers. Clocks were also known as “regulators.” FWIW

          2. It’s not being sarcastic.

            It’s been necrofucking the thread with the same “well-regulated” point.

        2. That may be, but the original amendment was not all that well written. Between the ambiguous language and subsequent court decisions, “well regulated militia” doesn’t really mean much. Such that the current applicability of the “militia” and “well regulated” is close to nil.

          1. Well, until the early 20th century. With its formation, the National Guard is considered the “organized militia,” as opposed to “all males aged 18-45, etc., etc…) which remain as the “unorganized militia.” The NG is pretty well-regulated. But the Militia Act is still the law of the land. Whether it is “well-regulated” or not has no bearing on the RKBA.

            1. Yes, I’ve heard this theory, and find it feasible, but that ship has sailed many court decisions ago.

        3. Vermont constitution:

          Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

          That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State–and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

          Maine:

          Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

  23. One thing about this opinion, which I am surely not the only one to notice: ten years ago, there would, maybe, have been ONE dissenter in the 9th circus. For whatever that is worth.

  24. Unlike the looter kleptocracy, Sullum opposes the initiation of force. Type of weapon is irrelevant. Retaliation is OK–except to 5th-column infiltrators making the 2020 LP platform into vote repellent: “1.8 Death Penalty–We oppose the administration of the death penalty by the state.” Result? The two religious whack jobs who just now murdered 18 people are assured room and board for life at an approximate cost in taxes of $8,100,000. The IRS won’t hesitate to kill anyone who resists shelling out that money.

  25. The bill of rights was written to over turn English tyranny. How the fuck can an actual, real judge – much less seven judges – cite old English colonial oppression to negate our constitution?

  26. the NINTH you say? we expect nothing less from that clown car of “jurists”. remind us again what their overturn rate is…

  27. It says I posted a duplicate comment, but my comment is not here. What is going on?

    1. This one appeared instantly, un-Reason censoring now?

      1. I suspect un-Reason is “moderating” but doesn’t have the guts to admit it.

        1. The site slows down or whatever sometimes.

          What did you wish to say?

  28. Then cops don’t have the right to bear arms outside of their door step.

    1. My take is the police are mostly a show. The car, uniform, and side arm are a show of power. They do need that. At the end they are outnumbered and out gunned. So the balance needs to be based on a certain amount of trust on both sides.

      When that breaks down and it has recently you have negative consequences.

  29. Look on the bright side.

    Some 25 years ago the 9th circuit gave us Hickman, which claimed the second amendment was a right of the states to maintain a militia -nothing at all to do with individuals.

    Later the 9th circuit presented Silveira, holding that the second amendment protects nothing more than the collective right of the people to maintain a militia.

    Today at least the 9th circuit admits that the right to keep arms includes an individual right to own firearms and to use them for self defense within the home.

  30. “According to the dissent, the appeals court “has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says.””
    “You can judge for yourself who has the better of this historical argument between Bybee and O’Scannlain”,
    What the Second, or any Amendment, ‘means’, the majority of the court determines. Ditto for “the better”.
    In 1852, SCOTUS, in a 7 -2 vote, decided that the Constitution did not include Blacks, who, therefore, had no rights.
    Both courts invoked tradition:
    “”After careful review of the history of early English and American regulation of carrying arms openly in the public square….” (now)
    “Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution’s drafting in 1787 ” (1852)
    Want another “means what it says”? Minor v. Happersett, 1875: Unanimously, SCOTUS ruled that women cannot vote: “Waite and the Court pointed to the history of early state constitutions and stated that no state constitutions drafted during the Revolution granted universal suffrage for all citizen”.

    1. No it ruled no one has a right to vote. The 19th amendment says that IF a state lets people vote it can’t discriminate on the basis of sex.

    2. “has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says.”

      Standard jurisprudence.

  31. Things are accelerating. I think we’ve created the first big hill on the Chaos Roller Coaster, and it’s all downhill from here. Tom Hanks likely had the right idea; he simply didn’t run far enough. I’d be working on my Spanish or pidgin, if I were him.
    Visit Once: https://www.artisticbird.com/

  32. So the Constitution only applies inside your house?
    Until the cops gen up some excuse to smash down your door.

  33. Each state signed up to the Bill of Rights when they joined the union..as such no level of govt can infringe on either the natural rights outlined in the declaration of independence and the Bill of Rights..it’s not that hard.

    As for “Assault weapons” these types of rifles (semi-autos) have been around for civilian use for over 100 years..in fact the military was slow to adapt to them as they feared troops would blow their ammunition too quick. so the AR-15 looks scary…its no different than the millions of semi-autos sold before 1950 or even the millions and millions of former military M1 and M1 carbines given away in the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

    As for gun violence..most if it is driven by suicide and the war on drugs and the gun type of choice in both are handguns not rifles.

    The narrative and reality of “laws” are always different. Anti gun laws are not making anyone more safer but punishing the “other side” which in most cases where are the types of folks the traditional drivers of gun control have problems with going back to old europe…

  34. This is a very worrying decision that does not make sense on the surface!

    But I think there is a way to thread the needle so to speak, but it will not please anyone I bet.

    To “bear arms” does not mean simply to carry a gun around all the time. It also, in a way, means to use it, typically but not solely in an army or militia.

    So I submit that a citizen have a right to carry or bear arms and use them WHEN NECESSARY, when there is a reason to expect to need them to defense yourself. And don’t say ‘I don’t know when I will need it‘. If you don’t have a reason to think you need it, then you don’t need it.

    I submit that you do not have a right to carry a gun around all the time everywhere for no reason, and a state has the right to restrict or limit this.

    It also means you don’t have a fucking right to carry a gun to the capital to threaten legislators, or to someone’s home, and should be arrested forthwith because it is a crime!

    No doubt gun rights people will say this is hollowing out the 2ndA. I don’t claim this is THE right answer, but it is a rationale answer.

    1. I have enough trouble managing carrying my cell phone. All of the adults in my family have at least a hand gun and can use them. In America it is like teaching your children how to drive a car, swim or paddle a canoe when they are old enough. I still don’t want to need to carry one around.

      It is not the guns that are the problem.

  35. The 9th circuit will have to show me in the founding document where it says I cannot carry outside of my home. Once they demonstrate that I will consider it. Until that time this opinion is repugnant to the constitution and will be summarily ignore.

Please to post comments