MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

Ninth Circuit: Second Amendment Secures Right to Carry Guns in Public

The Ninth Circuit had earlier held -- citing D.C. v. Heller -- that the Second Amendment doesn't secure a right to concealed carry, but the panel now holds that it secures a right to carry openly (though it reserves the possibility that a state might be able to choose whether to allow open carry or to allow concealed carry).

In today's Young v. Hawaii, a Ninth Circuit panel holds by a 2-to-1 vote (Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judge Sandra Ikuta, with Judge Robert Clifton dissenting) that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns openly in public places. Though the Ninth Circuit had earlier resolved in Peruta v. County of San Diego (en banc) that the Second Amendment doesn't secure a right to concealed carry -- as D.C. v. Heller had earlier suggested, in reliance on 19th-century cases that had generally rejected a right to concealed carry -- the panel concludes (also citing Heller and 19th-century sources) that there is a right to open carry, so as to be able to defend oneself in public places as well.

The Supreme Court has stated that carrying can be banned in some "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," so any right to carry would not be unlimited; but it would apply to carrying a gun in one's car, on most streets, and the like. The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both and thus makes guns available to most citizens for self-defense in public places.

It is of course quite possible that the case will be reheard en banc, which is what happened with Peruta (where the panel decision came out in favor of protecting a right to carry). But if the case isn't reheard en banc, or the panel decision is affirmed on en banc rehearing, then the case may well go up to the Supreme Court, since this decision reinforces a split among the circuits on the subject.

UPDATE: Prof. Josh Blackman summarizes the decision in this Twitter thread. Congratulations to Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh, the winning lawyers in the case.

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.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    " then the case may well go up to the Supreme Court, since this decision reinforces a split among the circuits on the subject."

    Assuming the Supreme court is, by then, actually taking 2nd amendment cases again.

  • Placeholder Name||

    My guess is that Kennedy was not a solid pro-gun vote (Heller, notwithstanding), so the other conservatives decided not to take up any more cases.

  • nonzenze||

    Some of the conservatives dissented from cert, which implies at least that they weren't acting in unison.

  • Placeholder Name||

    Or they may have wanted an opportunity to rebuke the Courts of Appeal all while knowing that they couldn't yet take on a case directly.

  • nonzenze||

    You don't get to dissent from denial of cert without actually being for cert.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's basically my guess, too: He wasn't trusted by either side, so neither side wanted to take the chance of setting a precedent they wouldn't like.

    OTOH, it could have been Roberts, too. His opinion on the ACA was a bit of a shocker, looked like he'd "grown in office".

  • mad_kalak||

    Without Kennedy, it just might. Without anything but a gut hunch, I think he was the one not voting to grant cert on the cases that Thomas and Gorsuch dissented on the cert decisions.

  • Nick Gillespie's Jacket||

    I have substantial doubts that the Chief would vote for constitutional right to carry (open or concealed). He has not — to my knowledge— voted for cert in any of the 2A petitions that have come up in last couple years, and they would have had the four votes with Thomas, Alito, Chief, and Scalia/Gorsuch. Maybe it was strategic on his part (fear of how AMK would vote), but does anyone have even a medium level of confidence that the Chief is a solid pro-2A vote on the issues of rightbto carry, magazine capacity, scary-looking semi-auto rifles, etc.?

  • mad_kalak||

    Scenario for Roberts not for for cert: 'With Obama in the White House with Hillary on his heels, and a Justice Garland on the way, Roberts does not vote for cert on a 2nd Amendment case. With a Justice Garland, would have taken all Roberts had to negotiate even a status quo on Heller/McDonald, which would require not voting for cert, as there were cases being lined up to overturn Heller.'

    That's as plausible as Kennedy being a squish. And your right, Roberts is a conservative, but he came to the Court as a dark horse and in many ways remains one.

  • phattyboombatty||

    Being pro-2A isn't a given for all conservatives, especially for a conservative from the northeast. There's Texas conservatives, and then there are New York/DC conservatives.

  • mad_kalak||

    The problem is, the manner in which California allows open carry is so narrowly prescribed that it is all but meaningless as a means towards individual self-defense.

    It's interesting to see the liberal courts use 19th century court cases upholding blanket bans on concealed carry, because there many cases overturning them as well, as violating the 2nd Amendment no less. Pick and choose which to cite into to back into with legal reasoning the preferred policy decision. But the 9th Circuit was trapped in this one, and had to allow some form of "bearing" arms else it overrule Heller, and they went with the least anti-majoritarian route. Yea for Courts taking not being anti-majortiarian (even though the majority policy preferences in CA are stupid).

    Those 19th Century concealed carry laws were either to try to prevent dueling and honor culture violence, and when that wasn't a problem, they were repealed. They were later replaced with early 20th Century "may issue" laws, which were to prevent blacks and other minorities from having guns. But once white supremacy stopped being a concern, the formerly segregated states that passed the laws to prevent minorities from carrying guns were the first to change the laws to "shall issue." (Vermont as a exception).

  • Nick Gillespie's Jacket||

    With respect, I think you read the majority wrong, unless you're factoring in its hands being tied by controlling circuit precedent (Peruta en banc). (Also, this is a Hawaii case.) In the three-judge panel decision in Peruta (also written by Judge O'Scannlain —sp??), the court held that the county had to permit either open carry or concealed carry to give meaning to the right to bear arms for self defense, and that since CA had more or less outlawed open carry, then the option of concealed carry couldn't be thwarted. The 9th en banc of course disagreed, but avoided the issue by saying that concealed carry wasn't a right, and that the issue of the state's restrictions of open carry would have to be litigated another day. Well, this is now that other day, although the state is Hawaii instead of California. I expect en banc 9th to say no right to any carry outside the home or one's private property, and then we shall see what SCOTUS does (alas, it'll probably duck the issue once more).

  • mad_kalak||

    "I expect en banc 9th to say no right to any carry outside the home or one's private property, and then we shall see what SCOTUS does (alas, it'll probably duck the issue once more)."

    I expect that you're correct.

  • ||

    If the GOP Congress had any balls, they'd defund the U.S. Marshals for any judge making anti-2nd Amendment rulings. If we don't get to use guns to defend ourselves, they shouldn't have taxpayer paid guns defending them.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Simpler to force permit reciprocity, including non resident permits.

  • ||

    I prefer the nuclear option. The way to defeat liberalism is for good people to make clear to its adherents that we consider liberalism not an idea among many ideas, but a perverted, evil ideology on par with Nazism that needs to be eradicated from the Earth.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The way to defeat conservatism has two elements:

    1) watch the Republican Party continue to shrink; and

    2) choose science, education, tolerance, reason, freedom, inclusivity, and modernity.

    I am content.

  • ||

    Except that the Republican Party that is shrinking is proxy for the taxpaying base shrinking. Your coalition of low IQ immigrants and sexual degenerates aren't going to pay the bills.

  • ||

    Except that the Republican Party that is shrinking is proxy for the taxpaying base shrinking. Your coalition of low IQ immigrants and sexual degenerates aren't going to pay the bills.

  • ||

    Except that the Republican Party that is shrinking is proxy for the taxpaying base shrinking. Your coalition of low IQ immigrants and sexual degenerates aren't going to pay the bills.

  • Joe_dallas||

    Except the progessive party is
    1) Pro - Social science -
    2) anti tolerant
    3) anti freedom
    4) anti free speech
    5) anti inclusivity

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yet you progtarded trash continue to lose everything. SCOTUS, the presidency, both chambers of congress, 2/3 of state legislatures, most governorships, and the DNC is almost financially insolvent. Only propped up through a Faustian pact with the Clintons, at the cost of much internal rank and file democrat support.

    If actual congressional conservatives take over leadership of their party majorities, you will see wider and faster adoption of Trump's agenda, plus many other things you won't like. Plus we may finally see a wave of judicial impeachments of rogue progressive judges. All to be replaced with proper constitutional constructionists.

    Eventually. I foresee a time where you will properly be put to death for your treason Arty. Although I hope for you to see the destruction of everything you have ever dreamed of first.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Open wider, clingers.

    Maybe it's time your betters stopped offering affirmative action positions to right-wingers on the faculties of our better law schools.

  • OtisAH||

    What's wrong, short bus, did a hippy date the girl you liked in high school?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "I prefer the nuclear option. The way to defeat liberalism is for good people to make clear to its adherents that we consider liberalism not an idea among many ideas, but a perverted, evil ideology on par with Nazism that needs to be eradicated from the Earth."

    I agree. Among other actions, the anti sedition laws should be dusted off, as well as more aggressive prosecutions for treason.

    We should also be looking for any and all legal pretexts to disrupt, disband , sue, and prosecute all communist it's adherents. Inlcuding the CPUSA, The 'social democrats', Amtifa, anything related to George Soros, amd the Ref. Arty here.

    That fucker should be in federal prison for his treasonous ways.

    Basically, there should be a full on return to the actual legitimate work Senator McCarthy was doing before Roy Cohn's overreach and eventual listing match with Army Secretary Stevens?

  • ||

    The leaders of the left shouldn't be in federal prison. They should be in graveyards. They are actively trying to destroy the West. Sedition and treason are the only appropriate words for their actions.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Remind me again why you banned Artie Ray, Prof. Volokh?

    Conservative censorship standards are illuminating.

  • Rossami||

    While defunding the US Marshals would feel good, that would be an unconstitutional infringement on the separation of powers. Congress would be every bit as wrong to do that as these judges are to make rulings that flout the Bill of Rights.

    The proper recourse for a federal judge with bad judgement is impeachment.

  • ||

    Except that the anti-American treasonous members of the Democrat Party support these extra-Constitutional rulings, and as such won't ever vote to impeach.

  • Rossami||

    Then they won't pass a bill defunding the US Marshals, either. Partisanship is a different problem than bad judges.

  • ||

    The GOP could pass the bill defunding the marshals without the Democrat Party Senators. They couldn't impeach without them.

  • Rossami||

    Why? To the best of my (limited) knowledge, impeachments are not subject to the filibuster. A simple majority can decide it.

  • FlameCCT||

    Perhaps SCOTUS won't duck the issue if Kavanagh is confirmed.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    If I remember correctly the Peruta ruling said that since open carry was allowed that concealed carry could be banned. Of course California banned open carry shortly thereafter. I wonder if the Ninth sitting en banc will be intellectually honest and uphold the panel's ruling or twist themselves into knots justifying a ban on both open and concealed carry (if they take the case).

  • Nick Gillespie's Jacket||

    They'll take it en banc, and I think you know the answer to your first question.

  • TangoDelta||

    9th circuit, en banc, intellectually honest... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Woooooo!!! Good one!

  • FlameCCT||

    Gotta love the 9th Circus in the Main Tent!

  • ThePublius||

    The constitution says nothing about open or concealed carry. The states are a mess, and I hope this will soon be cleared up by the courts. By "mess" I mean crazy inconsistency regarding open or concealed, shall issue or may issued, reciprocity with other states or not, resident permits or not, and on and on.

    We need a decision regarding Article IV, Section I, at least, to avoid a crummy congressional bill on reciprocity. And we need that decision to dump this entire concealed or open carry nonsense. That should be my decision, not some local government's.

  • mad_kalak||

    It shouldn't be cleared up by the courts, Congress and the Presidency need to act and pass national level reciprocity legislation on the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

  • Dilan Esper||

    Reciprocity legislation is a terrible idea. Basically it creates the credit card or state of incorporation problem- the entire country has to live with whatever laxest possible regulations are.

    The correct solution is for the courts to follow the Ninth Circuit and find some sort of right to bear arms, while leaving states and localities a lot of latitude as to how to implement it.

  • ||

    Why should states and localities get a lot of "latitude" on how to implement tan enumerated right, but not on how to implement the "right" to kill babies or have gay sex?

  • TangoDelta||

    Because reciprocity works so poorly for driving. Last I checked, if you speed in TX and your license was issued in RI it makes little difference. One thing I'll never understand is why other silly licenses aren't granted reciprocity like professional engineer, surgery privileges, or, hell, hair braiding.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Popularity. If drivers licenses were not reciprocal, if you had to get a new drivers license for every state you wanted to drive through, if it were a slow expensive process -- people would rebel. Governments can get away with 1500 hours of schooling for barbers license because no one takes a vacation by selling haircuts along the way.

  • ||

    Well, right, and not enough people rebel re: the gun permits issue.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    And I drive through three states most every time I drive to the airport. The one time recently I thought that I might have needed a firearm for protection (obvious drug deals in the trailer < 50 feet from the room, cops arrested guy parked across the street in broad daylight), I had left such behind due to the gun laws in the state with the airport. Currently, lack of reciprocity puts the entire west coast, excluding Alaska, out of reach of concealed carry holders. You have to either give up the fundamental unenumerated right to travel, or the fundamental enumerated right of keeping and bearing arms in self defense.

  • ||

    Assuming you live in Montana and you are going to Spokane for the airport, get a Utah non-resident permit. Washington honors those.

  • Kazinski||

    Most states don't honor Washington's permit because there is no training requirement. Washington was an early adoptor of shall issue back in the 60's and the idea of firearms training schools was to join the army.

    Just lobby your legislature to honor Washington's permits, and then Washington will automatically honor yours. The problem isn't Washington isn't offering reprocicity to other states, the problem is other states exclude Washington.

  • Dilan Esper||

    Suddenly driving analogies are OK with gun rights supporters?

    I didn't think they liked them so much when we were talking about gun registration. :)

    The difference between driving and this is very simple here-- a gun has a different utility and a different level of danger is a packed city than it does in rural Montana. Reciprocity allows anyone to circumvent the big city's rules by going out to Montana.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Errant drivers have far more targets who are far easier to hit in a packed city than in rural areas.

  • ||

    In fact, a gun is probably MORE useful in a big city, they should have FEWER restrictions.

    But in the end, since its a right, no place, big or small, can violate it.

    The Second Amendment says "bear". It doesn't say "openly bear" or "concealed bear". Just "bear" . So both are constitutional protected, and any bans or restrictions MUST fall.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    As usual Dilan is wrong again. Please let me buy and use guns the way I can cars.

    1. No restriction on what gun I can buy as long as I have the money
    2. No ID, license, permit, or waiting period to purchase any gun I want
    3. A simple license that is very cheap and lasts five years lets me carry a gun anywhere in public
    4. The above mentioned license is automatically renewed if there are no major violations
    5. I can buy as many guns as I can afford in any state or country
    6. No limits on magazine capacity or rate of fire

    So yeah. Lets treat guns like cars.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    I almost forgot:

    7. Not only allowed but required by law in most places to have a suppressor on a gun

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    8) An expired license or other minor paperwork violation gets you a ticket, not a felony charge.
    9) You may get a learner's permit at 15, a full license at 16, and you may own one at 18.

  • ||

    The big cities don't have the right to have "rules" that eviscerate the 2nd Amendment.

  • FlameCCT||

    Yet reciprocity is exactly what SCOTUS forced in Obergefell!

  • Dilan Esper||

    Gay marriage doesn't propel lethal bullets into people at high speed.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Gay marriage also doesn't propel lethal vehicles into people at high speed. How are car deaths different from bullet deaths?

  • Bruce Hayden||

    But that isn't what we are talking about. Eliminate suicides and (already) criminals, and most of your gun deaths across the nation disappear. I live in a state where most families have at least one gun, and concealed carry is legal without a permit outside city limits. Minding my own business, I don't fear being shot. Rather, statistically, the much more likely event is getting hit by another vehicle or even the hoard of pre-venisons that come out around dusk. Yes, you are far more likely to be injured or killed by a lowly deer, than a concealed carry holder shooting you.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    What about that Anally Injected Death Serum I've been hearing about?

  • nonzenze||

    Reciprocity would only apply to licenses issued by a State to its own residents.

    Hence there is no forum shopping possibility.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    But once California residents started seeing out of state visitors with concealed carry licenses they may succeed in lobbying the legislature to pass shall issue.

  • OtisAH||

    Something something state's rights something something.

  • apedad||

    "The states are a mess. . . ."

    That's a design feature not a bug.

    The states are the laboratory of our Republic.

  • Krayt||

    That these lower courts are just fine with laws forbidding open or concealed, but apparently not both as it effectively abridges the second amendment shows how weak the reasoning against open or concealed, individually, is.

    Weak reasoning should not override a listed right. Strong reasoning shouldn't either, but that's a different argument.

  • ipatrol||

    I'd say a very good reason to allow open carry as a right, but not concealed carry, is that the current international laws of war forbid combatants from concealing their weapons. The use of the word "arms" in the 2nd Amendment suggests a military application, that is to say it protects the right of the people to maintain their own armed force independent of the government. But if concealing weapons is not considered legitimate in warfare internationally, then no right attaches to it domestically. The people have all the rights of legitimate belligerants, but no more than that.

  • ||

    Based on other state constitutional clauses, such as PAs which specify its for "defense of self and state", I'd say "bear" covers both open and concealed carry.

  • Rossami||

    re: "current international laws of war forbid combatants from concealing their weapons"

    That is simply not true. No international law, for example, forbids the use of camouflage (which is, after all, a classic form of concealment).

    I believe you are extrapolating from certain Geneva Convention clauses. Those treaty clauses say that concealing weapons and not being in a recognized uniform may be evidence that the combatant is a spy or saboteur. (The Geneva Conventions do not, however, turn every undercover cop or hunter with an overcoat into a spy.) And in other clauses, spies and saboteurs are defined as persons outside the protections of the Geneva Convention. (IV, Part 1, Article 5)

    But nothing in the Convention outlaws spies or saboteurs. Countries use them all the time and do so legitimately. That subset of combatants are merely not granted the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    Citizens are not necessarily soldiers

  • Allutz||

    The case against concealed carry is that it probably will create more dangerous police-civilian interactions.

    The case against open carry is that a bunch of people are losers who will call the cops if they see a gun.

    These are both weak cases, yes.

  • regexp||

    The case against open carry is that a bunch of people are losers who will call the cops if they see a gun.

    Or the more likely scenario is the loser who open carries leave his gun somewhere, it gets picked up by a kid, and that kid blows his siblings head off.

  • Allutz||

    That's just an argument against gun ownership. Holsters do not randomly drop guns.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    Then, again, there was that federal (FBI?) agent in Denver recently, who was out dancing, did a flip, where his gun fell out, hit the floor, discharging, and injuring an innocent bystander. Because he is a federal agent (whose agency encourages their agents to carry off duty) he will likely walk. I do wonder why, though, with all we pay them, he wasn't wearing a decent holster, or why his handgun was not drop safe.

  • deserving_porcupine||

    His handgun didn't go off when dropped. His handgun went off when he picked up the gun and pulled the trigger, demonstrating yet another aspect of his total idiocy and incompetence: total lack of trigger discipline. (He should go to jail for a bit.)

  • mad_kalak||

    ATF Agent shoots himself in classroom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uADb3NyYlSA

  • Harvey Mosley||

    We aren't talking about open carry by law enforcement.

  • Rockabilly||

    I don't need permission to be armed to protect myself and my property

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The harder the gun nuts push, and the more video that surfaces such as that of the killing of a retreating man by a self-appointed parking patrolman, the more severe the backlash against gun nuttery.

    I hope the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home is preserved, but the prospects are dimming.

    When the Republican-conservative electoral coalition capsizes, the preferences of gun absolutists and anti-abortion absolutists are going to be among the most severe casualties.

    Why level-headed gun advocates appease the backwater absolutists is difficult to understand.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    When the Republican-conservative electoral coalition capsizes, the preferences of gun absolutists and anti-abortion absolutists are going to be among the most severe casualties.

    Who's going to inflict those "casualties"? Mincing, uneducated, self-regarding, supercilious, bigoted left-wingers who don't own guns, barely know which end of a gun is the shooty part, and burst into tears if they're separated from their emotional support chinchillas?

  • Placeholder Name||

    Chinchillas have teeth, don't they?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And words can cut like a knife..........

  • regexp||

    Mincing, uneducated, self-regarding, supercilious, bigoted left-wingers who don't own guns, barely know which end of a gun is the shooty part, and burst into tears if they're separated from their emotional support chinchillas?

    I always find this argument so cute. As a gun owner myself - what you described are right-wingers. Who cry like little girls when someone even remotely suggests regulating their boom boom sticks.

    Every liberal gun owner I've met (like everyone in my family) are trained, treat guns with respect, and understand their role (hunting or protection).

    By making jokes about this you clearly shouldn't own anything more than a butter knife.

  • ||

    Sorry, but you are completely wrong. Every conservative gun owner I've met are trained, treat guns with respect, and understand their role (hunting or protection).

    We loudly object, not cry, when somebody even remotely suggests regulating their boom boom sticks, because we've been fighting this battle for decades. And we know that one regulation leads to another. So we are done comprising our rights away.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    So we are done comprising our rights away.

    Uncompromising right-wingers will continue to just take it as the liberal-libertarian alliance effects progress in America against conservative preferences and efforts.

    After more than a half-century of this, you should be accustomed to it and recognize it will not change. I suggest you learn to like it.

  • mad_kalak||

    Rev, were you willing to compromise at civil unions instead of gay marriage?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    At one time, very likely yes. That was before I recognized that opposition was based entirely on low-grade superstition and lower-grade bigotry.

  • ||

    At one time, very likely yes. That was before I recognized that opposition was based entirely on low-grade superstition and lower-grade bigotry.

    Ah so exactly like gun owners then. We were willing to compromise, then we recognized that opposition was based entirely on low-grade superstition and lower-grade bigotry. So you know exactly how we feel! Maybe you can learn to empathize then, and finally join our side!

  • mad_kalak||

    An honest answer at least Rev.

  • ||

    Uncompromising right-wingers will continue to just take it as the liberal-libertarian alliance effects progress in America against conservative preferences and efforts.

    LOL as I pointed out in the text you ignored, its the opposite actually. Uncompromising right wingers will just continue to join with the libertarians in an alliance to progress America against liberal preferences and efforts.

    After more than a half century of this, we are accustomed to it and we do like it. Thanks!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Your betters, Violent Sociopath. You might recognize them as the people who have been shoving progress down your throat throughout your lifetime. Or the accomplished, educated people who live in modern, successful communities and subsidize the deplorable, depleted human residue that remains in our can't-keep-up yahoo towns.

  • Texasmotiv||

    I can't help but read all the Rev's posts with Loki's voice (Tom Hiddleston) in my head.

  • mad_kalak||

    Oh, man, it fits perfect!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tex, you're giving him way too much credit. I imagine me him as 'multiple Miggs' from 'Silemce Of the Lambs".

  • BigChiefWahoo||

    Hey Rev, when are those " accomplished, educated people who live in modern successful communities" going to distance themselves from out-of-control federal bureaucracies of the kind which killed the unarmed Vicki weaver in the course of attempting to enforce the federal gun laws? Are you going to be defending the authorities next time they try to cover up a similar incident?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Quit whining.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    Interestingly, after reading the original post yesterday, and reading the comments today, I happened to drive right by Ruby Ridge. Not really what I expected. I somehow expected a fairly forbidding mountain vista. Instead, it was closer to the rolling hills that they call mountains in the east mid coast area (such as the Shenandoah National Park by DC). Far less forbidding than the Wilderness Areas just west of them on the ID/MT border.

    Another story - last summer met a guy at the local range. He had been our state senator, until he had lost faith in our state govt. About this time last year, he was at the county fair by Flathead, and was talking to a father and daughter who had a booth there selling their handiwork. Turns out it was Randy Weaver, and that daughter was very likely the one in Vicki Weaver's arms when she (Vicki) was gunned down by the FBI sniper who apparently mistook the daughter for a weapon. Or, was operating under shoot to kill rules of engagement. The surviving Weavers apparently are living their lives quietly, spending most of their time doing handiwork, such as they were selling that day.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    The people you're describing as "accomplished, educated people who live in modern, successful communities" have managed to turn San Francisco, one of the world's great cities, into one of the world's largest open-air toilets. The only area in which these bigoted, uneducated pieces of human garbage are in any way my "betters" is in their unlimited capacity for hilariously unwarranted self-regard.

  • mad_kalak||

    Rev, the level of projection coming from you is astounding.

    For everyone of sound mind and body, here is the incident he is referring too: Shooting Article here

  • mad_kalak||

    Damn, still working on learning hyperlinked text. It's over at Legal Insurrection. Here is the name of the article:

    Law of Self Defense VIDEO: Just because it's lawful to present the gun doesn't mean it's lawful to press the trigger

    https://legalinsurrection.com/

  • Rossami||

    The trick for hyperlinks here is that the URL must be in quotes. The format is:
    < a href="http://example.com/page.htm">text< /a> (except with no spaces after the < symbols).

    Looking at the article, it is an interesting story - and unsurprisingly, more complex that RAK implies. For those who don't want to follow the link, the short version is:
    - B Jacobs parks in a handicapped spot at a convenience store despite not being handicapped.
    - M Drejka is upset and starts arguing with Jacobs about it.
    - M McGlockton, Jacobs' boyfriend, comes out of the store and physically assaults Drejka "shoving him violently to the ground with both hands".
    - Drejka, while still on the ground, shoots McGlockton.

    Nothing in the video nor the police report supports RAK's assessment of McGlockton as "retreating", however.

  • mad_kalak||

    *copies and pastes HTML advice* I am glad my job is not being automated so I don't have to learn to code......

    For about a split second before the shot, McGlockton *appears* to be retreating. While I wouldn't have shot, in my opinion it wasn't a tragedy either.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This is a circumstance in which your position on the spectrum should incline you to pause about making judgments involving human interactions, mad-kalak.

  • ||

    McGlockton had a history of violence and produced two illegitimate children. I wouldn't have shot either, but the world is surely better with him in the ground.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The victim is moving away from the shooter when the shooter -- angered because he is sitting on the ground, looking lame and stupid rather than menacing a woman with children like the tough guy he envisions himself to be -- pulls and fires his weapon. If you can't see that, ask an educated person to explain this for you.

  • ||

    He had just been sucker punched, and had a legitimate fear that it was going to happen again.

  • mad_kalak||

    You're telepathic? Wow.

  • mad_kalak||

    That reply was for Rev, but I guess it applies to both comments. heh.

  • Rossami||

    Funny how RAK can see things so clearly when others watching exactly the same video do not. Even the police investigating the situation - police who presumably have access to a higher resolution version of the video than the one posted on a random news website - don't see what RAK sees.

    RAK has a valid point that most people only see what they want to see. Now if he could just remember that he's one of those people.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The "police" in this case means an elected Republican white male whose position is being roundly questioned -- if not mocked -- by police and legal sources who do not have a gun fetish and do not appease racist violence.

  • Rossami||

    So more detail is now available in a different story. Based on that additional detail, the police (who I still content have likely access to a better copy of the video than anything we've been allowed to see) may have interpreted McGlockton as retreating. At best, he was not immediately advancing.

    However, the police declined to arrest Drejka out of what is clearly a misinterpretation of Florida's stand-your-ground law. As one commenter put it, it now appears likely that the Sheriff opposes that law "and is using a non-clear cut case to grind his axe."

  • Rossami||

    typo: "content" -> "contend"

  • bernard11||

    Nothing in the video nor the police report supports RAK's assessment of McGlockton as "retreating",

    WTF are you talking about? McGlockton had taken a couple of steps backwards when Drejka shot.

    Did you look at the video?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Bigots only see a white guy with a gun and a black guy with a bullet in him.

    Did I say bigots? I meant right-wingers

  • mad_kalak||

    Frankly, I one can't really tell from the video that the deceased is black. You have to find out from other sources and means.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Who are you trying to kid? If there is one thing right-wingers are good at, it's picking out the blacks. Most conservatives still observe the one-drop rule.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    The "retreat" is ambiguous which means that if it had gone to trial, the shooter would likely have walked. The problem for the prosecution is that in 49 out of 50 states (plus DC), the prosecution has to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the "retreat" was not glaringly obvious, benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant claiming self defense.

    Andrew Branca, the author of the LI piece, was using this episode as a teaching moment. True retreat of the original aggressor ends the attack that the other party would be justified in using lethal force to defend himself with, which means that puts the original victim in the aggressor role, eliminating his legal right to self defense using lethal force. The last episode he used to drive this point was less ambiguous, with, I believe, the former aggressor having taken several steps away in order to disengage.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    Let me add a plug for Branca. His coverage of the prominent self defense cases since Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, straddled him MMA style, beat his head into the concrete walk, and tried to strangle him, only to die for his efforts, has probably been the best in the country. And, I believe that anyone who carries (esp) a concealed handgun outside their house should read his book "The Law of Self Defense". There is a lot of misinformation out there about armed self defense, which can lead to a defense of self defense not being available in court if you screw it up, even if you thought that you were in the right when you shot someone. And, unless you are in TX, protecting personal property, don't shoot someone who assaulted you, but now is visibly and obviously retreating

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Thanks for the view from the backwaters, where the goobers sure love them some shoot-em-up laws but aren't so big on education, modernity, science, economic adequacy, or reason.

  • bernard11||

    The steps backwards were not ambiguous at all.

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    I don't own guns nor am I very interested in them, but it seems to me a reasonable reading of 2A is that keeping the arms is owning them and having them in the home, and bearing the arms is open carry. Assuming of course the amendment creates an individual right. Subject to strict scrutiny limits blah blah blah.

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    As you well know, the BIll of Rights doesn't create rights, only acknowledges pre-existing ones.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Pre-existing rights that governments are supposed to protect, not destroy, or grant or deny as a blind exercise of power.

  • DRM||

    Back when I was in high school debate, there was an old standard argument that was floating around where you started with explaining how your opponent's proposal would reduce federalism, and ended with nuclear war, through several quotes from people claiming "x will lead to y", "y will lead to z", etc.

    A standard counterargument then emerged, which pointed out how old the quotes were, the lack of threshold as to what would cause what, and so on. It amounted to, "If this argument isn't nonsense, why aren't we already radioactive dust? What makes this time different?"

    Similarly, every time gun rights is brought up, our local version of a high school debater in love with his own voice, a fictional reverend named for Al Pacino's lawyer character in ". . . And Justice for All", comes in yelling that the "gun nuts" are going too far and are going to get guns entirely outlawed if they, for example, actually try to get the word "bear" construed as meaning "carry" the way the OED says it has for the last thousand years.

    At which point the question is, "when"?

    Oh, when "the Republican-conservative electoral coalition capsizes"? Which is to say, when our fictional-reverend fictional-character's wet dreams magically come true for no reason. A true Hollywood ending.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Conservatives were able to arrange Heller's change a few years ago.

    A young person who votes Republican -- especially an educated, successful young person who votes Republican -- is roughly as common as a day without a stupid Trump tweet.

    Defending -- let alone expanding, as gun absolutists assume -- Heller's gun-friendly authority against the predictable backlash seems destined to be difficult, especially over the long term.

    I am content.

  • ||

    Defending -- let alone expanding, as gun absolutists assume -- Heller's gun-friendly authority against the predictable backlash seems destined to be difficult, especially over the long term.

    hahah. You need to look at the history of the concealed carry movement. We went from 1 state that was Constitutional Carry, a ton of may issue and no issues states, to 11+ constitutional carry states, an overwhelming majority of shall issues states, a few may issues states, and zero no issue states.

    Defending and expanding gun rights will be easy, especially over the long term. I predict suppressors will be removed from the NFA in the next ten years, with SBRs and SBSs either the same time period or a bit after. Scary looking gun bans will be stricken down, and constitutional carry laws will be the majority in 20 years. National reciprocity will be the law of the land soon too.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I don't know how you expect to preserve enough gun-loving, backward, rural white males in our improving electorate to defend that turf.

    You're welcome to try, though.

  • ||

    I don't know how you expect to preserve enough gun-loving, backward, rural white males in our improving electorate to defend that turf.

    I don't need too. Minority and female gun owners are increasing greatly. Besides gun-loving, forward, all area white males are nearly enough anyway.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Going forward, America becomes less white, less religious, less rural, less bigoted, less backward. Good luck with preserving a viable electoral coalition for backwardness, superstition, and intolerance.

  • DRM||

    Ah, yes, less white. Like Texas, which has been majority-minority for the last 14 years and a beacon of progressive Democrat politics all that time, right?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If conservatives are good at anything, it is clinging to unrealistic hope and longshot prospects.

  • ||

    Again, as I said, even if that happens, we will be fine, since its not a backward but forward (unlike anti-gunners who want to go back to people not being able to defend themselves), logical not superstitious (unlike anti-gunners who are super superstitious about scary looking things), and extremely tolerant (unlike anti gunners who are extremely intolerant about minorities owning guns).

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So Arty, answer a question for me. If we met face to face, would you;

    Pretend you were only kidding and try to convince me we're pals

    Start crying and shaking uncontrollably with fear. Begging me for mercy.

    Turn and run at top speed

    I'm guessing you would cry and beg like a wino, but you never know.

  • phattyboombatty||

    Yeah, there are a lot of guns laws still on the books that are strange hold-overs from long ago and don't make sense anymore. For example, the prohibitions on SBR's and SBS's come from a time when handguns were prohibited or extremely regulated and concealing weapons was considered something that only criminals would do. A shortened rifle or shortened shotgun was looked at as a handgun equivalent that could be concealed.

    Now that handguns are ubiquitous and legal, and concealed carry is the norm, there is no logical reason to have bans on shortened rifles and shortened shotguns.

    Regarding sound suppressors, it seems odd in today's world that sound suppressors are prohibited instead of being a required part of a firearm to lessen the risk of hearing loss and reduce noise pollution.

  • DRM||

    Ah, yes. Gun rights have been expanding consistently for a few decades, and therefore further pushing is going to result in a backlash that leaves things worse than when the push started. While gay rights have been expanding consistently for a few decades, and therefore further pushing is the inevitable march of invincible progress.

    This is me pointing and laughing at you.

    Though maybe I shouldn't. Maybe you were a victim of gun violence -- say, five or six 9mm rounds to the head -- and that explains the disability that drives your posting.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Accomplished, educated, reasoning, tolerant, diverse, and young people favor gay rights and oppose gun nuttery.

    Poorly educated, superstitious, intolerant, old, and old-timey white people oppose gay rights and favor gun nuttery.

    America is moving in a direction that does not favor right-wingers. Therefore, prospects for expanding gay rights and expanding gun rights are dissimilar.

    Carry clingers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It's a proven fact that progressives are poorly educated compared to conservatives. Also weaker in every way.

  • Naaman Brown||

    I'll have to pass that on to "Big Gay Al" Al Lowe of the Pink Pistols. I think he'd be surprised.

  • Eddy||

    "This is the only just and human rule. Yukin v. Kismiarse, 21 Yommma 1."

  • Eddy||

    I'm very sorry, I thought this was the legal-citation article.

  • Joe_JP||

    The Supreme Court has avoided 2A cases like the plague after McDonald with the except of a curio involving a stun gun that was decided on narrow grounds (Alito, who did not join any of the Scalia/Thomas/Gorsuch dissents in other non-grants to my knowledge, wrote a critical concurrence). Roberts desire to take such cases is unclear since he never joined any separate opinion. With a "fourth" vote, a cert grant is possible though anyhow & they will need to take up a new 2A one of these days, one gathers.

    (After the Supreme Court decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it was loathe to take up any abortion rights cases as well, though a few minor cases were taken, a fairly atypical matter involving one decision was addressed. An extreme regulation led Kennedy to finally say "enough" but he went the other way regarding a regulation of a crisis pregnancy center, while never being concerned about more intrusive slanted coerced speech that burdened pro-choice providers.)

  • ||

    Liberals hate the Constitution except when it comes to the made up rights to kill babies or have anal sex.

  • regexp||

    Does your mother know you are on the computer again?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    He seems like a standard-issue right-winger, regexp.

  • Alpheus W Drinkwater||

    Particularly in his apparent fascination with anal sex.

  • ||

    Those of you on the left are the ones who ran to the Supreme Court to get anal sex declared a Constitutional right, not me.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    I know I wept when the Supreme Court allowed gay dudes to get SS spousal benefits without marrying a woman.

    As an aside can immigrants get SS spousal benefits??? So will Melania get max SS spousal benefits even though she only worked a few years as an illegal??

  • mad_kalak||

    I can't tell if your post is Poe's Law in action, but I'll take the bait.

    Show me where Melania was an illegal alien.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do your own research, you half-educated goober.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    I knew nothing about this story--so I did some research.
    She is alleged to have violated the terms of her visitor's visa by working for 5 weeks prior to getting her work visa.
    And, your point, Arthur, based on these facts would be ...what, exactly?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    And, your point, Arthur, based on these facts would be ...what, exactly?

    She should be investigated, charged, apprehended, and deported, at least by wingnut standards. Her parents' efforts toward chain migration should be despised and stopped, by conservative standards.

  • mad_kalak||

    I'm from Missouri, the "Show Me" state. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, thus the burden is on Cremmington to back up his claim.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Lefties always bring out this "Why are you so fascinated" -trope when this subject comes up.
    Show me where mainstream conservatarian thought (say, from the National Review inward to the center) said anything about gay sex prior to Bowers.
    The only exception--and it is, indeed, a telling exception--is J. Edgar Hoover.

  • ||

    Exactly. They parade their perversion in front of us and then criticize us for noticing it.

  • OtisAH||

    Heh, earlier I made a dumb comment about some hippy dating the girl you liked in high school. But we know girls aren't really your thing, don't we?

  • Dilan Esper||

    Given the text of the 2nd Amendment, I don't see how the Ninth Circuit is wrong that you either have to allow some sort of open carry or some sort of concealed carry for the armed populace that the provision contemplates.

    As a matter of reality, though, I suspect it will be very tough sledding getting even a conservative SCOTUS to recognize a right to carry that doesn't have significant exceptions-- essentially allowing the government to designate pretty large swaths as "sensitive places".

  • ||

    Sensitive places should only include places with armed guards and metal detecotrs.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I see no reference to "sensitive places" in our Constitution.

  • OtisAH||

    He's talking about Ted Nugent concerts, Rev.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty is very stupid, so he gets easily confused.

  • ||

    I'm content to use the regime envisioned by the founders.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Basically in any "sensitive place", the proprietor of the place should end up with an affirmative obligation to protect everybody present, because they've taken away those people's capacity to protect themselves.

    And gun lockers, of course, because if you don't have some place to put your gun when you get there, you can't be armed on the way there and back, either.

  • ||

    Fortunately, I live in a state where the no gun signs mean nothing legally, so I walk right by them and smile.

  • Dilan Esper||

    Brett, if you are going to impose that liability rule, how about also imposing a liability rule against anyone whose gun is used to harm someone?

    In both cases, the rule would result in the purchasing of insurance, which would probably carry a fairly high premium. But I get the feeling that gun owners-- at least the ones who don't properly store their weapons or sell them privately without a background check-- are throwing more externalities than people who make their property gun-free are.

  • ||

    We already have a liability rule- its call criminal law.

  • phattyboombatty||

    Assuming a gun used in a crime could be traced to another person who played no role in the crime (because insurance wouldn't cover an intentional criminal act on the part of the insured) it's very likely that person is poor and has no assets to protect so they wouldn't bother purchasing insurance unless forced to by the state, which is what is done with auto liability.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    "Brett, if you are going to impose that liability rule, how about also imposing a liability rule against anyone whose gun is used to harm someone?"

    I think you have to use a rule of reason there. Someone breaks into your house, or your car, steals your gun, you typically won't be liable, criminally or civilly. Esp if you report the theft to the police. On the other hand, you store it unsecured in your dresser, a kid finds it, and shoots someone? Grossly negligent, and possibly also criminal - probably somewhere between involuntary manslaughter and 2nd Degree Murder (depraved heart/mind).

  • ||

    Brett, are you talking about locations the government alleges are "sensitive places", or private property?

    As far as I'm concerned, the owner of private property has the legal right to exclude people carrying guns if he/she does not like them or want them on their private property. It's not a second amendment issue at all. Just like asking people with political signs they don't support to leave private property is not a first amendment issue...

    People can argue about edge cases like leaving a gun (or political sign) in the trunk of a parked car while the owner is inside at work, but the basic premise that private property should be controlled first and foremost by the owner seems like a no-brainer.

  • ||

    Unless of course, the owner doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for two gay men.

  • Harvey Mosley||

    In California the First Amendment trumps private property that's open to the public so why shouldn't the Second Amendment do the same? And then you have the public accommodation laws as well. So why should some laws and rights trump private property concerns but not others?

  • Naaman Brown||

    I do believe you forfeit certain private property rights when you "hang a shingle" declaring you are a business open to the general public. The general public includes people you could exclude if your property use was purely private or if you ran a membership-only club with one of the conditions of membership being no guns. One part of being a business open to the general public is you ought to be prepared to do business with the general public.

    Statistically CCW holders are less likely to commit crimes than members of the general public, or even the average police officer, but if you don't want me, hey, neither me nor my money will darken your doorstep.

  • Charles Nichols - CRTC||

    Professor Volokh - You said: "The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both..."

    Where in the Young decision did the majority say that states can choose to ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry? To the contrary, the majority decision went to great length explaining why Open Carry cannot be banned, period.

    You also said that the Young v. Hawaii decision creates "splits." Surely these splits are not among the Federal circuits? The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th assumed without deciding that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home. The 7th and DC circuit court of appeals held that it does and both recognized that the Second Amendment right to Open Carry is the right defined in Heller.

  • Eugene Volokh||

    In footnote 21 on p. 52, the court leaves open this possibility. (I didn't say that the majority says that states can choose this, only that it leaves open the question.)

    The split is on the result, not on how the courts got there. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th circuits basically allowed the government to limit public carrying to only those people whom the government chooses to favor with permits. The D.C., 7th, and 9th Circuits struck down regimes that banned or restricted carrying. That's the real disagreement, even if the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuits assume there is a right but then conclude that the government can largely ban its exercise.

  • ||

    You are correct, but no one should assume any good faith on the parts of the courts in Peruta, Kachalsky, Woollard, or Drake. If those cases aren't examples of results-oriented judging, I don't know what it is.

  • Charles Nichols - CRTC||

    Professor Volokh - Thank you for the clarification. From the footnote: "even if the State and County remain free to accommodate the right to bear arms with concealed carry
    after Peruta II, an issue we do not decide..."

    "An issue we do not decide."

    That issue, concealed carry not being a 2A right, was decided in Peruta (en banc) and in Heller and in McDonald and even in Robertson v. Baldwin for the reason the 10th circuit cited Robertson in Peterson v. Martinez.

    The 2nd circuit decision in Kachalsky explicitly limited its decision to concealed carry and admonished the plaintiffs, in a footnote, for saying that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. Likewise in Drake (3rd circuit) and Woollard (4th circuit) the plaintiffs argued for concealed carry. They did not seek to carry openly and they did not challenge a permit requirement for the Open Carry of handguns (New York, New Jersey, and Maryland do not have statewide bans on the Open Carry of long guns).

  • Charles Nichols - CRTC||

    Professor Volokh - It occurs to me that "An issue we do not decide" means that SCOTUS will not grant cert to decide an issue (concealed carry in this case) that was not decided by the lower court. As the Supreme Court is fond of saying "We are not a court of first impression."

    Nice.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Kavanaugh appears to be against concealed carry being protected based on "tradition".

    Obviously some form of open carry must be protected because Americans must be able to bring their guns home from the gun store. Even states that were vehemently anti-handgun like Texas in the 1980s allowed people to travel with their handguns to a few places. So Constitutionally protecting open carry and allowing quite a few restrictions seems to be the way to go.

    Furthermore Deplorables tend to believe a black man carrying a gun is automatically guilty of committing a crime so hopefully this will prevent those people from calling the cops on black men with guns.

  • ||

    Projecting again? Deplorables have no issue with any law abiding person carrying guns.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Uh no, Deplorables believed Trayvon Martin was guilty because on social media there was a photo of him holding a gun. The black man shot by a cop in NC was also declared guilty because he had a gun in his car and was rolling a cigarette!! Deplorables think black people puffing on vapes and rolling their own cigarettes are really guilty! And I know how you feel about (God forbid) grape soda!

  • Eddy||

    I think that if more people had known about Zimmerman's future behavior, they'd have been less willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with the Martin shooting. But that evidence of future behavior was kept from the jury.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    No, his "future behavior" has been just like his past behavior. You know how he had a restraining order from a girlfriend, he was arrested for shoving an officer, his wife pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor because of an interaction with him, oh and how he killed a kid that just turned 17 after instigating a confrontation.

    Btw, I considered myself a Tea Party Republican (Bush forced me to vote Democrat) but the Zimmerman incident is when I started feeling like maybe liberals were correct about some of the underlying motives of the Tea Party.

  • Eddy||

    I thought George W. has been retroactively recast as a thoughtful moderate.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    I know, Trump's one redeeming quality is that he shows how shallow all of the Republicans I would argue with in 2004. Trump ran against Bush's wars, his selling us out to China, and his open borders policy to help his Mexican nephew become governor of Texas. And then Jeb! spent $100 million attacking Rubio so he couldn't become the first Latino president which the Bush family believes George P is entitled to. The Bush family is even more vile than the Clintons with the exception of the Bush twins who are clearly well adjusted and not interested in politics.

    Trump could never be as bad as Bush and quite frankly I don't think any president could be because we won't ever do something as stupid as invade another country because we have a policy that allows terrorists into cockpits!?! That is a great policy—let's allow terrorists in the cockpit so they can safely fly the plane to Havana!!

  • OtisAH||

    Actually, he's been retroactively cast as having never existed. To many GOP'ers, the last Republican President was the founder of our country, Ronald Reagan.

  • vek||

    Truth is man in 90% of the "police shoot innocent black man" cases, the black guys did shit that got them shot.

    Now, that's not to say the cops always SHOULD have shot them... They probably should have tased them all though. If you're refusing to comply with orders, screaming at the cops, physically attacking them, etc as is the case 99% of the time... Weeell you might get your ass shot. It's really as simple as the Chris Rock skit about how to not get beat up by the police.

    This isn't even to mention the fact that the black Harvard researcher found that blacks are no more likely to be shot than whites once variables are controlled for. As a matter of fact whites are MORE likely to be shot.

    Police training needs to go back more towards how it used to be, not so militarized, but there is no special situation with black people. It's all race baiting BS.

  • ||

    Exactly. The paramilitarization of the police is a problem in general. Read about the Hirko shooting in Bethlehem, PA.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Thanks to our liberal-libertarian alliance, bigots no longer like to be known as bigots, at least not in public. This is great progress.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "Deplorables believed Trayvon Martin was guilty because on social media there was a photo of him holding a gun."

    Actually, we believed he was guilty because he had scuffed knuckles and a fatal gunshot wound, while Zimmerman had the crap beaten out of him, leading any rational person to conclude that Martin was shot while beating the crap out of Zimmerman.

    Liberals apparently believe that Zimmerman shot Martin unprovoked, and then repeatedly struck Martin's fists with his face in an effort to disguise what he'd done. And, did this knowing the police would be arriving in minutes anyway.

    The scenarios you have to construct to paint Zimmerman as legally the aggressor are pretty unbelievable. But apparently liberals are under the impression that sharing the same sidewalk with somebody qualifies as sufficient provocation to punch them.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Actually Zimmerman didn't have the "crap beaten out of him". In fact if you believe Zimmerman had the crap beat out of him you are admitting to being a PUSSY like Zimmerman. Zimmerman's defense was that he was a PUSSY so his force was reasonable and not that he had the crap beat out of him. A jury of 6 women agreed with his defense that he was a PUSSY so his force was reasonable.

  • ||

    Such a load of stupidity.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Your hero is a self proclaimed PUSSY! Dream big!

  • mad_kalak||

    While part of Zimmerman's defense teams strategy may have been to make him appear physically weak in the way he dressed and sat at the defendant's table, he did, in fact, have the crap kicked out of him, and people do routinely die from just one blow. Or from one badly applied headlock. Was that fat slob Eric Garner a pussy too? So much of pussy that he "couldn't breathe." I mean, yea, what a pansy. "Do you even lift bro?" should be on his tombstone.

    What kind of legal and ethical standards are you setting up in your comment....the weak and handicapped or disabled should not be able to defend themselves?

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    6 women accepted his pussy defense and apparently so do you...so that makes you a pussy or a girl boy. You are free to destroy your life just like Zimmerman by behaving like a pussy.

  • mad_kalak||

    I've beaten up more people, in sport and in the street, than anybody who's not a professional fighter. If you're willing to exchange personal information, and willing to sign a waiver, I'd be more than happy to add you to the list.

    All of us, even you Sebastian, is one bad car accident away from being defenseless. Moreover, unless you have youth pills in your pocket, age gets the better of all of us in the end.

    So take a long walk off a short pier.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You're a fucking idiot. Your analysis of the evidence betrays you as a total ignoramus.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That was intended for Sebastian

  • bernard11||

    Reading Bruce Hayden's comment above I thought there was a videotape.

    Amazing how you guys know exactly what happened.

    The one thing we know is that nothing would have happened if Zimmerman hadn't decided to mess in something that wasn't his business. His subsequent history supports the idea that he is quite the asshole.

  • ||

    We don't use a "but for" test with self-defense. Nothing would have happened had Traythug kept his hands to himself.

  • Naaman Brown||

    I have a low opinion of the elitists who live in gated communities and I jumped to a conclusion about Zimmerman. But early in the media, Brandy Green (Trayvon's father's fiance) was quoted saying Trayvon had reached the back door of her house and she did not understand why he didn't just go in. Then she disappeared from media accounts as the Ben Crump legal team took over the public discussion. That bugged me. Why did Green disappear? I started paying attention.

    According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony at the trial and her subsequent interviews: Trayvon was on the phone with her over a minute after he lost sight of the man watching him. He told her he was at the back entrance of Green's house and he was about to go in. (Zimmerman had stopped following Martin and was waiting for the responding officers to arrive, per the dispatcher's suggestions.) Rachel and Trayvon decided that the man watching him was a "homo" and that he needed to go back and "whoop ass" (and keep her on the phone while he did).

    Martin went looking for Zimmerman to start an avoidable fight. He could have simply entered the Green home, shut the door, and got off the phone with Jeantel and called his dad or even called 911 himself. I am not the only one who followed the trial and the evidence and agreed with the verdict.

  • ||

    Exactly. Martin didn't assault Zimmerman because he was scared. He assaulted him to impress his GF or whatever she was.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Actually Zimmerman was looking for a fight to win back his wife. Zimmerman even lied in his interview with Hannity about the whereabouts of his wife that night because she had left him the night before after an argument. Had the incompetent prosecution known about the argument Zimmerman's motives are pretty obvious—he wanted to be a hero to win back his wife.

  • Toranth||

    Actually, as Namaan Brown said, the uncontested court testimony by Jeantel was clear: Martin was clear and Zimmerman was not following him anymore, before Martin decided to return to confront Zimmerman.

    Your attempt at telepathy is weak, compared to the criminal investigation and multiple witness testimony as to what actually happened. Go back to staring at goats before you try any more mind reading.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I have a low opinion of the elitists who live in gated communities

    What is your opinion of poorly educated, diffusely intolerant, superstitious, gullible, disaffected, economically inadequate citizens who reside in depleted, left-behind communities?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You mist be talking about yourself. I have a low opinion of you.

  • Naaman Brown||

    When I saw The Hunger Games I identified with the people of the Districts.

  • ||

    No, we believed Trayvon was guilty because he was illegally possessing a firearm as a minor (we don't believe children have the RKBA). We also believe he was guilty because he was beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete. I'm not familiar with the NC case, so I won't comment, but the Castile shooting by the mestizo Hispanic cop was a travesty.

  • Bruce Hayden||

    Also, Martin apparently also tried to strangle Zimmerman. Both were the unjustified use of deadly force. Moreover, from the angle of the shot, Martin was not retreating, and, thus, Zimmerman was entitled to use deadly force in self defense.

    The joke at the time was that the prosecution's burden in FL is to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead here, the defense proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. There was, essentially, no physical evidence supporting guilt, and significant evidence supporting innocence. And the only witnesses supporting guilt were Martin's family members. All the rest of them supported innocence. The prosecutor should have been disbarred bring a case without even arguable probable cause.

  • ||

    I agree. Dershowitz said largely that, and Corey called Harvard's dean to try to get him fired. She's a pathetic fat hack who has no business being a lawyer, much less a prosecutor.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Angela Corey would charge indigent black defendants with 20-year felon charges knowing the evidence only supported 1 to 3 year lesser offenses, to coerce defendants to 3 year felony plea bargains. Over-charging prosecutors do not help the cause of justice. And when the evil demon 20 foot tall ogre clients get acquitted (because they are not evil demon 20 foot tall ogres), the Nancy Graceless types go to the media to undermine public faith in the jury system.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    People believed Trayvon Martin was guilty because he was ... you know ... guilty.

    He assaulted another man and pounded his head into concrete. All because George Zimmerman (who, by the way, had more black DNA that Homer Plessy) had the effrontery to ask what he was doing.

  • Naaman Brown||

    I believe black people are twice as likely to be victims of crime than white people.
    Since gun laws affect only the law abiding, restrictive gun laws put otherwise law abiding blacks (and whites) in the position of either being disarmed in the face of criminal violence, or being armed illegally.
    Gun laws are deplorable. Gun restriction advocates are the deplorables in this equation.

  • vek||

    I'm amazed the 9th of all courts would come to a sane conclusion! But I'll take it!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The gun advocates drew three Republican judges -- best possible for gun nuts, against the odds -- and the decision was 2-1.

    (You might not have noticed this because Prof. Volokh omitted his familiar 'for those of you who keep track of such things, here's the party lineup' in this circumstance, for reasons regular readers may readily infer.)

    That luck of the partisan draw would run out when the case reached an en banc proceeding.

  • ||

    Right, because Democrat appointed judges uniformly ignore the Constitution.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Arty, just learn to obey.

  • vek||

    Luck or not I'll take it for now!

    But ultimately it doesn't matter since if it gets up to SCOTUS they'll probably decide things right nowadays :)

    Carry on clinger! LOL

  • Michael Cook||

    My constitutional worry today is that I may be arrested for making explicit or implicit threats (even hate speech), in the snowflake definition of a threat being anything that makes someone feel uncomfortable.

    When my Time magazine arrived this week I saw that the cover was a meld of Putin and Trump's faces. I emailed their editorial board that they owe the nation a cover that melds Obama's ass and Robert Mueller's face. Now I fear the consequences of brash communicating.

    Similarly, I suggested that the entire editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post should enhance their corporate cultures, team spirit and so on by going on frequent duck boat excursions.

    Too late I recalled my Virgil: honi soit qui mal y pense.

  • apedad||

    You were upset by a magazine cover?

    Talk about snowflakes. . . .

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    That quote is not Latin.

  • OtisAH||

    He said it was from HIS Virgil, not THE Virgil.

  • Michael Cook||

    Actually, my old memory now forces me too--ahh it is the motto of the Queen's own Coldstream Guards, so I suppose that makes the language what---Scottish?

    My beef with Bobbie Mueller would be: you are given a blank check to hire a baker's dozen lawyers from firms in the Beltway and New York City. These are all Democrats but maybe Bob couldn't help that because it would not be Establishment Etiquette (EE) to hire smart prosecutor/lawyer/investigators for a national mission like this from places like Omaha, or Denver, or Phoenix. Just not up to it out there in flyover land, don't you know!

    So just what is the mission? Be a Russia Prober and prove blameless Hillary had the election stolen right out of her Gucci handbag, no less.

    Here are your special tools: Unmask (using Clinton campaign $ to buy a dossier from Russians), then spy, spy, spy on every associate of the Republican campaign, Turn a Blind Eye to all the many Democrats who were anticipating a Hillary victory would mean money from Russian business deals, hire Andrew Weissman so you can really strong-arm Trump associates, and grant selective immunity to Dems like Tony Podesta who is up to his neck in Russian Ukrainian corporation, maybe someday Hunter Biden who is the same kind of Democrat wonder boy making it big in the former Soviet Union.

  • Michael Cook||

    *Russian-Ukrainian corporations

  • OtisAH||

    It's the French motto of the British Order of the Garter.

  • Michael Cook||

    and it means, of course, evil be to him who evil thinks

    At some point the elite regiment Coldstream Guards may have borrowed it. Out in Montana a few decades earlier the US 7th Cavalry borrowed a Scottish tune the "Mary Owen" as their official dance song. The name persists on old highway maps as a tiny hamlet adjacent to the Custer National Battlefield on the Little Big Horn river.

    Just recalled I got the French quote I attributed to Virgil (!) from Sikh author Arjun Raj Gaind who wrote Death at the Durbar which is a classic English murder mystery set deep in the culture of colonial India. I mention that because these people in history are responsible for inventing and inflicting upon the world the bagpipes! Came back to haunt them too. Stuff always does.

  • WJack||

    "Garryowen (air) - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garryowen_(air)
    "Garryowen", also known as "Garyowen", "Garry Owen" and "Gary Owens", is an Irish tune for a ... The group selected "Garryowen" as their official regimental marching song. ... and its melody was integrated throughout the score as a love theme between the main character, Marty Maher, and his wife-to-be, Mary O'Donnell."

  • TxJack 112||

    Clearly the 9th Circuit made the ruling to force the SCOTUS to hear the case when it arrives and take a stand. There is no way states like Hawaii or California will allow open carry or even carrying a firearm in your car. In Texas, you can carry a gun in your car without a license because your car is considered an extension of your home. However, to open carry, you must have a license to carry (LTC) which also allows concealed carry. I have seen one person open carry outside of a gun range since the law went into effect on Jan 1st 2017. Regardless, only time will tell how the 9th circuit or SCOTUS reacts to this ruling.

  • dwb68||

    Congrats to Prof Volokh too... who was cited in key sections of the majority opinion.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Let's see how he does in a en banc majority opinion. That won't be an all-Republican, Federalist-friendly, right-wing bench.

  • ||

    So you're on record admitting that the Democrat Party appointed judges ignore the Constitution?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    ARWP, Arty is just going to respond with some rant about progtard superiority. Which is funny, because he's a high school dropout who empties them astebaskets for some business owned and operated by a conservative.

    He's such a little bitch.

  • phattyboombatty||

    Federalist-friendly? With respect to state gun laws, wouldn't left-wing judges be considered the federalist-friendly judges since they are the ones advocating that a state should be able to implement the gun laws of its choosing? I recall in McDonald it was the liberal judges that made the strong federalism argument with regards to each state being able to choose the laws that work best for each state.

  • WJack||

    Progressive judges will advance any argument that might undermine the Second Amendment.

  • ||

    And any other part of the Constitution (including the 1st Amendment) they don't like.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    Federalism does not allow a state to pass unconstitutional laws.

  • dwb68||

    It would be foolish for Hawaii to appeal. For the same reason DC was dissuaded from appealing... the SUpreme Court would almost assuredly take it now and open carry would go national.

  • vek||

    That may be true... But never underestimate the stupidity of leftists!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online