• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal appeals court says states can restrict open carry of firearms

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
83,698
Reaction score
58,398
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This just happened and will send this to the SCOTUS. The majority opinion written out by Jay Bybee... GW Bush's pet that wrote the torture memos if you can remember.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict the open carrying of guns in public, a major ruling that is certain to be appealed to a US Supreme Court hostile to limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling upheld Hawaii's limits on openly carrying firearms in public, rejecting a challenge from Hawaii resident George Young, who had sued the state for denying his bid to carry a handgun outside the home.​
"There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment," Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion.
 
Further from the majority opinion...

"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," he continued.​
"History is messy and, as we anticipated, the record is not uniform, but the overwhelming evidence from the states' constitutions and statutes, the cases, and the commentaries confirms that we have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces."​
 
Makes sense. I am a huge advocate of the 2nd amendment but I think it does more harm than good to 'bear' arms in public. I would much rather my right to carry was constitutionally guaranteed than to publically carry.

Likely overturned though "overwhelming evidence from the STATES constitutions" will not much matter when referring to a federally granted right.
 
Makes sense. I am a huge advocate of the 2nd amendment but I think it does more harm than good to 'bear' arms in public. I would much rather my right to carry was constitutionally guaranteed than to publically carry.

Likely overturned though "overwhelming evidence from the STATES constitutions" will not much matter when referring to a federally granted right.
The federal right claims a need for being well regulated. This ruling is merely that kind of regulation.
 
This just happened and will send this to the SCOTUS. The majority opinion written out by Jay Bybee... GW Bush's pet that wrote the torture memos if you can remember.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict the open carrying of guns in public, a major ruling that is certain to be appealed to a US Supreme Court hostile to limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling upheld Hawaii's limits on openly carrying firearms in public, rejecting a challenge from Hawaii resident George Young, who had sued the state for denying his bid to carry a handgun outside the home.​
"There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment," Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion.

9th district court.

The democrats house of worship.
 
Oh, this should be good.
 
The federal right claims a need for being well regulated. This ruling is merely that kind of regulation.
le sigh

Well regulated at THAT time didn't mean restricted, and make no mistake this is a restriction.

Well regulated meant maintained.
 
Oh, this should be good.

I agree, the sooner that all these little tidbits get crushed and the right is sanctioned by god himself. Keep litigating it so we get more concrete evidence of things, and then poof you won't hear any more about the libruls trying to take away arms, as all the political capital and legislation will be used up and enshrined into federal LAW, as espoused by the USSC
 
I agree, the sooner that all these little tidbits get crushed and the right is sanctioned by god himself. Keep litigating it so we get more concrete evidence of things, and then poof you won't hear any more about the libruls trying to take away arms, as all the political capital and legislation will be used up and enshrined into federal LAW, as espoused by the USSC

If this country lasts another hundred years, do you want to take a guess at what people will be arguing about in 2121?
 
le sigh

Well regulated at THAT time didn't mean restricted, and make no mistake this is a restriction.

Well regulated meant maintained.
Actually back then, there were many tight regulations and restrictions. Like you couldn't take guns into some towns and cities at all and there were regulations on how you store your gun powder. It wasn't as willy nilly as the right likes to pretend the past was on this issue.

 
The more guns there are, the worse everybody's chances get.
 
The more guns there are, the worse everybody's chances get.

This is why I think everyone has a constitutional right to a flamethrower. And a bazooka. And a quart of ricin.
 
The federal right claims a need for being well regulated. This ruling is merely that kind of regulation.

This should be ruled unconstitutional, based on the requirement to secure (state) government “may issue” permits to exercise one’s 2A rights. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS will likely make a very narrow ruling on this matter - probably saying that it would be OK if the (state) permits were made “shall issue”.
 
This just happened and will send this to the SCOTUS. The majority opinion written out by Jay Bybee... GW Bush's pet that wrote the torture memos if you can remember.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict the open carrying of guns in public, a major ruling that is certain to be appealed to a US Supreme Court hostile to limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling upheld Hawaii's limits on openly carrying firearms in public, rejecting a challenge from Hawaii resident George Young, who had sued the state for denying his bid to carry a handgun outside the home.​
"There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment," Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion.
Are you saying that the 9th "circus" is hostile to limiting our 2a rights?
 
This should be ruled unconstitutional, based on the requirement to secure (state) government “may issue” permits to exercise one’s 2A rights. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS will likely make a very narrow ruling on this matter - probably saying that it would be OK if the (state) permits were made “shall issue”.
For a little description, this case is based on a guy who wants to open carry a pistol in Hawai'i without having to obtain an open carry license.
 
Are you saying that the 9th "circus" is hostile to limiting our 2a rights?
I'm saying you are talking out of your ass and not reading enough to make an educated comment on the topic apparently.
 
*shrug*


The Ninth circuit is the liberal weenie court out in weenie, weenie land. And like the majority of their rulings that go in front of the Supreme Cout, this will be reversed in short oder and the whole country will see once again what a joke the Ninth Circuit is.
 
This just happened and will send this to the SCOTUS. The majority opinion written out by Jay Bybee... GW Bush's pet that wrote the torture memos if you can remember.
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict the open carrying of guns in public, a major ruling that is certain to be appealed to a US Supreme Court hostile to limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling upheld Hawaii's limits on openly carrying firearms in public, rejecting a challenge from Hawaii resident George Young, who had sued the state for denying his bid to carry a handgun outside the home.​
"There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment," Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion.
Pop Quiz: Can you identify the following? ::

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right to bear arms; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

No hints.
 
le sigh

Well regulated at THAT time didn't mean restricted, and make no mistake this is a restriction.

Well regulated meant maintained.
Holy Tombstone, Batman! Does this mean that Wyatt Earp was wrong?

Speed limits are regulations and restrictions, by the way.
 
For a little description, this case is based on a guy who wants to open carry a pistol in Hawai'i without having to obtain an open carry license.

Good, I hope that he wins on appeal. It should not be legal for states to be able to require paying rent for the exercise of individual constitutional rights. Texas recently started requiring a permit for open carry of a handgun.
 
Pop Quiz: Can you identify the following? ::

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right to bear arms; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

No hints.

Hmm... less that bolded above part it is the 1A.
 
The federal right claims a need for being well regulated. This ruling is merely that kind of regulation.

No it doesn't. The 2nd Amendment says that the we need a well-regulated Militia (meaning it should be well-prepared and functioning), not that the right to bear arms should be regulated.
 
This just happened and will send this to the SCOTUS. The majority opinion written out by Jay Bybee... GW Bush's pet that wrote the torture memos if you can remember.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict the open carrying of guns in public, a major ruling that is certain to be appealed to a US Supreme Court hostile to limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling upheld Hawaii's limits on openly carrying firearms in public, rejecting a challenge from Hawaii resident George Young, who had sued the state for denying his bid to carry a handgun outside the home.​
"There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment," Judge Jay Bybee, a nominee of George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion.
Open carry kind of defeats the purpose. The right to carry concealed is the best for public safety, the idea being, not everybody carries, which produces the effect: you never know who is armed. To me, the more law abiding citizens that carry, the safer we are in public. If that was the case in Boulder, does this nutjob get 10 people? If the majority of shoppers there were armed, probably not. If it's common knowledge that the majority of the shoppers there are armed, does he even choose that store to shoot up? Maybe not. Although not 100%, it does even up the odds at least. Better than the fish in a barrel type situation. I fear the steady chipping away at the bill of rights that's going on. 1a, 2a, are under assault, big time. I'm not optimistic.
 
Back
Top Bottom