Americans have 'no right' to carry guns
in public, 9th Circuit Court rules
Washington Times,
by
Victor Morton
&
Alex Swoyer
Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon,
3/24/2021 6:54:32 PM
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that there is no right to carry a gun in public. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 7-4 ruling rejected a challenge to Hawaii’s requirement that residents must pass an application to have weapons outside the home. Hawaii’s law requires residents to show an urgency or need to carry a firearm, the applicant must have good character, and be “engaged in the protection of life and property.”(Snip) “We can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense,” the majority wrote, claiming that the Second Amendment applies to
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 3/24/2021 7:02:32 PM (No. 734126)
First, they defunded the police. Then, they took away one's right to defend themselves in public. Then they granted police the power to break down doors and take guns without cause. Then the Concentration camps were created. Soon followed the extermination camps. It happen once already. Now we are seeing it happen here.
55 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
mifla 3/24/2021 7:04:10 PM (No. 734128)
9th Circus Court strikes again.
43 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Namma 3/24/2021 7:09:40 PM (No. 734134)
I am, by law, allowed to protect myself. If just one person in the grocery store, in Boulder Colo., had a gun, 10 people would not have lost their lives.
64 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DVC 3/24/2021 7:09:50 PM (No. 734135)
The right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.
How damned difficult is that to grasp?
The Constitution is being furiously ERASED by evil, cowardly men in black robes.
77 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
msjena 3/24/2021 7:10:18 PM (No. 734136)
Next stop, Supreme Court.
38 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 3/24/2021 7:10:49 PM (No. 734138)
Disarm all those 'mentally ill' shooters first. The courts have no business taking away our freedoms and our rights. We have every right to protect ourselves.
37 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
bad-hair 3/24/2021 7:14:25 PM (No. 734142)
Unless I read this wrong the only REASON I need to bear arms is that I want to.
This can be a gun, a knife, a bazooka, or a stick.
36 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
philsner 3/24/2021 7:18:19 PM (No. 734146)
If your weapon is concealed, no one knows you have it.
I would rather fight the charges than be at the mercy of some criminal.
Go pound sand, ninth circus.
55 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
sanspeur 3/24/2021 7:24:39 PM (No. 734154)
then take away the screening /armed guards & security police at the courts ? right ? or is it those dickards aren’t “carrying “ some poor non elitist is ?
21 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Lake Dweller 3/24/2021 7:29:53 PM (No. 734157)
Read the Constitution, you imbecilic Leftist ‘judges’. Then go do something physically impossible...
28 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
leonardo 3/24/2021 7:34:21 PM (No. 734161)
Progressives (communists) demand a docile public which cannot challenge their dogma. Tyrants always disarm the people and shout objections down, at the barrel of THEIR gun. Overwhelmingly, crimes with firearms are NOT committed by law-abiding gun owners ... they are committed by CRIMINALS. The
9th USCOA KNOWS this, but their tyranny cannot be slaked, and, besides SCOTUS, who is there to stop them? The PEOPLE? Not TODAY's American people who have forgotten where freedom COMES FROM.
32 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Folsomguy 3/24/2021 7:35:02 PM (No. 734162)
The heck they don't. What part of shall not be infringed don't they understand.
23 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
4Justice 3/24/2021 7:39:08 PM (No. 734166)
That's a lie!! I thought the 9th Circus was starting to turn...guess not.
19 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
BarryNo 3/24/2021 7:41:49 PM (No. 734168)
"Shall not be Infringed..."
The Ninth Circus acts like it can't read.
26 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
anniebc 3/24/2021 7:44:30 PM (No. 734171)
The Colorado travesty is a huge reason why people have a right to carry arms into the public square for self defense. Sorry, you majority pontificators.
21 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
RuckusTom 3/24/2021 7:54:21 PM (No. 734183)
I assume this includes law enforcement and government agencies like the Secret Service (and FBI).
14 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Laotzu 3/24/2021 8:01:08 PM (No. 734185)
Since 1999, the Supreme Court has reversed or vacated 80% of all 9th Circuit cases it reviews.
17 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Luandir 3/24/2021 8:11:22 PM (No. 734192)
It seems to me that the right to bear arms outside one's home is what the Heller decision was about. How can these clowns have interpreted it otherwise?
And these days nothing is safe in the Roberts Kourt.
19 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
F15 Gork 3/24/2021 8:11:31 PM (No. 734193)
They’ve just given us the best reason of all to pack iron - the 9th circuit its own self.
15 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
TCloud 3/24/2021 8:13:13 PM (No. 734196)
9th Circus LMAO!
7 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Jennie C. 3/24/2021 8:22:29 PM (No. 734204)
What part of "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed," do they not understand?
Don't answer that was rhetorical.
10 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
MickTurn 3/24/2021 8:25:03 PM (No. 734206)
Impeach the court's 7 Judges...READ the 2nd Amendment...THE RIGHT TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. SO there Judges, and I use the term very loosely, if we all belonged to a Militia would that make it OK?
7 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
mc squared 3/24/2021 8:25:23 PM (No. 734207)
The 9th didn't misinterpret anything; they imposed the will of the Commierats in charge. It's only the begining.
13 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
RedWhite&Blue2 3/24/2021 8:31:11 PM (No. 734214)
Say hello to my little friend....
Say fubar to the 9th circus robed liars
10 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
Salt5792 3/24/2021 8:45:30 PM (No. 734224)
Guess I need to resume carrying one of my guns, even though they are heavy and uncomfortable in the Texas heat.
6 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
chumley 3/24/2021 8:48:08 PM (No. 734225)
There was a time in this country when we were taught to respect and obey the law because it was written for the public good by people who put America first. It gave an order to society that was worth the cost.
Those days are gone. Laws are written by criminals to benefit the criminals. I've been carrying a gun (legally) for ten years. Longer than that in reality. I cant see a panel of drug addled Kalifornia Kommunists making me change my behavior.
15 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
TJ54 3/24/2021 9:07:37 PM (No. 734239)
Let’s see what Homosexual Roberts has to say
5 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
or gate 3/24/2021 9:08:33 PM (No. 734240)
When robbed, lay down and cry.
4 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
slsusnr 3/24/2021 9:14:52 PM (No. 734243)
I routinely ignore the "firearms prohibited" signs except in places where you're searched, e.g., court houses, police departments, airline boarding areas, etc. All who carry concealed should do the same. No damned restaurant will infringe on my right to protect myself if (God help me) I have to.
9 people like this.
Why is it there is little to no mention of how many times a year a person legally carrying a gun is responsible for saving the lives of themselves or others? It is way more often than when someone is killed by gun violence.
7 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
Daisy Mae 3/24/2021 9:28:48 PM (No. 734249)
OUR Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" Excuse me but what does the word "BEAR" mean? It means that you can BEAR ARMS. idiots. The dictionary states that to 'bear arms' means "possess or carry arms"
9 people like this.
Reply 32 - Posted by:
DW626 3/24/2021 9:40:43 PM (No. 734257)
You mean the pedohphile judge roberts #27.
I predict a 7-2 ruling in favor of upholding the 9th circuit court ruling.
This is not a beginning just another brick on the wall on our path to socialism.
4 people like this.
Reply 33 - Posted by:
SALady 3/24/2021 9:44:19 PM (No. 734260)
This country really needs to just divide into two separate countries, or there is going to be Civil War 2.
13 people like this.
Reply 34 - Posted by:
PrayerWarrior 3/24/2021 10:01:50 PM (No. 734270)
Remember where this court is located. The City by the Bay. In the land of the fruits, and the nuts and the flakes.
4 people like this.
Reply 35 - Posted by:
bobn.t 3/24/2021 10:27:49 PM (No. 734283)
#36 - The civil war starts the day after the next election.
BTW - horris is going to eliminate sloJo and take over.
4 people like this.
Reply 36 - Posted by:
WV.Hillbilly 3/24/2021 11:00:40 PM (No. 734298)
As Justice Scalia wrote, "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a right attributed to the people refer to anything other than an individual right."
5 people like this.
Reply 37 - Posted by:
web 3/24/2021 11:51:13 PM (No. 734327)
Tell you what, 9th Circus. I'll stop wearing my weapon in public when the criminals stop carrying theirs. Sound fair?
5 people like this.
Reply 38 - Posted by:
preciosodrogas 3/24/2021 11:56:12 PM (No. 734328)
I agree with posters, the language is clear - how can anyone misinterpret "shall not be infringed? But with everything else that has happened since 11-6 whose to say? Along those lines and this gun grabbing, the assault guns, to meet the stand of valid law the law must be clear. Unless they can clearly articulate just what an "assault gun" is then it is not valid. And I don't think "scary gun" is sufficient.
I would add, and I believe I have standing to say since I come from the 6th Circuit district - an actual holder of the title of most overturned by the Supremes, that the overall average is 80% so, the 9th is not in actuality all that much worse - they all stink, maybe not the 2nd. The problems with the raw stats is that a Circuit like the 9th handles many more cases than the 2nd, and they must take into consideration the stupidity that preceded them - stare decisis. I'm not defending them, as you can see they all are less than stellar.
1 person likes this.
Reply 39 - Posted by:
Miceal 3/25/2021 12:33:20 AM (No. 734342)
I wonder what part of "the RIGHT of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," they don't understand...?
2 people like this.
Reply 40 - Posted by:
bighambone 3/25/2021 12:35:30 AM (No. 734344)
Did the 9th Circuit Court just effective ban hunting, as if Americans can no longer carry guns outside their homes, for the most part there will be no more hunting.
2 people like this.
Reply 41 - Posted by:
DVC 3/25/2021 1:21:52 AM (No. 734358)
The Second Amendment does NOT mention this invented "hearth and home" limitation.
It specifically says that BEARING (as in carrying them around) shall not be infringed.
That is as clear as a summer blue sky. These evil pukes are just frauds, liars and anti-Constitutionalists.
5 people like this.
Reply 42 - Posted by:
Trigger2 3/25/2021 2:51:37 AM (No. 734405)
The 9th Circus is once again attempting to enforce demonrat agenda to the detriment of the people..
3 people like this.
Reply 43 - Posted by:
Strike3 3/25/2021 8:05:04 AM (No. 734539)
The 9th Circus can go pound sand. The right to self defense is God-given and until criminals can effectively be restricted to attacking people only while they are at home I will carry whatever I need in public, regardless of their silly proclamations. Conveniently overlooked is the fact that the ten people killed in a Colorado supermarket quite likely would not have all been killed if one person had exercised his right to carry in public. Punishing the law-abiding is an easy but very ineffective way to apply the law as liberal idiots most often do.
2 people like this.
Reply 44 - Posted by:
MDConservative 3/25/2021 10:38:38 AM (No. 734709)
Anyone read the ruling? The court stands on the fact that Hawaii had such laws on the books since 1852, prior to annexation by the US...that the resolution of annexation allowed Hawaii to retain laws not in direct conflict with the US Constitution, and that the laws regarding deadly weapons hadn't changed substantially. There's 170 years of precedent in Hawaii. Let's see what SCOTUS says.
0 people like this.
Reply 45 - Posted by:
TLCary 3/25/2021 4:20:22 PM (No. 735054)
#44 Interesting. I'm trying to think of an example that is in more "direct conflict with the US Constitution". I'm pretty imaginative but I'm stumped. That "shall not be infringed" leaves no weasle room. And defining "bearing arms" that doesn't allow "carrying arms" is harder than redefining "is".
This is a defining test... Is our nation based on written laws falling or fallen?
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ribicon"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Of course.