Misreading Heller, 9th Circuit Rules Open Carry Not Protected by Second Amendment, Only Allowed ‘in the Home’
The liberal state of Hawaii’s strict infringement on open carry of firearms is lawful according to a ruling by a notoriously left-wing panel of federal appeals court judges on Wednesday in a lawsuit that was brought by a man who unsuccessfully several times attempted to obtain a license to carry a loaded gun in public.
George Young, the man who brought the suit’s lawyer said he is going to ask the US Supreme Court to review the case. “We are hopeful the Supreme Court will grant review in Mr. Young’s case,” attorney Alan Beck said.
Young is arguing that he has the right to carry a gun for self-defense and he rightfully argues that being infringed from doing so is unconstitutional and violates his Second Amendment rights. His lawsuit that he filed in 2012 was thrown out when a judge who knew nothing about the Second Amendment sided with anti-gun officials who said the Second Amendment only applied to guns kept in homes. That was written in DC v. Heller, but the judges who ruled misinterpreted the Heller ruling with respect to the “in the home” aspect of the ruling.
In Heller, the Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment only allows individuals to have a gun inside their home. The “inside the home” statement came from the charge of the case, which was the District of Columbia prohibited individual Americans from keeping and bearing handguns in the home. “In the home” was nothing more than the Court making a specific determination of what DC did.
The liberals used the “in the home” verbiage to remove individual Second Amendment rights. You have to keep an eye on tyrannical liberals. They’re crafty people. Let’s just hope that Chief Justice Roberts understands this nuance of Heller.
Here are the literal words that the Court used to start the majority opinion:
“We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”
Later in the opinion, the Court wrote:
“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
In other words, the Founders’ intentions were that to keep and bear arms meant to defend the individual and the homestead. The “individual” right never meant only inside the home.
Here is where it gets ugly.
Young appealed and three federal appeals court judges ruled in his favor, but then the state asked for a larger panel of judges (read the liberals on the court) to hear the case.
I am so sick and tired of Democrats rigging everything. A three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution, according to Heller and all of the research that went into that opinion, an American citizen may carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. That is the precedent of The High Court. So, Democrats, hating to lose, knew that the full 9th Circuit, instead of just a three-judge panel, would make up a panel that is left of Vladimir Lenin.
In the end, the panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday “held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawaii’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.”
So what happened? Did the Second Amendment suddenly change after adding more liberal judges to the case? This is why I laughed at Chief Justice John Roberts when he tried to scold former president Donald Trump saying that there are no Democrat judges and Republican judges. This is a clear cut case that there absolutely are judges who rule for ideology over the upholding the Constitution and it happens every day of the year.
According to Young’s lawyer, Hawaii has a “de facto ban” on carrying guns in public. That’s called an infringement, and it violates the Second Amendment, I don’t care how many whacked-out radical judges say otherwise.
Neal Katyal, an attorney representing Hawaii, argued to the panel that the ban is not a flat ban, because people can carry firearms if they have good cause. The problem here is that the Second Amendment was not written with a “good cause” clause. Such an entity would leave it up to whoever is elected to power at that time. How does a politician get to choose what a good cause is when we’re talking about defending your life?
The “9th Circus” ruled on the same day that Hawaii’s Attorney General’s office released a report that shows all individual citizens who applied for a license to carry a firearm in public in 2020 were denied their rights.
One of the four judges who dissented, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, wrote that the majority’s ruling that the Second Amendment only allows the right to keep a gun for self-defense in the home “is as unprecedented as it is extreme.”
Amen to that.