Ninth Circuit Court Chips Away at Second Amendment
Ninth Circuit Court Chips Away at Second Amendment
Coming on the heels of the shootings in Boulder and Atlanta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has chipped away at the Second Amendment.
In a ruling on Wednesday, the court decided in Young v. Hawaii that average citizens don’t have the right to bear arms. Never mind what the Second Amendment says.
BREAKING: The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that there is no right to carry – either openly or concealed in public
This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 24, 2021
The case arose after appellant George Young applied for a firearm carry license in Hawaii twice in 2011. He had applied for both open and concealed carry, but the state rejected his applications on the grounds that Young didn’t demonstrate the “urgency or the need” to carry. Hawaii requires that an applicant must demonstrate “need.” He must also be “engaged in the protection of life and property,” and be of “good moral character.”
But the Ninth Circuit Court, in a 7-4 ruling, decided for Hawaii, and against Young.
In its summary, the majority wrote:
“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.”
“We can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.”
The court concluded that the Second Amendment applies merely to “defense of hearth and home.”
However, three judges decided in September, 2018, that Young had the constitutional right to open carry. Hawaii then quickly appealed for an en banc (full court) decision from the Ninth Circuit.
And now we know what the full court decided: neither George Young nor anyone else in the Ninth Circuit has Second Amendment rights. These would include the states of Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and California.
So what happened on Wednesday?
The Ninth Circuit examined all sorts of laws, including English law from the Middle Ages. They also looked at laws on the books in Hawaii prior to it becoming a state. In the end, though, the pre-state Hawaiian laws held sway with the majority. They decided that “longstanding prohibitions” in Hawaii take precedence over the Constitution, and thus, “the conduct they regulate is outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.”
Judge Jay Bybee, writing for the majority, also warned of scary guns in public:
“It remains as true today as it was centuries ago, that the mere presence of such weapons presents a terror to the public and that widespread carrying of handguns would strongly suggest that state and local governments have lost control of our public areas.”
Oh, please. I live in an open carry state, so spare me the panic porn.
“At its core, the Second Amendment protects the ordinary, law-abiding citizen’s right to carry a handgun openly for purposes of self-defense outside the home.”
But what about the landmark Heller decision? Doesn’t that protect the right to carry?
Ah, but Judge Bybee has an answer to that. Heller was about guns in one’s home, not in public.
“Heller held that an outright ban of firearms in the home violates the Second Amendment. The extent to which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms outside the home is less clear.”
However, the Libertarian Party of Texas disagrees. In a Twitter thread, composed of Heller quotes, they wrote:
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.” “The most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to have weapons.”
“At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’. . . When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose – confrontation.”
But you know what this is really about, don’t you?
Progressives have long dreamed of dismantling the Second Amendment. And if they can’t ban all guns — which is their wet dream — they will tell you what guns you can own. How many rounds they can fire. And where you can carry them — like only in your home. (Come to think of it — that’s also where they want Christians to maintain their faith. But that’s another article.)
After the shooting in Boulder, Democrats and other progressives see an opening to emasculate the Second Amendment. Especially since they can’t scream “racism” as they did after the shooting of the Asian spas in Atlanta — all the victims in Boulder were white. Plus, the shooter was a Syrian Muslim, which they would rather you ignore.
And, since the Ninth Circuit Court is reliably liberal, this provides them a chance to undermine gun ownership as well. Not only that, but this Friday the Supreme Court will be conferencing whether to add a gun case to the docket for next year. Called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, the case challenges New York State’s carry licensing laws. Now, with the Young v. Hawaii decision, SCOTUS may find it more necessary to take a carry case.
But can we trust the wobbly Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch? Will they stand for the Constitution, or fold? And even if they are stalwart, don’t expect Democrats to back down. Indeed, they’ll screech again for ending the filibuster so they can pack the court with anti-2A justices.
So while the nation is focusing on the latest media hype — be it Meghan Markle or the latest Cuomo Bros shenanigans or mask Nazis — the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quietly took another chip out of the Constitution.