Ninth Circuit Court Chips Away at Second Amendment

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.

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.

Ninth circuit/2A

Michael Tefft/flicker/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

However, Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, whom President Reagan appointedcalled the decision “unprecedented as it is extreme.”

“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.

 

Featured image: Tamara Evans/flickr/cropped/CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

Written by

Kim is a pint-sized patriot who packs some big contradictions. She is a Baby Boomer who never became a hippie, an active Republican who first registered as a Democrat (okay, it was to help a sorority sister's father in his run for sheriff), and a devout Lutheran who practices yoga. Growing up in small-town Indiana, now living in the Kansas City metro, Kim is a conservative Midwestern gal whose heart is also in the Seattle area, where her eldest daughter, son-in-law, and grandson live. Kim is a working speech pathologist who left school system employment behind to subcontract to an agency, and has never looked back. She describes her conservatism as falling in the mold of Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. Don't know what they are? Google them!

6 Comments
  • > In the end, though, the pre-state Hawaiian laws held sway with the majority.

    Hold on a second. If we’re going to go by this route, and I absolutely believe in holding people to their own decisions, it should be fully acceptable for me to take a boat, sail on over to Hawaii, take on a few of the locals, and resell them for a tidy profit in a friendly port.

    After all, pre-state Hawaiian laws were – complicated – when it came to acquisition, possession, and resale of the locals.

    I would like to be shocked that no one said, “are you sure this is what you want to do?” I would like to. In practice – I’m not surprised. I’m only disappointed.

    So the Ninth Circuit has decided that the Constitution doesn’t apply to Hawaii. What kind of fun shenanigans can we get up to, now?

    • GWB says:

      I’m with you! Know anyone with a large enough boat? (After all, it’s not like there’s anyone armed there now to resist us, right?)

  • Erasmus says:

    When the Framers wrote that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, they apparently didn’t mean that a citizen could actually carry a gun. Because “bearing” has nothing to do with “possessing,” apparently.

    On the other hand, the right of a mother to kill her unborn baby and the right of gays to be married are enshrined in the Constitution exactly nowhere, yet they are both invulnerable to the type of evisceration that the Second Amendment has undergone for decades.

    Isn’t it strange how some fake constitutional rights seem to be get more respectful treatment than some real ones that are actually spelled out in the Constitution? I wonder why.

    • Cameron says:

      It’s a shame that the Founders didn’t predict how dumb future generations would be. If they had, the 2nd Amendment would only have had the second sentence and nothing else.

      • GWB says:

        Oh they did. Hence John Adams’ quote about “a moral and religious people.” They also grasped that if they assumed the stupidity of the people they really couldn’t do the freedom thing. (Many of the Founders were progressive enough they thought you could just educate the people, and we would eventually achieve some critical mass of wisdom to allow for a perpetual self-sustaining reaction. Oy vey.)

  • GWB says:

    the Ninth Circuit Court, in a 7-4 ruling
    Which just goes to show Trump didn’t make enough of an impact on the 9th Circus.

    Hawaii requires that an applicant must demonstrate “need.”
    Like he**. He’s a free American citizen; that’s need enough. (Or, identify as a hoplophile; it works for them 57 gender folk.)
    He must also be “engaged in the protection of life and property,”
    Well, that one is easy enough. I’m doing that every day of my life. Not being a suicide statistic should be adequate proof.
    and be of “good moral character.”
    Well? Is he less degenerate, licentious, profligate, and lumpen than the worst of the political class of his state? That should suffice.

    We can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.
    Doesn’t mean it’s not there. It just means you’re intentionally blinder than a pig (who can at least find the truffles). These folks find rights not written in and refuse to read the ones that are there.

    The Ninth Circuit examined all sorts of laws
    Only if by ‘examined’, you mean they looked for quotes to support their senior thesis they were writing at midnight the day before it was due.

    They also looked at laws on the books in Hawaii prior to it becoming a state.
    So, the fact they had to sign on to the Constitution to become a state had absolutely no legal heft? I’ll remember that next time someone asks me to pay a loan or on a contract for service.

    Oh, and that bit right there is adequate reason to impeach those justices. It’s a total failure to adhere to their oath. And since no one will do that, it’s also adequate reason for those justices to meet the end of a rope.

    It remains as true today as it was centuries ago, that the mere presence of such weapons presents a terror to the public
    That’s not actually true “centuries ago.” As a matter of fact, there was a time when no man of good standing went forth without being armed. Not just for his own protection, nor for others, but he might be called upon to engage in execution of the public laws by the sheriff. That statement is as big a lie as the other one.

    The intentional misreading of the Heller decision about carrying outside your domicile is also as big a lie.

    But you know what this is really about, don’t you?
    Enacting their little fantasy utopia, where everything is nice and sweet and hedonistic, and only the ‘right’ people have arms in order to usher in the new üntermenschen proletariat who take their soma like good little wards and thereby have a perfect society.

    that’s also where they want Christians to maintain their faith
    Well, only if, like guns, they can’t ban them altogether.

    the shooter was a Syrian Muslim
    As some other wag noted, all the same people yelling at you that Jesus was a BIPOC also want you to believe Arabs (Syrians, really) are White.

    So while the nation is focusing on the latest media hype
    Bread and circuses, Kim, bread and circuses. The Wuhan bribe is the bread, and Princess Meghan is the circus. (OK, actually, almost everything on CNN is the circus, along with reality tv and social media. As you said, “But that’s another article.”)

    Oh, and I wouldn’t call it a chip. It’s more like a John Henry size dude standing outside your house (if it’s on a crawlspace) swinging a giant John Henry size sledge against one of the pillars. He’s already damaged one or two and arguably destroyed at least one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead