Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Dade City, Florida
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    Quote Originally Posted by arrowtech View Post
    No right to carry? I*m stunned...not really. These ass hole are really frightened that we*ll find out what they*re really planning for us because they know we*ll shoot them. BTW...can anyone tell me definitely who*s president?
    No right to OPEN carry. Concealed carry with a permit is just fine.
    NRA - Pa Rifle & Pistol Assn.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Dade City, Florida
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    Quote Originally Posted by esh21167 View Post
    You're not wrong. Kavanaugh and Barrett are extremely disappointing.
    As is Roberts. A SCOTUS ruling might not go our way.
    NRA - Pa Rifle & Pistol Assn.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mohnton, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    6,892
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    Quote Originally Posted by Defender View Post
    No right to OPEN carry. Concealed carry with a permit is just fine.
    Permit and right are diametrically opposed.
    The Gun is the Badge of a Free Man

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mohnton, Pennsylvania
    (Berks County)
    Posts
    6,892
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    Quote Originally Posted by Defender View Post
    As is Roberts. A SCOTUS ruling might not go our way.
    Nobody is the hero.
    The Gun is the Badge of a Free Man

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ercildoun, Pennsylvania
    (Chester County)
    Posts
    4,577
    Rep Power
    21474849

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    As I've noted many times over the years that while making decisions the Court systems and the Judges appointed to them do not consider the US Constitution to be relevant in their decision making process.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    ...
    (York County)
    Posts
    1,583
    Rep Power
    21474850

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    The Ruling: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...4/12-17808.pdf


    YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII
    SUMMARY

    (This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
    been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.)

    Civil Rights

    The en banc court affirmed the district court*s dismissal of an action challenging Hawai*i*s firearm licensing law, Hawai*i Revised Statutes 134-9(a), which requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate *the urgency or the need* to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be *engaged in the protection of life and property.*

    Appellant George Young applied for a firearm-carry license twice in 2011, but failed to identify *the urgency or the need* to openly carry a firearm in public. Instead, Young relied upon his general desire to carry a firearm for selfdefense. Both of Young*s applications were denied. Young brought a challenge to Hawai*i*s firearm-licensing law under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld Hawai*i*s statute.

    The en banc court first held that the scope of its review would be limited to Young*s facial challenge to HRS 134-9. There was no need to determine whether Hawai*i County properly applied 134-9, because Young did not bring an as-applied challenge.

    The en banc court noted that this Court has previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). The question presented in this case, accordingly, was limited to whether individuals have a right to carry weapons openly in public. To answer that question, and consistent with the Supreme Court*s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the en banc court first considered whether Hawai*i*s law affects conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

    After careful review of the history of early English and American regulation of carrying arms openly in the public square, the en banc court concluded that Hawai*i*s restrictions on the open carrying of firearms reflect longstanding prohibitions, and therefore, the conduct they regulate is outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment. The en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawai*i*s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.

    The en banc court rejected Young*s argument that HRS 134-9 is invalid as a prior restraint because it vests chiefs of police with unbridled discretion to determine whether a permit is issued. Joining its sister circuits, the en banc court held that the prior restraint doctrine does not apply to Second Amendment challenges to firearm-licensing laws.

    The en banc court also rejected, as premature, Young*s due process argument that HRS 134-9 does not provide adequate process to challenge the denial of a carry-permit application. The en banc court noted that Young did not seek review under HRS 91-9 before bringing suit. So, Hawai*i has not yet denied him the opportunity for appellate review. Because Young has not actually been denied a hearing, his procedural due process claim was speculative, and there was no need to reach it.

    Dissenting, Judge O*Scannlain, joined by Judges Callahan, Ikuta, and R. Nelson, would hold that both HRS 134-9 and the 1997 County regulation destroy the core right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home and are unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny. Judge O*Scannlain stated that the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one*s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear*i.e., to carry*that same firearm for self-defense in any other place. In his view, the majority*s decision undermines not only the Constitution*s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court*s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself.

    Dissenting, Judge R. Nelson, joined by Judges Callahan and Ikuta, concurred with Judge O*Scannlain*s dissent concluding that Hawaii Revised Statute 134-9 violates the Second Amendment. Judge R. Nelson wrote that the majority erred not only in holding the statute facially constitutional, but also in rejecting Young*s as-applied challenge. He also wrote separately to highlight the brazenly unconstitutional County of Hawaii Regulations applying HRS 134-9, stating that there should be no dispute that any law or regulation that restricts gun ownership only to security guards violates the Second Amendment.

    ...

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Erie, Pennsylvania
    (Erie County)
    Posts
    6,539
    Rep Power
    21474853

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    Judge O*Scannlain stated that the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one's home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear, i.e., to carry, that same firearm for self-defense in any other place.

    Second Amendment; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


    What are we talking about here?
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggies Coach View Post
    Cause white people are awesome. Happy now......LOL.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    700
    Rep Power
    10343907

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    Judge O*Scannlain stated that the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one's home
    And how exactly was this determined (fabricated)? Judges do not overrule our rights. The 27 words in the Amendment appear quite clear to me: does it say 'home only' or something like it in the amendment? They can kiss my ass. See username.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bucks Cty, Pennsylvania
    (Bucks County)
    Age
    67
    Posts
    5,821
    Rep Power
    21474856

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    Quote Originally Posted by Didnotcomply89 View Post
    And how exactly was this determined (fabricated)? Judges do not overrule our rights. The 27 words in the Amendment appear quite clear to me: does it say 'home only' or something like it in the amendment? They can kiss my ass. See username.
    It is what they say it is yo. Now go put on your face diaper and don*t go near anybody.��
    And go get your GMO injection because they say so. FUBAR
    Its easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled....Mark Twain

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    (Allegheny County)
    Posts
    3,056
    Rep Power
    21474847

    Default Re: 9th Circuit. No right to carry

    Don't have a right to free speech or religion outside of your home or business either, I guess.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 26
    Last Post: July 29th, 2018, 11:07 AM
  2. 9th circuit decision. no right to carry outside home
    By middlefinger in forum National
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 9th, 2016, 10:29 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 9th, 2013, 03:16 PM
  4. Fourth Circuit on Open Carry
    By sprrdhawk44 in forum Open Carry
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2013, 02:52 PM
  5. NJ permit to carry-oral arguments at 3rd Circuit
    By press1280 in forum National
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 15th, 2013, 06:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •