Results 21 to 30 of 35
Thread: 9th Circuit. No right to carry
-
March 25th, 2021, 01:17 AM #21
-
March 25th, 2021, 01:18 AM #22
-
March 25th, 2021, 01:38 AM #23
-
March 25th, 2021, 01:16 PM #24
-
March 25th, 2021, 04:21 PM #25
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.
Corruption is the default behavior of government officials. JPC
-
March 25th, 2021, 07:56 PM #26
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.
...
-
March 26th, 2021, 06:07 AM #27
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?
-
March 26th, 2021, 06:28 AM #28
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
-
March 26th, 2021, 07:05 AM #29
-
March 26th, 2021, 08:42 AM #30
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.
Similar Threads
-
9th Circuit rules that public carry is protected by the 2A
By unclejumbo in forum NationalReplies: 26Last Post: July 29th, 2018, 11:07 AM -
9th circuit decision. no right to carry outside home
By middlefinger in forum NationalReplies: 1Last Post: June 9th, 2016, 10:29 PM -
7th Circuit hears arguments on injunction in concealed carry case
By jonnyec in forum NationalReplies: 4Last Post: October 9th, 2013, 03:16 PM -
Fourth Circuit on Open Carry
By sprrdhawk44 in forum Open CarryReplies: 16Last Post: March 23rd, 2013, 02:52 PM -
NJ permit to carry-oral arguments at 3rd Circuit
By press1280 in forum NationalReplies: 2Last Post: February 15th, 2013, 06:45 PM
Bookmarks