Federal Court Rules Against Open Carry, now to SCOTUS

7
1240
  • The en banc U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 7-4 decision that reviewed 700 years of legal history from the United States and England
  • It determined numerous laws have upheld the government’s responsibility to protect citizens in public and have prohibited certain weapons in public
  • The decision upheld a county law in Hawaii that limited carry permits and ruled that the decision applies ‘whether they are carried concealed or openly’ 
  • Alan A. Beck, who represented a Hawaii gun owner at the heart of the case, said  he will ask the Supreme Court to review it
  • Dissenting judges found the Hawaii statute unconstitutional

A federal appeals court based in California decided on Wednesday that Americans have no right to open carry guns in public – ruling that states can restrict them without violating the Second Amendment.

The en banc U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 7-4 decision that reviewed 700 years of legal history from the United States and England and determined laws have never given people ‘an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense.’

The court argued that numerous laws throughout the centuries have upheld the government’s responsibility to protect citizens in public and have prohibited certain weapons in public.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by George Young in 2012 – in which he sued the state of Hawaii for denying permit applications to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun.

Hawaii state law requires a license to carry a gun in public and a Hawaii County regulation dictates that licenses are only granted by the police chief to those who need it for their jobs or otherwise have a ‘reason to fear injury.’  read more…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9399823/Federal-appeals-court-rules-against-allowing-firearms-carried-public-Hawaii.html

About VT Editors
VT Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

7 COMMENTS

  1. Stephen Colbert had a good argument for registration, permitting, licensing,insuring, similar to driving and owning a car. I hear you on the slippery slope. Things often get over regulated and one idiot always wreaks it for everyone. We can place agreed upon training, restrictions and permiting in place that could help to reduce senseless killing. Somewhere in the 2nd Amendment it states
    ‘well regulated” not unregulated firearms to all. That being said Maybe it is time to train and organize kids in school as part of public education. Bring back a form of the draft where all kids growing up and becoming adult citizens are trained in the ‘defensive arts’ to include weapons. Require a year of service to all HS graduates. If there are such thing as ‘lone gunmen’ they will certainly think twice if they understand the capabilities or their peers and find other less lethal ways to act out perhaps. What ever we are doing is worse than nothing currently.

    • Mihail, one of you spouts about “Jews” and “Zionism” while the other you seems to love at least Zionist rule of the US. Get yourself together. Take yourself to lunch..hash it out…

  2. firstly, I am appalled that English law history has anything to do with it whatsoever. I cringe just seeing that.

    The nutters who use open carry to intimidate and flout what they suppose are rights, are the biggest threat to the 2nd. Congratulations. the immature obstinance they display, does not mix with fire arms. Technically, my preference would be localized civilian controlled, ranges and armories to satisfy the 2nd concerning militia. Militia members should use their discretion amongst their own. They should be open to losing the control of the armory if any untoward events happen. Permits outside of that should be up to the states and counties. The myth or fallacy of gun powder and lead giving the civilian population any control whatsoever went poof about 100 years ago. Its not a thing. Local gun ranges for this purpose should be untaxed and protected. The zoning boards can select the site.

  3. How can any American have any TRUST in US “Institutions” ?
    After magnificent coverups carried out after 9/11 & JFK etc etc.
    The POWERS that be have had a blatantly false report stating that OFFICE FIRES caused the collapse of building 7 accepted & this has recently been PROVED to be WRONG in a reliable study by scientists in a 4 year study.

  4. The court’s legal opinion of “government’s responsibility to protect citizens in public and have prohibited certain weapons in public” is a specious argument, at best. It hinges on types of weapons, and concealed vs open carry. These are elements of perception, not fact.

  5. Open carry is ridicules. I don’t carry open or concealed because I know I increase my chance of dying by a gun 10 time – easy. That’s just how I am. When I see someone open carry I just want to jump the dude. I don’t know why that is, just my instinct. So go ahead allow open weapons on the street. Most people do not have a clue how to drive a car let alone pull a gun and shoot a man. And hell it ain’t a sucker punch if you are flashing steel. That is just my opinion.

    • – could do bit of argue, if it were fifty years ago should have been a regular thing, at least half of people doing their part to wear a gun sometimes, just because. If so, police wouldn’t have become militarized, the so-called laws would not be what they are now, people would have had stronger sense of self, and responsibility to territory, and the future. Today though after forty years of single breeder females and welfare and ‘daycare’ that shouldn’t have existed, which I’m not against some form of socialism, but paid breeding or commercial daycare should never have been allowed, in any case and too many people clapping for every breeding, now, we drown in the results. Low mental capacity, ignorance, too many, greasy lawyers everywhere, police don’t do anything that matters, and not enough people generally as serious as should be. Many among us now shouldn’t have existed, much less have a gun, and, many gun owners have part in ignorance for letting things get this far. No good closing for my comment, just bit of argument.

Comments are closed.