In a 7 to 4 ruling yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California decided that the Second Amendment does not extend beyond the home for residents of the 9th Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington). “The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places — including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets — the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,” Judge Jay Bybee declared. While there is no new law restricting open or concealed carry at this time, the court indicated that states have the authority to restrict citizens’ right to bear arms.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/9th-circuit-court-ruling-on-open-carry/
So the 9th Circuit Court just rules that 2A doesn’t extend outside of your home. I’d love to get USCCA’s legal opinion on this if possible. My mind is blown today. With everything going on it begs the question of why are the Dems going so hard on gun control. I realize the 9th Circuit isn’t politically affiliates but they typically rule on the Liberal side.
Ha ha ha… the anti-2A mafia can’t put together a cohesive argument. First they say that the 2nd Amendment is only for the militia (i.e. ‘National Guard’). Then they say you can’t carry a firearm outside your own home. Both arguments cannot be true; they directly conflict with one another. The militia is not a mechanism for home defense.
By necessity I must leave my home to perform national defense (‘militia’) duties. Then again, Californians aren’t allowed to leave their homes anyway, are they?
This is the same crowd that says only police should have guns, and then says we need to defund the police because they’re all racists who shoot young black men for sport. Again, their two narratives fundamentally conflict, but they present both as true.
I was blown away when I read this article. How did the judges review the Constitution and come to that conclusion? That is a political observation on their side, not a legal.
Just wait until they apply that same logic to the 1st Amendment.
You can say whatever you like, but only within the confines of your own home.
We’re already there in my opinion, it just hasn’t been legally ruled on yet.
Which…coincidentally…is the official policy on freedom of expression of the Chinese Communist Party.
So what are the immediate ramifications of the 9th’s decision? It appears from the American Military News piece that legal carry no longer exists in AZ, CA, OR, WA, MT, AK, and HI. I’m sure the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court but they may choose to not take the case as is their habit with 2A. I am also waiting to hear from USCCA. Opinions?
From what I’ve read,* it’s my understanding the there is no immediate effect. The ruling means that state laws restricting firearms within the 9th district will remain in force.
Longer term, the language of the decision could embolden 2A opponents to seek even more restrictions. On the other hand, the ruling- as written- could also lead to a future SCOTUS case. If SCOTUS were to rule against the sweeping language of the decision, it would give 2A champions a chance to get a ruling which explicitly states that the right to self defense cannot be infringed in public.
Time will tell.
- I am not an attorney and I do not play one on TV.
This will end in SCOTUS. The 9th is one of the most overturned courts in the country.
Hi all - I’ve combined the two topics about the Ninth Circuit Court Ruling into one thread. (Be sure to read the USCCA Blog post at the top.)
If only we could get the courts and the government to vote in accordance to the will of the American people. That used to be their reason for existence.
Actually I believe one of the governments primary jobs is to protect the rights of all people including those in the minority from tyranny. Especially from the tyranny of the majority. The will of 51% or more of the people does not outweigh the rights of any one person.
I don’t get why they think outlawing anything will stop people from getting what they outlaw. Alcohol, nope. Drugs, nope. Illegal immigration, nope. Sign saying gun free zone, nope. And if they ban ARs a new black market will emerge.
Not what it’s ever been about, @Jason148
It’s about 2 things:
Fear the politician who fears your gun! ie, they plan to do things to us they know they would shoot us for trying to do to them.
Makes it easier for cops and prosecutors to search, arrest, and convict whomever they please.
That is all gun control has ever been about…anywhere.
I do agree with you Ken. I think what else really drives your first point home right now is the fact that the Capitol still has razor wire and fences up. Why? Maybe because between the voting and gun control efforts they know they’re overstepping their boundaries and people could react?
Here’s a slightly related case we can keep an eye on. Sometimes the specifics of a case are overshadowed by sweeping headlines, and two seemingly related cases go different directions. But this could give us an idea whether SCOTUS is willing to take 2A cases, and how they might rule.
U.S. Supreme Court weighs taking up major gun rights case (msn.com)
Thanks for sharing. This case needs to be watched closely, as it will likely have a huge effect on the future of 2A rights. Not be mister gloom and doom but this could really affect the general future of our country. It feels like we’re on the edge of something big like a civil war and if the vote in a way that allows our country to take away semi-auto rifles and maybe even pistols and shotgun; it could be the catalyst that puts people over the edge.