Military Veterans and Patriots

Tag: 9th circuit

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Rules… (Guns)

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Rules Americans Have No Right to Carry Guns, Either Open or Concealed

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling stating Americans do not have an inherent right to carry firearms, whether it be concealed or open carry.

“The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just ruled that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY – either openly or concealed in public. This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT. This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this,” the tweet noted.

https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1374768895408680962?s=20

The court ruling, handed down on Wednesday, could have wide ramifications for lawful gun owners around the country.

“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 court decided. “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 court continued. “The en banc court rejected Young’s argument that [the state law] 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.”

Four judges dissented from the court’s majority ruling, however.

“Dissenting, Judge O’Scannlain, joined by Judges Callahan, Ikuta, and R. Nelson, would hold that both [the state law] 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,” the ruling continued. “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.”

Meanwhile, just two years ago, the frequently overturned 9th Circuit actually ruled that open carry was a constitutional right for the same defendant.

“Plaintiff George Young sued Hawaii in 2012 for denying his applications for permits to carry a concealed or openly visible handgun,” Courthouse News reported. “A Hawaii state law requires a license to a carry a gun in public.”

The court ruling at the time addressed the Hawaii gun law and upheld the constitutional right to open carry.

“With one judge dissenting, two circuit judges concluded that Hawaii cannot deny permits to non-security guard civilians who want to carry guns in public,” the report added.

As the Biden administration seeks to push through sweeping gun control measures, the ruling could be a signal that courts are open to rubber-stamping the restrictions on the Second Amendment.
By: Kyle Becker – March 24, 2021 https://beckernews.com/breaking-9th-circuit-rules-americans-have-no-right-to-carry-guns-either-open-or-concealed-38059/

Comment: The Ninth Circuit does not have the best track record when it comes to rulings being overturned, upon appeal. So here’s hoping that they once again are over-ruled.

See Also: SAY THEIR NAMES!

24 March 2021
9th Circuit Issues Stay in Arizona Vote Case

A three judge panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals has issued an emergency stay in an Arizona election law case. I noted a separate case out of Arizona in today’s View.

The law in question required early voters to return their ballots along with a signed ballot affidavit to polling officials by 7:00 PM on Election Day. Any ballot deemed to have an insufficient affidavit (including one that is missing a signature) is to be disallowed by polling officials. If an early voter returns a ballot with an unsigned affidavit, the law affords the early voter an opportunity to cure the problem, but only until the general Election Day deadline.

US District of Arizona Judge Douglas Rayes, an Obama appointee, enjoined Arizona election officials from enforcing the election day deadline for “curing” a defective early-voter ballot and affidavit, and ordered the State of Arizona:

“to create and to institute a new procedure that would grant voters who failed to sign their ballots up to five days after voting has ended to correct the error.”

The 9th circuit order reads in part:

Under the familiar “Anderson-Burdick” framework for evaluating ballot-access laws, a nondiscriminatory, minimally burdensome voting requirement will be upheld so long as it reasonably advances important regulatory interests…. The State has made a strong showing that its ballot-signature deadline does so. All ballots must have some deadline, and it is reasonable that Arizona has chosen to make that deadline Election Day itself so as to promote its unquestioned interest in administering an orderly election and to facilitate its already burdensome job of collecting, verifying, and counting all of the votes in timely fashion…. [T]here can be no doubt… that allowing a five-day grace period beyond Election Day to supply missing signatures would indeed increase the administrative burdens on the State to some extent. . .
And, as we rapidly approach the election, the public interest is well served by preserving Arizona’s existing election laws, rather than by sending the State scrambling to implement and to administer a new procedure for curing unsigned ballots at the eleventh hour. Indeed, the Supreme Court “has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”

See also: Joint Chiefs Quarantine After Adm Tests Positive

The last paragraph is a shot across the bows of any district judge thinking of taking it on themselves to change election laws this close to the election. Judges O’Scaillan, Rawlinson, and Christen were appointed by Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Obama, respectively.

6 October 2020
9th Circuit Overturns Cali Mag Ban

A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit court of appeals has confirmed a lower courts ruling stating the California ban on standard capacity magazines was unconstitutional.

Judge Roger T. Benitez in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California initially ruled the ban unconstitutional. The ruling in the original case, Duncan vs. Becerra, handed Second Amendment supporters a sweeping victory by completely invalidating California’s 10-round limit on magazine capacity. “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” he declared.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra appealed the decision to the 9th circuit, as expected. From the ruling:

“The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of large-capacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the Second Amendment.

See also: Oh FFS!

California and Xavier Becerra face a choice. Either they can accept the three judge panels decision or ask for an en banc hearing. The risk they face is if they ask for an en banc hearing, it could potentially wind up at the Supreme Court.

14 August 2020