9th Circuit Court: Does the Second Amendment Apply Outside the Home?

By AWR Hawkins

Pocket Guns
9th Circuit Court: Does the Second Amendment Apply Outside the Home?
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC – -(Ammoland.com)- On June 16 2015 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals begins hearing an appeal of their own decision against the “good cause” requirement in California’s concealed carry process.

The 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled against the requirement in February 2014, saying, “The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.” Moreover, they ruled that because the right extends outside the home, there is no need to show “good cause”– the right to do so is cause enough.

But the court is revisiting the case in an appeal that is essentially a decision on whether to uphold the ruling that Second Amendment rights extend outside the home like First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights, etc. An 11-judge panel will hear the appeal to the 2014 ruling.

According to Contra Costa Times, gun  control proponents believe the U.S. Supreme Court failed to expressly state that the Second Amendment is as broad in scope as the other amendments. Therefore, they actually hope the court reverses itself and forces the Supreme Court to revisit and clarify District of Columbia v Heller (2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010)–both of which struck down district and city gun ordinances that barred the possession of guns for self-defense in the home.

The anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Mike McLively said: “After (those decisions), one of the big questions is does the Second Amendment apply outside the home. Getting an answer to that question is important in terms of policy.”

Since America’s founding, citizens have viewed all the rights protected in the Bill of Rights as having the same breadth and scope, because they all have the same source–our Creator (Thomas Jefferson). A 9th Circuit reversal will necessarily depart from Jefferson’s view.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.

13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ML/NJ
ML/NJ
6 years ago

It’s not for hunting ducks. It’s not for personal self defense. It’s for shooting politicians. See Federalist #28. [Corrected Email Address] (Hamilton, who Obama wants to remove from the ten dollar bill and replace with some recently glorified woman. It’s unlikely to be Annie Oakley!) “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those… Read more »

ML/NJ
ML/NJ
6 years ago

It’s not for hunting ducks. It’s not for personal self defense. It’s for shooting politicians. See Federalist #28. (Hamilton, who Obama wants to remove from the ten dollar bill and replace with some recently glorified woman. It’s unlikely to be Annie Oakley!) “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers… Read more »

dan
dan
6 years ago

the Bill of Rights is off limits to all man or woman who care to change it…..IT is Rock Solid and will be defended outside of a court room…..imho…….Semper Fi

John Gregory
John Gregory
6 years ago

Militia: Defined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #29. This is what was agreed to in the Constitutional Convention, 2 years before Congress met in New York (Mar 1789) to discuss what we know as the Bill of RIGHTS.

Traitor: Defined by James Madison in Federalist Paper #46 as pertains to ANYONE who tries to IN ANY WAY disarm the American People.

Government: Defined in the Declaration of Independence as an Institution created to SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, deriving its just Powers from the consent of the Governed.

Sheesh, this is Civics 101 again!

George
George
6 years ago

I guess only when they become victims will they see the problem in disarming honest citizens in public. Until then, they’ll keep trying to violate the Constitution. It is one of the reasons I left the the PDRC (People’s Democratic Republic of California).

Stocks
Stocks
6 years ago

They get the “keep” part, it’s the “bear” that they can’t understand.

Seems pretty clear that it’s our God-given right to “keep and bear” arms and that neither shall be infringed.

Jack
Jack
6 years ago

A good reason? I will give you a good reason. It is our God given right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, a document that is still in force, in spite of what this administration may want to think.

Mark Reynolds
Mark Reynolds
6 years ago

Yes, the last time I read the 2nd amendment right after the amendment it says in plain bold letters EXCEPT outside the home. Oh, wait…

Eric
Eric
6 years ago

Interstate travellers need to file lawsuits against oppressive states like CA, NY, CT, MD, etc. Permits are infringements of the 2nd Amendment , just because I don’t live in those states my rights don’t end.

Spice54
Spice54
6 years ago

The bill of rights does not ‘give’ rights, it sets up limitations on the federal government. Jesus, this gets tedious.

ya
ya
6 years ago
Reply to  Spice54

Yes, it does get tedious.

Liberals always define the Constitutional phrase “shall not be infringed” – as, “shall be infringed.”

Clark Kent
Clark Kent
6 years ago

Be advised ‘rights’, by their very nature, cannot be voided by ‘rulings’ of any kind. ‘Laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void’ – Marbury v Madison.

Paul Markel
6 years ago

Nice picture!