Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday that confirmed:
The Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
“This is a critical issue for law-abiding gun owners who want to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms in public.”
The ruling reversed a decision by a Hawaii district court that upheld Hawaii’s ban on carriage outside the home.
“This is an important ruling that confirms what NRA members already know – the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” Cox concluded.
Continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight web page for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
@WildBill….The Founders were very wise, making sure that there was a way to checkmate the tyrants. I sure do hope that the original Constitution can preempt the Act of 1871. The more I read about it, the more I don’t like it. It seems that despite the best actions that Pres. Jackson, and later Pres. Lincoln could do to fend off the International Bankster Gangsters, they somehow got the US into bankruptcy court after the Civil War. The Act of 1871 set the Banksters up with the District of Columbia, from where they now rule the Corporation known as THE… Read more »
The only problem with what the court has ruled is that the state’s can still write their own laws and most of the state governments believe that they have the final word in their jurisdiction. So no matter what your rights are under our constitution we still must protect ourselves from the individual states that are unwilling or unable to understand what the 2nd Amendment means.
With all of President Trump’s victories on the economy, foreign relations, and trade, it’s time to start a campaign to REPEAL the Brady act of 1993, and it’s later amendments. It was signed into law by the criminal president Clinton, and is in direct opposition and violation of our 2nd Ammendment rights.
Yes, and it’s all ways been llegal in all states SENCE the BILL OF RIGHTS HAS BEEN WRITIN
I believe my views on Gun Control are the same with other NRA members. There needs to be Universal Background Checks on ALL gun purchases. The man who shot and killed workers at the newspaper office in Maryland should not have been able to purchase a gun of any kind. He had a history of issues affecting his mental health and his open struggles with resentments towards others and himself. Conceal Carry is legal for those who are qualified to possess a firearm.
I’m sure responsible gun owners and manufactures are feeling good. I doubt the victims of gun violence are feeling the same. But hooray for the second amendment. The tide will eventually change. Patience is a strength.
Two quotes from this 9th Circuit case, found on pages 12-14: 1) Heller and McDonald set the goalposts for our inquiry, which requires determining the scope of the Second Amendment with respect to public carry. We must discern the scope of the Amendment not as it appears to us now, but “with the scope [it was] understood to have when the people adopted [it].”Heller, 554 U.S. at 634–35. Our lodestars are “text and history,” id.at 595, because they bear most strongly on what the right was understood to mean, at the time of enactment, to the public. Because “words and… Read more »
Does this mean we can legally open carry in California today?
Not even close to the “Final Word”. This decision by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco, was only made by a “3-judge panel”, not the full court. It can be challenged by Hawaii for a “Full” or “En Banc” 9th Circuit Court hearing with all the 9th Circuit Justices present, in which it would probably fail. But if it does stand with the “Full” 9th Circuit, then it may have some standing or it may be challenged again, and sent to the Supreme Court in D.C. Where it would probably Stand after Judge Kavanaugh is appointed, if he is… Read more »
is that the final word on this does this mean its legal everywhere