Federal Court Confirms Second Amendment Protects Right to Carry in Public

We the People Constitution Gavel
We the People Constitution Gavel

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.

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

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

39
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
10 Comment threads
29 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
19 Comment authors
TheHolyCrowWild BillTina AbrahamsonJames HigginbothamLord-Pi-314 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

@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 »

Rob
Guest
Rob

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.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rob, That is a good observation. You are quite correct and our judicial protection against the states infringing on our Civil Rights is the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. There are two forms of process that are due: procedural and substantive. When one of the several states, or their subdivision acts, that act must be procedurally in accord with Constitutional requirements (e.g. The county sheriff effects an arrest: that arrest must be based upon probable cause. Or the legislature purports to pass a bill: there must have really been a majority of that legislature that voted aye). Substantive… Read more »

Tina Abrahamson
Guest
Tina Abrahamson

In South Dakota you’re allowed to open carry. You cannot allow your shirt/jacket to cover your firearm at all. But you’re allowed to carry. As for Conceal Carry, you go to your county & apply($10 in my county.) Then in about 3 weeks or so, IF you pass the background checks you get your conceal carry license in the mail. There’s a couple types you can apply for. I applied for the lowest because we’re moving soon. No point in spending money for the better CCL when we’re leaving in less than a year.

TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

@Rob….Even the States must craft laws that are compliant with the SUPREMACY CLAUSE of the US Constitution. If a State writes a law that is unconstitutional, it is immediately null and void, and no one has the duty to enforce it, or to obey it. For the purpose of this discussion, if a law “infringes” on a persons inalienable, god given right, to keep and bear arms, the law is null and void. It might as well have been written on toilet paper, or tissues that people blow their noses with. And those lawmakers who wrote null and void laws,… Read more »

James Higginbotham
Guest
James Higginbotham

there such a thing called THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
and STATES HAVE TO HONOR THAT CLAUSE.
if they don’t then it’s THEY WHO ARE IN VIOLATION.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@ HC and JH, When the NFA and GCA were passed by Congress, the Congress did not include any preemption language. That absence signaled to the various states that the federal government would not interfere with any legislation that the states passed. The states have been running wild ever since. The federal government has too, but the Congress uses the BATFE so that Congress does not take the fall. That is why the states can ignore the supremacy clause. Congress, BATFE, and the states are hoping that the people never catch on that the Second Amendment is intended by the… Read more »

TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

@WildBill…I think there is a lot those critters are hiding from us. Notice that they never speak about the Act of 1871, which was a game changer for the Constitution, by substituting the word “of” for “for”. It used to be the Constitution “FOR” the United States of America. Now, since 1871, it is the Constitution “OF” the United States of America, and most flags in the courtrooms now have gold fringe. The American people have never been informed about what those seemingly minor changes mean for them, and therefore cannot give informed consent. But the critters know, and are… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@HC, I do not know about those things, but I do know about preemption. Please see Constitutional Interpretation by Craig R. Ducat and Harold W Chase. Pgs 362 – 363, 378 – 383, and 576 – 584.

Mike in Texas
Guest
Mike in Texas

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.

Tina Abrahamson
Guest
Tina Abrahamson

Mike, we need to get on Twitter and push a campaign to repeal the Brady Act of 1993 and all amendments added to it & signed into Law by Mr Bill Clinton. That will motivate many 2A supporters. Hopefully it will push Congress into action.

Mark D Andrews
Guest
Mark D Andrews

Yes, and it’s all ways been llegal in all states SENCE the BILL OF RIGHTS HAS BEEN WRITIN

Joe
Guest
Joe

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.

L.L. Smith
Guest
L.L. Smith

I an an NRA member and have been for many decades. I do not agree with you. Criminals will not abide by any law or they wouldn’t be criminals. Background checks affect only law abiding people plus they add cost and inconvenience to the lawful owners.. Check the drug laws. They haven’t done a thing to stop illegal drugs. Neither will background checks on firearms. Have a really blessed day.

James Higginbotham
Guest
James Higginbotham

L.L. i am a life member of the NRA.
and i agree with you.
and all gun laws in my opinion are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

MLC7
Guest
MLC7

Can someone define “Universal” background check. And if a background check is not “universal” then what kind is it.

Joe
Guest
Joe

All gun purchases are screened matching up Mental Health data base, screen to see if a felon, guilty of domestic violence, etc. I conceal and carry. In order to thin out the ranks of those WHO SHOULD NOT be allowed to have a firearm, we have nothing to fear, just having to be cleared through the process.

Lord-Pi-314
Guest
Lord-Pi-314

@joe….The only trouble, Joe, is that the list of reasons why a person should be disbarred from owning a firearm, or conceal carry, or buying Ammo, or gun oil, will always grow longer and longer. Take Arizona, for example, one of the most gun friendly states in the nation. My friend lives out there and because of severe chronic pain she was put on medical Mary Jane. Guess what happened to her gun owning rights ? It’s OK to drink alcohol, you don’t lose your gun rights for that, but the Libtard gun grabbers out there made MJ a reason.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Joe, “…SHOULD NOT be allowed…” ? What do you mean allowed? You don’t think that the having, make, carrying, buying, and selling of arms is based on some government originated grant do you?

Lord-Pi-314
Guest
Lord-Pi-314

Permission ? We don’t need their stinking permission. The 2A is our permission, and if they don’t like it, then they can just arrest us, put us in jail, fine us into bankruptcy, and expose all the evil within them. Let them show us all just what TRAITORS they are, and that they have no right holding the positions they occupy. Let them show us how they violate the Oaths they took. And we shall go from there.

Joe
Guest
Joe

Universal Background Checks, all purchases, whatever wherever, whenever. As NRA members we have nothing to fear.

John W H
Guest
John W H

I am a NRA member and I say take the universal background checks and stuff them up when the sun don’t shine !! I have a couple of guns that my day gave me when I was a kid and I will give them to my grand kid when I die and no universal background will change that fact !!

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Joe, I don’t think that the GCA has any exceptions for NRA members in it.

gduckd
Guest
gduckd

As your liberal friends pushed the narrative in the 70’s. Mental illness is not illegal. Plus that mental illness narrative is a trap. Everyone will be deemed to have some sort of mental illness and it will be up to the individual to prove they don’t, and that will never happen in today’s courts. So get off the mental health argument and address the real issues.

OBTW your statement
He had a history of issues affecting his mental health and his open struggles with resentments towards others and himself……says nothing, nor proves, he was going to go out and kill anyone.

Mike in Texas
Guest
Mike in Texas

“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.”

Sounds like you’re one of the left leaning Democrat gun grabbers. I especially like the part about “Being a NRA member”. The Brady bill and all it’s variations, to include your ‘Universal Background Check’ is still a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Eric_CA
Guest
Eric_CA

@Joe, I’m an NRA Life member and DO NOT agree with your “Universal Background Checks.”

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Eric_CA, I think that MiT is an impostor. I do not know a single NRA member that thinks background checks are needed all the time. Every NRA member that I know understands that the GCA is the infringement on our Civil Rights that the founding fathers forbade.

Eric_CA
Guest
Eric_CA

@WB, agreed. We know the origins of the GCA ’68. That alone speaks volumes about it’s infringement.

I don’t know much about the debates regarding the GCA ’68 at the time of enactment. I could only imagine the irrational points made. Any reading recommendations on the history of GCA ’68? Finished US Matshals, going to start my Mike Lee book.

Monica
Guest
Monica

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.

Herb
Guest
Herb

So if by “the victims of gun violence” you mean criminals, You Are Correct!! The FACTS surrounding concealed carriers, I.e. a group more law abiding than even Police Officers do not support you claim of the “tide turning” any time soon, in fact the opposite is true.

Lord-Pi-314
Guest
Lord-Pi-314

@Monica….Only a brainwashed moron Libyard would blame the gun for the “gun violence”. A right thinking victim of “gun violence” would blame the person wielding the gun. Just like a person who gets injured by a careless driver does not blame the vehicle, and does not lobby to have vehicles confiscated from other lawful drivers. Or how about someone who is stabbed by a knife wielding thug ? Does that person lobby to have knives taken away from women working in their kitchen ? Only deranged, brainwashed nincompoops would think that way. Or TRAITORS, bent on disarming the populace for… Read more »

K
Guest
K

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 »

Mlh
Guest
Mlh

Does this mean we can legally open carry in California today?

Tina Abrahamson
Guest
Tina Abrahamson

That’s what I was thinking, does this ruling allow for those of us who want to carry to be allowed to do so? Considering the wording of the ruling though, CCL would be much more preferable.

Sean James
Guest
Sean James

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 »

Mark D Andrews
Guest
Mark D Andrews

WTF don’t people know HOW TOO READ !!! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ALL THESE JUDGE’S THAT CANT COMPREHIND WHAT THERE READING !!! THE SECOND AMMENMENT IS WRITIN AS ANY ONE FOOL CANT HAVE A 3RD GRADE EDUCATION CAN COMPREHIND. ( SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED )!!! THIS MEANS LITTLE DUMBASSES THAT : NOTHING CAN OR EVEN BE WRITIN ON THIS AMMENMENT !!! SENCE 1776 , THIS JUST MEANS THAT THEY REALLY CANT COMPREHIND WHAT THERE READING !!!

m r c
Guest
m r c

is that the final word on this does this mean its legal everywhere

Sean James
Guest
Sean James

No! Not even close. Nothing has changed.

TheHolyCrow
Guest
TheHolyCrow

@James…”Nothing has changed”. It is for certain that the 2A is still on the books. And the Supremacy Clause (Article 6) is still in force. This means that any and all laws “infringing” on our inalienable God given rights “to keep and bear arms” are from inception null and void, and no one has the right or duty to follow or enforce those illegal unconstitutional laws. This is not to say that force may be used against you if you dare to challenge those laws. One only had to watch the free internet movie by Aaron Russo called “America:Freedom to… Read more »