U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- In a somewhat shocking turn of events, the usually far left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals based out of San Franciso, CA ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense.
This decision is a sharp departure from their 2016 ruling in Peruta v. County of San Diego where the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry a concealed firearm. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
In the current case, George Young sued the state of Hawaii in 2012 after the state denied him a permit to carry a gun in public. Hawaii officials argued that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms in ones home. They claimed that there is no inherent right to carry firearms outside one’s house.
The three-judge panel was split on the decision but ruled in Young’s favor by a two-to-one margin. The court said that Hawaii did indeed infringe on Young’s Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.
“Once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote for the majority. “While the concealed carry of firearms categorically falls outside such protection, we are satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense.”
“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” wrote the Reagan appointed Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta joined Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain in the majority.
“While the amendment’s guarantee of a right to ‘keep’ arms effectuates the core purpose of self-defense within the home, the separate right to ‘bear’ arms protects that core purpose outside the home,” said the majority decision.
Judge Richard Clifton, who was appointed by George W. Bush, was the lone dissenting voice. He argued that Hawaii could place limitations on the public carrying of firearms. He stated that such restrictions, “do not undercut the core of the Second Amendment.”
This decision only applies to people who open carry a firearm. The court made sure to clarify it does not apply to people who want to carry their gun concealed.
This case seems destined to go to the Supreme Court, which has not heard a gun case since Heller in 2010. All parties seem to think the highest court in the land is going to take up the case.
With Justice Kennedy retired and Donald Trump’s nominee of Brett Kavanaugh being oriented pro-gun it seems that this could be a significant victory for the Second Amendment. As we have seen in the past, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will hear the case.
The Ninth Circuit ruling will most likely bring gun rights to the forefront of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing since he has a pro-Second Amendment stance. Outside abortion, gun control is the top issue for Democrats when looking at judges for federal positions and the position of Supreme Court Justice is no different.
Hawaii could choose not to appeal the ruling as DC decided not to appeal the ruling in their court case about carrying concealed guns in public. DC chose not to appeal the ruling in that case to the Supreme Court at the behest of other states to avoid a chance at loosening gun laws across the country.
It seems unlikely that Hawaii will not appeal the decision.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.
Here’s the facts.
The 2nd gives Americans the right to keep and carry on them, fire arms.
The states can only make laws not givin to the people within the constitution. (10th amendment)
The right to own and carry a gun is a right givin to the people. Only the constitution of the UK states the people have the right to own guns within the law. Not the US constitution.
If states can vote out one of the bill of rights, then I guess the rest are up for grabs too.
The 9th was over a barrel. The Supreme Court had ruled, in Heller, the 2nd protects the individual right to “keep”. The next two words are “and bear”. No commas, colons, question marks, or periods between them. So, if “keeping” is protected, so must “bearing” be protected. They had no choice.
G R But they don’t go to Jail, We would but not them, we wouldn’t ever get a chance at seeing free day light again!!!!!! Tom Cat GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes they most certainly will, but it takes the will of the people to begin the process in order for the Grand Jury to be able to investigate!
Just as a small example… Remember Illinois Senator Blagojevich? He was given 14 years and removed from office for trying to sell them illinois senator Obama’s seat on the Senate.
@ Wild Bill The founders could have invited the British into their homes to fight but instead they did this: In 1814 we took a little trip along with Col Jackson down the mighty Missip. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans and we caught the bloody British in a town called New Orleans. Old Hickory said we could take them by surprise if we didn’t fire our muskets till we looked them in the eyes so we held our fire till we seen their faces swell and we opened up our squirrel guns and really… Read more »
You can count on an EnBanc hearing by all of the judges on the 9th Circuit, the vast majority of whom will vote against any gun right.
If a good lawyer steps up. The 19th amendment says they have to power to vote yes or no on it. It is the law of the land and all states and judges are bound by it. And law made otherwise is not withstanding.
@John Dunlap Crump, I do not think that Brett Kavanaugh is pro Second Amendment Civil Rights oriented enough. Kavanaugh’s dissent, when the D.C. Circuit panel’s majority upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic rifles and its registration requirement for all guns in D.C, read, in pertinent part, “… It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)” By contrast …… Read more »
@JAMES, no, your Constitutional rights don’t, “follow you”, they are already there, been there for going on 243 years. It is UP to YOU to EXCERCISE YOUR RIGHTS that are, ALREADY THERE!
Our Constitutional Rights do not remain in the home, where we go our Rights go as well.
As long as you can keep from getting shot by a an ill-informed cop, you can sue their asses off after the fact.
So can we now open carry in Hawaii?
@Billy d… Elected OR “appointed” officials. NOBODY is above the,law. NOBODY!
Well, this is certainly good. However, if the past is any indication, prepare for an en banc to reverse this decision. Chief Activist Thomas will not let this ruling stand.
There’s just something that I don’t understand and possibly has been left out how far reaching is the decision of the 9th District Court on this issue does it only cover the District of the 9th Court ruling or does this blanket the entire United States
@Skint-Rider h, If the decision of the panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is allowed to stand by the rest of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals member justices, then it would apply to everyone, every state government, and every bureaucrat in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, this decision could be taken up by the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and overruled. Then it would not be anything. Or, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could uphold the ruling and change its mind later. So the ruling would apply to the people… Read more »
Well, first of all, Chief activist Thomas will use an en banc hearing to reverse this ruling.
What I’m trying to figure out is the defendant’s stratagem. Should they appeal via an en banc. Thereby allowing the Supreme Court an opportunity to expand 2A rights. Or do they accept this decision like the District of Columbia did. Thereby, limiting this ruling to the 9th CC jurisdiction.
Decisions, decisuons, what is an anti 2A judicial or non-judicial activist to do?
@Eric, Nice to hear from you again. I don’t know, but the decision is even harder to whomever is going to pay the tab!
@WB, i hadn’t thought of the tab. Good point. We’ll see. My guess is it goes like Peruta and we have to hope the Supreme grants a writ of certiorari.
The problem is we don’t get to vote for these judges they are appointed to their positions!!!!!!!!
@Billy d, appointed officials are NOT above the law. ANY activist judge that tries to legislate from the bench rather than abide by the law can and will be removed from the bench provides they have broken the law and IF, WE, The People produce evidence and follow the laws to have them investigated and prosecuted through Grand Jury indictment.
A “panel” of the court so ruled. If the entire court takes up this case, the result might well be markedly different. In any case, if that is the way the thing goes, the USSC might be unable to duck this issue.
WOW a leftest judge did that, just like winning the lottery to me just as good. As for me I carry concealed the less people see the more maybe that their mouths shut.
Talk about interpreting laws to make them say what you want. No one in their right mind could ever take the 2A and read into it that you can carry in your home but not on the street or you can carry open but not concealed. That is typically making up rules as you want them to suit you, not as the law is written. Many of these people are transplants from other countries and they don’t know or understand our Constitution and what it means and could care less..
@Tcat, What would have been the outcome of the American Revolution if the founders believed that the personal right to keep and carry arms was limited to one’s home, only? We will fight them in the foyer! We will fight them in the parlor! We will fight them in the kitchen!
That’s where YOU EXCERCISE your 2nd Amendment along with, your friends and neighbors in your village and you prove the judge wrong. But most people use the appelate system. Always remember, “Desparate times call for desparate measures.” But all in all, these little anti-gun skirmishes that we are seeing across the country are sparking the will of the people to step up to the plate and counter them. I see it all as a waste of time and money and effort all across the country as the Constitution states clearly, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms… Read more »
The dirty politicians will ultimately ignore this decision. Time to vote the bums out!!
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 »
The word, “KEEP” is always left out in these frays… Obviously meaning that the person that “keeps” the gun whether it’s in their pocket or in their purse or in The Bible they are carrying… Until they, BEAR” or, “show, the gun when needed. Another suspicion that I have about this ruling is that gun owners across the United States that start carrying their firearms openly in Liberal territories will be easy targets for immediate confiscation by the local law enforcement if they, (LEO’s) in fact don’t have the backbone to uphold the Constitution in which they swore an oath… Read more »
@K, that is an excellent point, and skillfully delivered!
Wow, talk about a surprise. Outstanding.
@JPM, Yes… but it was two judges of a three judge panel of the ninth circus. Translated that is 2/3s of one third of the ninth circuit or 2/9s or 22 percent.