First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

Justice Law Legal Lawsuit Judges Jury Court
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

U.S.A. -( On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home.  From

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally. 

The plaintiffs say that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment. The district court disagreed, and so do we. Mindful that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), we hold that the challenged regime bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment for the defendants. In the last analysis, the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose. Id. at 595, 626 (emphasis omitted). 

The Court specifically said the decision applies to both open and concealed carry of handguns. They reserved the power to infringe on concealed carry more than open carry.

Judge Selya wrote the decision for the unanimous three-judge panel. They held that allowing police to decide if a citizen has a “need” to carry a gun outside the home allows sufficient exercise of Second Amendment rights.

A right that can be arbitrarily denied by the government is no right at all. It is effectively just another activity that may be allowed by the government if a bureaucrat decides to allow it.

In the most restrictive countries, without any semblance of Constitutional rights or the Second Amendment, those favored by the government are allowed to carry firearms outside the home. They may not be given a permit, they may be issued a nominal office such as police officer or special marshal, or party member. But those favored by the Government are given the privilege of being armed.

It is hard to see how this decision differs in effect from the practice in countries without a Second Amendment.

In this decision, the Court is following the lead of other Circuit courts that have eviscerated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

To date, the Supreme Court has been unwilling to take any of circuit cases and has allowed the Circuits to run roughshod over the exercise of Second Amendment Rights outside the home.

There is a clear split in the circuits. At present, three circuits have held there is a right to carry outside of the home. Three have ruled the opposite.

In the case of the District of Columbia, those who push for a disarmed public urged the District not to appeal the case, for fear the Supreme Court would uphold the Second Amendment.  In the Seventh Circuit case of Moore v. Madigan, the Illinois legislature passed legislation rendering the decision moot. in the Ninth Circuit, in Young v. State of Hawaii, the state has asked for an en banc hearing, which has yet to be decided.

In the Fourth Circuit, the Second Circuit, and the First Circuit, the appeals courts have held that laws allowing state governments to prevent most people from carrying weapons outside the home are Constitutional, gutting the exercise of Second Amendment rights in public, and in most private settings.

Judge Selya was appointed by President Reagan in 1986. He was born in 1934.

If Judges do not feel bound by the Constitution, the Constitution will have no force.

This case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. The question is whether the Supreme Court will grant a writ of certiorari, that is, will decide to hear the case.

President Trump has appointed two originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court. That may tip the balance. They may vote to hear the case.

President Trump has also appointed  29 appellate court judges in his first two years. That is a record for appellate court justices in the first two years of a  president’s term in office.

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Sunderland

The constitution makes no reference regarding geographical location of your weapons and your weapons are guaranteed by the constitution to stop tyrants such as judges of the 9th and congress and the senate. Already congress has abdicated their role to print coin and establish the value thereof, unwarranted search and seizures, indefinite detention, seizing property without trial or compensation, and now red flag laws are growing that flat allows law enforcement to take your weapons without trial. These are democrat ideas to grow the seizure of weapons. What happens when armed revolt is caused when they say all republicans are… Read more »


You have no idea what the Constitution actually says or means, obviously. A lawyer


If the most simple amendment, the 2nd can be said to be open to interpretation then why don’t I buy a slave. I know what the second amendment says. It isn’t a question, infringed, cannot be taken or given away, state, local, and federal government are all held accountable because it doesn’t say any specific one. On some it says “Congress” shall pass no law, if not it means any government in any us state territory etc… So I’m looking for slaves, $100,000 is what I’m paying, must be at least 18, all earnings besides, that $100,000 are mine but… Read more »


Another foolish ruling by the 9th Circut Court of appeals,only allowing short sleeves with bare arms at home. Only allowing long sleeved shirts in public places. Next thing the 9th Circut won’t allow a citizen protect them selves out
side of ones home.

Gregory Romeu

The bottom line will always end up being that any form of government that attempts to restrict any of our rights will in fact move to willfully enact Revolution against that unchecked authority. I pray that the citizens across this nation step-up and apply thier backbone and aggressevly remove these cretins that worked thier way inro placas of public trust like the diseases they are. Indict and prosecute them for thier Willful Neglect of Statutory Duty, a high crime and violation of thier Oaths of Office! They are committing criminal acts and we in most cases turn our heads. Our… Read more »


I agree 1,000,000%! It’s high time we held these people accountable.


Keep in mind these rules:
1. The US Constitution (COTUS) is the Supreme Law of the Land.
2. Congress can make a statute, but statute cannot revise or amend the US Constitution (COTUS).
3. Congress may only revise or amend COTUS by amendment.
4. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) enforces COTUS as amended.
5. SCOTUS by opinion may override US Codes.
6. Amendments to COTUS can override SCOTUS.
7. US President (POTUS) “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

C. Francis Habeck

Some comments. 1. The US Constitution (COTUS) is the Supreme Law of the Land. Under our federal system, the States possess sovereignty concurrent with that of the Federal Government, subject only to limitations imposed by the Supremacy Clause.”. The Clause, in turn, designates as “the supreme Law of the Land” only those “Laws of the United States . . MADE IN PURSUANCE” of the federal Constitution. If a federal statute satisfies this condition, the statute prevails notwithstanding contrary state law. If the federal statute fails this condition, however, it does not qualify as “the supreme Law of the Land” and… Read more »


When government ignores COTUS it has abdicated it’s authority to govern under COTUS.and the people are right to exercise their right to revolt under the Declaration of Independence.

Roberto e Luna

You were sounding real legit until you destroyed your credibility by stating LBJ was a slave owner. Slavery ended in Texas on June 19, 1865. LBJ wasn’t born until 1908.

Michael Neubert

Cool. Now let’s apply this logic to the 1st and 14th Amendments as well.

Indiana Farmer

These fools are guaranteeing that we are several steps closer to a 2nd American Revolution, by denying that which reads plainly in the Amendment and is a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT THAT SUPERCEDES THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

That being said, I hope that this gets to SCOTUS.


That’s right. When the Government stops working for us. A Revolution is at hand. ! And we take back our Country and Government. They either work with us.. Or against Us. ! Believe me, you don’t want to work AGAINST US. ! You think where you sit your GOD. LMAO. you gotta another thing coming. ,!

Gregory Thomas

Shuttlesworth v. City Of Birmingham, AL, 373 U.S. 262: “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Restriction of any Rights recognized in the Bill Of Rights are not Constitutional for any United States Citizens. The one & only exception to the 2nd Amendment is the 13th Amendment. When a felon offends, and is convicted, he is temporarily a non-citizen (slave of the State) as his rights are mostly removed (per 13th Amendment) for the duration of his incarceration – either in… Read more »

Eric Golliher

I totally agree with the FACTS you have stated, sir!
Freedom and liberty at the government’s exception just doesn’t feel as glorious as it should and would be if the citizenry knew ole Uncle Sam had our backs, does it!?


The 2nd Amendment is a guarantor of liberty, without it, the state can do what ever it pleases. This is why the US has never had an oppressive government, for if it did, the people would surely rise up to address the issue, just as the colonists did when King George III sent his army vast to quash the revolution. It is high time the SCOTUS does its job and confront the 2nd Amendment, we as free and independent citizens of these United States must compel the SCOTUS to its job!

M. Neubert

Let’s apply that logic to the 1st & 14th amendment too.

Martin Smith

We need common sense regulation (of the First amendment…) 🙂

timothy price

Defending yourself and property is an unalienable right, recognized by the Second Amendment, this limiting all government efforts to infringe upon this right. Of course no one is bound by any court ruling to the contrary. This is absurd, typical of the socialist culture currently being imposed. Sigh, these aholes never give up, but neither do we. Truth and our Constitution are on our side. They have nothing.

C. Francis Habeck

I have used the following before but it is appropriate for this question. Most people will ignore it due to their conditioning to disregard what is actually written if it goes against what they are taught while at the same time wonder why their rights are being eroded. Americans must pay their overseers for most of the things We the People did freely by Right. Why do Americans have to pay the government for permission to get married? Why can Americans now have their property taken and given to anyone else for any reason the government wants? Why must Americans… Read more »

Jim Macklin

RE: Your “other comments”
“Author: C. Francis Habeck
Some comments.

1. The US Constitution (COTUS) is the Supreme Law of the Land. …”
A weakness is that the SCOTUS has no power to enforce its judgements on lower courts when they ignore or twist the SCOTUS intent.

So we have the rebel 9th Circus which is the most often over-turned court. But there is no loss of income, salary or power.

The Constitution and SCOTUS assume that all lower courts are intelligent, fair and unbiased.

James F. Peyton

Mount up a very large crew of armed people and stand in front of the police station and wait for them to try and disarm you. You need three waves. One in front of the station, one across the street and one the next block over. Make sure all three waves have some sort of communication. The third war is to come up behind the police.


The USA is in a civil war. The United Nations, UNITED STATES and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA declared war on the American people. It is now open season on the UN, UNITED STATES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA and all who are loyal to them [FaceBook, Twitter, Google, Corrupted police, CNN, MSNBC, SPLC, ADL…] The American people should get armed, get organized and get ready!! The USA is already in a civil war and people are already dying because of it!

Joshua Wilson

dont care im doing it anyway.

Maps Bam

Where’s the NRA? Crickets…freaking crickets! Stop wasting your money on the NRA stickers because that’s all you’re getting for your money.


Yes, NRA abandoned CA!
And the “stickers” don’t deter, they inform thieves to follow you home to try to steal your firearms when you’re absent! Too much denial of COMMENSENSE these days!


The primary reason the Constitution granted citizens the right to bear arms was to prevent them from becoming subject to a tyrannical government. Our forefathers had just overthrown such an one and wanted to ensure that their progeny would never be subjected to such. We’ve gotten a bad taste of this creeping tyranny in the last decade and it is only doomed to get worse as our defenses and constitutional rights are eroded. Then there is the question of us being able to defend ourselves from invading forces. Those who wish to impose gun control can only be assumed to… Read more »

Jim Macklin

The Second Amendment did not grant, create or gift the citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment guaranteed and affirmed the right of te people to be able to form an unorganized militia to oppose a possible future tyrant. The Constitution of 1787 included the Militia in Article One, Section Eight and that granted the power to Congress to organize, arm and discipline the militia. Patrick Henry objected to this, saying that the militia in control of te tyrant was not protection for the security of a free state. Thus the Bill of Rights was written,… Read more »


Excellent post! Thank you!


How do they justify being able to overthrow a tyrannical government by armed force if no one can carry a weapon outside their home? Doesn’t make sense and certainly goes against what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.