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

We seriously need to consider doing away with communism in our own country.
And I believe that the Dems are a communistic party!!!!


All Correct Persons understand that ‘shall not be infringed’ is properly understood to mean ‘may be made a felony.’

All Correct Persons also know that the Incorrect Person has no rights which the Correct Person is bound to respect.

My fear is that Donald Trump is at best a small speedbumb on the way back to totalitarian government. Too many young adults have been indoctrinated by their grade schools, high schools, and colleges, and as they destroy their own state economies with taxes and regulations, they are moving to once free states and voting there.


WTF!? Are you really that stupid?

Michael J.

The government cannot give us rights, nor can they take them away. We have the inalienable right to protect ourselves.

The 2nd amendment basically warns the government that we have the right and the limit is not on We the People, it’s on the government. This kind of “law” is exactly what a right is all about. When a law is made against a right that the government doesn’t control, you basically ignore the “law”, as it’s corrupt – just like the entire government.

Protect yourself, as only YOU can!


So the 2nd Amendment, in the “Bill of Rights”, does not have the same value or legal weight, as the 1st Amendment, of the “Bill of Rights”? However if they do, then you may not speak outside of your home! Sic Semper Tyrannis!


We have been seeing for some time now assertions demonstrating that the 1st Amendment means no more to the Left than the 2nd. ‘Hate speech isn’t protected’, with the Left deciding what is hate speech. ‘Free Speech Zones’ on college campuses, which constitute less than 1% of a campus. No freedom of religion if you are a Christian baker or wedding photographer, because you have no right to turn down business on religious grounds, but banks can refuse business with gun makers or gun sellers, as can insurance companies and credit card processors. The Left respects no Constitutional provisions which… Read more »

small town Roger

This is true to how the right was once seen.

TJ Cicero

A libertarian firebrand I knew once told a panel of state legislators, “If you will not enforce the Constitution, we will.”

I think holds true wrt the black-robed philosopher-kings who undermine our constitutional rights through “artful (mis)construction.”


An obtuse interpretation of Heller by the 1st Circuit. If SCOTUS accepts the appeal, this tyrannical ruling will be overturned.

Robert R Jennings

Really? You already gave your inalienable right to bear arms away when you let them deny felons and then misdemeanor spousal abuse people their right to bear arms. You basically told them you consider this right a privilege that can be revoked. Who you going to let them deny next?


If you cannot understand these denials, then you don’t understand the fact there are consequences for your actions. Felons and spouse beaters bring these restrictions upon themselves and they know this beforehand so there is no excuse. Breath easy, don’t break the law. As for this ruling, the court is dead wrong and when this case goes before the Supreme Court, they will be spanked for their ruling.

John Redman

Inalienable. Inalienable Right. Stems from Self-Determination. No ruling can deprive me of any of my Inalienable Rights. Any attempts will be met with their Defense until Death. This old Veteran further understands that any Ruling successfully passed which deprives anyone their Inalienable Rights is Criminal and opens up those who did so to Retribution. ie; Those who would pass or enforce any legislation which declares to deprive any individual their Inalienable Rights are subject to public execution by anyone whose Rights would so be deprived. That’s Law. Not the scribbles of Narcissistic humans on paper, rather Natural Law. Sic Semper… Read more »

Charles Moore

Thank you for recognizing the difference! You properly define inalienable rights; rights that you cannot be separated (alienated) from. Most people confuse that distinction with the mention of (these same) rights being described as unalienable – NOT the same word or meaning! Unalienable (pronounced “un-a-LANE-able”) means that your rights CANNOT be bartered, traded, bought (with a bribe or false promise), sold, borrowed against, etc.

Bob Roper

So government decided to conveniently presume that everyone somehow contracted away their right to bear arms, just to keep themselves safe while they rob everyone of everything? In exchange for what? The privilege of using their phony money? You can’t have a contract WITHOUT FULL DISCLOSURE, and there was none, SO THEIR CRIME IS PROBABLY BASED ON THE FAMOUS birth certificate scam, through which the government presumes (also without saying so directly, i.e. without full disclosure) to own all of the people BODILY, and that they therefore own all the stuff people think that they themselves own. This is strongly… Read more »

Matthew P Stein

As I get older and get to personally experience some of the consequences of this poor, massively over-reaching gubment, I truly appreciate the wisdom of the founding fathers and the subsequent failure by nearly every serving legislator past and present. The 1st is paramount followed in lockstep with the 2nd to protect all the other rights recognized by our Bill of Rights and the constitution as a whole. The communists know this and are doing everything they can to infringe and remove both. Too bad they aren’t smart enough to know you cannot take those away from people without violence… Read more »


Could not agree more!

Bob Roper

“Unalienable” rights cannot be sold (or contracted away) by their possessors, UNLIKE INalienable rights. Why do you suppose a group of wanna-be tyrants changed the words AFTER the Constitution was signed?


I will stand on my ground and I will only say this, all other communist socialist and Demtarded asswipes can



I see these comments and I know that my brothers and sisters are waking up.
God Bless you all for your righteous understanding.


What part of “shall not be infringed” is it that this court does not understand? When a government body demands a person show a “need” they turn a right into a privilege. This cannot be allow to stand. I pray this is appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court where it will surely be overturned.

Gregory Romeu

What part of, “It is the citizens’ DUTY to remove these jackasses from the bench whenever the FAIL to follow law and attempt to LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH?”

Wild Bill

R, It may be righteous, worthy of our best efforts, and our duty, but unless it is a national pastime, the one doing it will be caught, convicted and their life thrown away.

Gregory Romeu

@Wild Bill… Are you saying that our fellow citizens would choose to sit on their complacent asses and do absolutley NOTHING should someone lead the way?

Mario Lofaro

The NRA needs to start doing what it claims! We must then re-evaluate, and re-define what inside our home means. i.e. My driveway entrance, my porch, etc…


Dear Mario, Tsk Tsk! Why would the 2nd Amendment supporters even entertain the folly of determining “what inside the home” means ??? The whole ruling is a farce and a distraction. The USSC need to get off of their collective asses and hand down a ruling that supports the simple language of the Bill of Rights or all retire as this nation without a focused and firm allignment with the direction of the document is no more.

Gregory Romeu

“Home is where the heart is!”

…and that’s, “Wherever I hang my hat!”

Charles Moore

A hotel room, in any state, is your legal residence for the duration of time that you are paying for it – just like paying for the rent or mortgage of your primary residence. All rights apply. There is a ruling on that that I knew at one time but can’t cite it at the moment. Regardless of precedent, any place of abode that you are paying for is secured under the 4th Amendment and others.


No one needs to re-evaluate or re-define what inside the home means! The second amendment clearly states a Right to Keep and Bear arms and shall not be infringed! No where in the constitution does it say these Rights only apply while you are in your home! The NRA doesn’t care about our rights and only cares how much money it can take in selling our rights away!

Wild Bill

JEFF SESSIONS IS OUT! That is a giant step to investigating Hillary!


don’t delude yourself. No one of any significance from the prior adminitration will be charged with anything resembling a crime. If they were, the next the opfor came into power they’d do the same thing.

Wild Bill

@Deever, I wrote that it is a giant step. I try to avoid predicting the future.



Wild Bill

@PP, got a verb and maybe a subject to go with your indirect object?


Expecting punctuation, spelling, and grammar from this bunch? Don’t hold your breath.

Gregory Romeu

A LOT of the time it is because of these, “Spell Check” systems trying to twist the verbiage as written from our devices! The Text-To-Speech programming is a major bust at times as well.

walter a kelly

In 2008 the Heller decision made clear what it meant to bear arms. Scalia quoted Justice Ginsburg’s writing in a previous case. From Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” “ the clothing or in a pocket” is carrying concealed. Yet it was stated that states can have restrictions: “Longstanding… Read more »


You can quote the constitution all you want. The law was written and enacted and will be used against gun owners. this underscores the need to flush activist judges off their seats and replace them with constitutionalists. I plan on sending more money to SAF to send this issue to the supreme court where it might stand a chance of being overturned.

Bob Mink

The judges should under no circumstances be allowed to have guards for themselves or their court.

Olen P Biehl

Thus be the case. Then no elected or appointed official shall require nor be entitled to ANY armed security outsude their homes!


Amen! Cause that is exactly what I was thinking is the future of this nonsense.

Martial Law is called and they come and storm
Your home- since you have no right to defend your property boundaries anymore – it really belongs to them at their behest
How frightening and socialistic

What the heck happened to
America ?

Gregory Romeu

Everybody was too busy watching sports for four decades and let the feminist movement rip apart the fundamentals and Baseline of America. Culture, commonly known as the family because women were being empowered just because they bought a pair of shoes and men still sat on their pompous asses watching sports

Wild Bill

@Hooah, That will happen in the cities first, and give us rural people time to prepare. I had a drill sergeant that used to say, “Ambushes are killing and killing is fun!”


Are any of the Amendments to the Constitution restricted to inside my home or place of residence?

Open carry of weapons was common in history, where do they get ‘in the home’ from?


2A is the only Amendment that needs a permit.

Gregory Romeu


Libertarian Advocate

They pull it straight from their rectums.


THATS BULL. ITS CLEARLY UN-CONSTITUTIONAL !!!! Any one that can read knows better!! the people over there need to arrest those law makers for breaking oath! This is clearly wrong! Where can i help what can i do.


“Get a rope” – 3 ropes


2008 Heller decision can go too HE##!!!!


The Heller decision stands whether you like it or not you pansy ass libtard.


There is a tremendous contradiction in having a right to bear arms to fight against tyranny, while tyrants get to decide that your right is limited to fighting back with a pea shooter, kept locked in a safe in your home with no peas kept in the same area. (Okay, if it isn’t quite that bad, then just how bad are you willing to have it become before it is a problem?) Ever since the 1930s, the government has largely taken away from citizens the right and ability to defend their country and assure their own freedom, which was the… Read more »


It doesn’t say we have the right to bear arms against tyranny. It says we have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. Well it’s being infringed, therefore the law is unconstitutional.

Gregory Romeu

…and THAT is because TYRANNTS are abusing their authority and breaking the law by creating unconstitutional “laws”. Any such law that is unconstitutional is NOT a law and does NOT need to be followed.


Please PLEASE may that pitiful batty old biddy now ossupying one of the black nighties of the Supreme Court finally either demonstrate her mental instability or just plain old turn into a frog and croak… so she can be replaced by someone with more than half a dozen synapses firing within their cranium. When talk of Brett Kavnaugh bailing from his nomination began to circulate, a shortlist of possible next attempts was floated. But then someone wisely declared that if Kavanaugh was “unacceptible” then so would all on the shortlist also be rejected. May we soon see that we not… Read more »

Dr. Mike Reeder

What? Wait, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about our homes! This whole debate is superfluous! The right to carry firearms is guaranteed …… anywhere! Why? Because the government is everywhere!

Charles Moore

. . . . As a member of the “unorganized militia,” we are only to defend our nation, state or community from within the confines of our homes. Yeah, THAT makes perfect sense!!

These “justices” have committed treason under having done violence to the Constitution and should removed from the bench, tarred and feathered, paraded in public and incarcerated for a protracted period of time!


Kind of hard to have a “well regulated militia” that can only drill in someone’s living room!

Wild Bill

@Dr R, I concur, but the trick is changing the people in government, so that we can get back to the Constitution. Today is going to be an interesting exercise.

Gordon Matthews

Where does the”Dick Act” come into play in all of these decisions,which by the way are unconstitutional!!
Just sayin


Let’s see who has the Loudest Bark My Money is on the Firearm.
Who has the Hardest Bite again My Money is on the Firearm
They Better Not come in the house or they will get what they’re after!!!!
If the Dems win this Election, I am afraid We are in deep $hit!!!

douglas rhoads

I believe if that happened and they tried to seize guns there would be a civil war. I would not give mine up quietly and I think a lot of people would do the same, if they come to take mine they can have them ,bullets first


“Lord, Make me fast and accurate
Let my aim be true and my hand faster
Than those who would seek to destroy me
Grant me victory over my foes
And those that wish to do harm to me and mine
Let not my last thought be
If I Only Had a Gun.
And Lord if today is truly
The day that you call me home,
Let me die
In a pile of empty brass.”

Country Boy


Patriot guy

What really gets me is that these politicians and judges dont follow the Bill of Rights or the Constitution but what they like or feels good to them. The politicians ont do what the public wants but what they want and what is politically correct t the time. Thete are politicians n tv running or office saying “I’m going to fighjt the NRA and President Trump! They are still mad that Hillary didnt win!

John Lessiack

You should read what you’ve written before you post, or learn how to type accurately.


I find it very sad and alarming that the part of the country that has the richest heritage of the founding of this Nation is now so devoid of the history and context of America. The shot that was heard around the world emanated from Massachusetts and helped to spark the Great Nation we live in. As the old Chaplain once said, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”. “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of… Read more »

Carol B Combs

round not around.


Sheez, that’s all you can add. Pitiful.

Carol B Combs

Only wishing to make sure the quote is correct. Sorry if correcting this somehow makes you butthurt. Pitiful indeed.


not butthurt, only sick and tired of people who can add nothing to the conversation except grammatical corrections. You know the “grammar nazi’s” of the web.
Try adding a thoughtful insight either for or against the topic, problem may be that you don’t have one.

Country Boy

And …’s declaration, not deceleration

Roy D.

Bob: I will add this:

Thank you Carol for setting the record straight.

Matthew Stein

Well, it is clear we need to continue replacing judges with ones who understand law.


A few words on the Second Amendment by someone who has benefited from not having a law degree: The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman **If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? **Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which… Read more »

Wild Bill

, Interesting little article. Today is an opportunity to roll back the “elected lawmakers … who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States, and instead ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment” We will get to the judges and appointed officials, a little later


“First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home” :
Just To The Highest Bidder via the law firm with the most entries that is present for the drawing 🙂


“We The People” Rule the First Circuit Court of Appeals has No Right to practice law Outside the Home!


“The People – – the People are the rightful masters of congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow those men who pervert the Constitution.”
Abraham Lincoln, 1859.


fu, carpet-munchers

Gregory Romeu

So, if there is a population of day, 275,000 residents and say, 60% of them decide to carry a firearm, wether open or concealed, and say the,population has 400 police officers and a few judges that feel thet have,the power to legislate from the bench… WHAT IS THE LAW in this population?

Country Boy

QOUTE: “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” :QOUTE ….THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. One doesn’t need a B.A.R. license to tell which one of these statements is correct. ” THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, pretty much much means the Founding Fathers felt that the 2nd A needed no restrictions at all The phrase”shall not be infringed” means that NO other admentments were to be used on this, the 2nd A right. But…look where we’re at today, due to… Read more »

Wild Bill

, Yes, there were many generations of betrayers that could not stand the thought of the ordinary American being their equal or worse having the power of deadly force. Unfortunately they infiltrated the institutions of power, in America, and passed on their disdainful views to following generations. And here we are.
But the Trump revolution continues and today is an important day in getting back to where we belong!


There is no constitutional delegation of authority authorizing the federal government to restrict the weapons the People possess. Show me that constitutional express authority and I will pay you $1000.00.

If you think it is a sure bet, show me!

m rapp

.nope…but one does need a BAR !!


When will the Supreme Court do its job?


to Whit
When they know what their job really is. They sure don’t know yet. I bet they are being paid off with demo money!!!!


Take a look at rules for concealed carry in the downstate counties of New York. First of all it is essentially a “may issue” situation. The Pistol Permit Office, part of the County Clerk’s office, may issue a permit for a specific purpose i.e. A permit to carry a concealed weapon for the purpose of “target shooting and hunting,” or for “employment” or “full carry”. Each of these permits must be signed by a judge. Full Carry permits are almost never issued and may be used only for the express purpose of the permit. For example; with a “target permit”… Read more »

Wild Bill

Judge Selya has seized upon a weakness in Heller. With the various circuits ( and state legislatures) split, Selya is making a chess move to push the issue to the S. Ct. After all, how ridiculous is the notion that a person can only defend themselves from deadly force while that person is in their home? How would the founders have thrown off the yoke of subjugation from their living room. How would the militia have repelled the British in the War of 1812 from their parlor? How would the citizens of New Mexico repelled Poncho Villa’s invasion from the… Read more »


So, these judges and courts are really playing chess??? Scary. This is a fundamental right guaranteed to USA citizens – period – not a chess match. As you’ve noted, Selya seized upon weakness in the Heller decision. So, in essence, he’s taken further chunks out of our right to bear arms by “capitalizing” upon flaws in an earlier “legal” decision. He’s not only “passing the buck,” but he’s also making further flawed decisions based upon an earlier flawed decision… To say this is unethical is an understatement. The ethical choice would have been to go back to the original document… Read more »

Jim Macklin

HELLER and McDonald require strict scrutiny. Also most pre-2008 lower and municipal court decisions are moot because the principal justification of public safety and crime reduction have been proven false. A person does not waive their civil and constitutional right because they are on a bus going to the zoo, er downtown. The court and judges said that the primary reason to keep and bear arms is defense in the home from robbers and rapists. A BIG LIE. All the self-defense rights are based on the ninth and tenth amendments as existing rights that did not need to be enumerated.… Read more »

Charles Moore

The TRUE meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Read Psalms 149:5-9 (KJV) Thar’s EXACTLY what it is for! (Note: the “two-edged sword” was the “assault weapon” of the day.)

Raymond Hudson

This rape of our Constitution has gone on much too long. When the higher courts of this Great Land refuse to acknowledge and support our guaranteed rights, they have rendered themselves null and void. Any decision from those courts that is contrary to our Constitution should be ignored by all Citizen/Patriots! The pendulum of Justice must be moved back in the direction of freedom! Once any freedom is lost it’s usually painful to regain. Time to Push Back!!


First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to FREE SPEECH Outside the Home
First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right against UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURES Outside the Home.

Vincent Brady

Simply wrong!


So the police get to decide who can carry a gun? Sure that’ll work. No better example of the importance of seating judges that know how to read the constitution.


Very disappointed with this “decision”. I think that my cat could have decided this better (as long as he had a couple of treats first).

Dr. Strangelove

Perhaps with the court leaning more towards originalists now, they’ll hear the case.


If called to sit on a jury keep in mind that jury nullification can be used to fight unjust laws. Simply refuse to find any defendant guilty regardless of the crime. If Chaos is what these Libs want. Give them Chaos. When it comes knocking on their door. Then we’ll see who survives the day…Keep Your Powder Dry.


In my personal opinion, “NEVER TRUST THE POLICE”. In my life, I’ve seen far to many examples of corruption, ignorance of the law and far too many with a room temperature IQ

grim reaper

Even if a case is decided not guilty by the jury, the judge can overturn that decision and invoke his own.


Only in states that provide that option in their constitution. I know in my state the judge does not have that option.


Only in states that provide that option in their constitution. I know in my state the judge does not have that option.
after 5 minutes of research on the interweb. I found that a judge may overturn a juries verdict of guilty. Judges do not have the power to overturn a not guilty verdict regardless of State. This also includes Federal and appeals court judges.


Oh yes, I’m sure they will be.

Charles Nichols

Although the analysis of this 1st circuit court of appeals decision is correct, neither the 2nd circuit in Kachalsky nor the 4th circuit in Woollard limited the scope of the Second Amendment to the home. The 2nd circuit, in the very first sentence of the decision, limited the question before the court to the concealed carry of handguns and it assumed, without deciding, that concealed carry fell within the scope of the Second Amendment. The decision also admonished the plaintiffs for claiming that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry. Perhaps the writer meant to say that… Read more »

Kimberwarrior 45

First mistake “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” the 2nd Amendment does not secure this Right. It REAFFIRMS a right already present and given by GOD. No man can change what GOD has ordained. Since there is no ‘protection’ outside the home then all other Amendments are also mute outside the home. Think on that for a moment. This is what the Court has now declared.


Your assessment is absolutely correct. The 1st Circuit has ERRED greatly in this decision. It is imperative that it be appealed to the Supreme Court to be overturned.


Look I feel like I don’t even give a dam if this government would suddenly disappear or just falls apart due to a massive economic collapse . The mission creep of stripping my citizenry of the birth right to defend one’s family,home and friends has gone way too far. If I see or know of any one breaking the laws now …I will do nothing to stop them.

Gregory Romeu

Way to show the world how a true American can turn into a pouting pussy!

Ansel Hazen

The NRA better be on this like flies on Sh…..