SAF Files Amicus Brief In Support Of 9th Circuit Gun Rights Ruling

Amicus Curiae
SAF Files Amicus Brief In Support Of 9th Circuit Gun Rights Ruling

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in a case that successfully challenged the State of Hawaii’s regulatory scheme for carrying firearms in public for personal protection, in which defendants have asked for an en banc hearing before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after a three-judge panel ruled against the state.

SAF is asking the court to reject the en banc request and accept the decision of the panel in favor of plaintiff George Young in the case that is known as Young v. Hawaii.

In July, the appeals court ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a firearm for self-defense.

“The 9th Circuit panel ruling was proper recognition that the right to bear arms extends beyond the confines of someone’s home,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Clearly, anti-gunners in Hawaii do not want that to stand, so they’ve requested an en banc hearing before a full panel.

“This case is one of many in recent years that looks at the carrying of firearms in public for personal protection,” he continued. “It is of great interest to SAF members and supporters all over the country because the Second Amendment right to bear arms is no less a right than any of the other rights enumerated and protected by the Bill of Rights. After all, nobody would argue that a citizen’s First, Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights stop at the front door of their home.”

The amicus brief also mentions “the completely arbitrary standard for obtaining either a concealed or open carry license in the County of Hawaii, coupled with the facts that it is both virtually impossible to get either type of carry license in the County of Hawaii.” Gottlieb noted that this sort of regulatory scheme essentially diminishes the Second Amendment to the status of a government privilege that is never granted.

“Rights protected specifically by the Constitution cannot be rights in name, alone,” Gottlieb observed. “Citizens must be able to exercise their rights or else they exist only on paper. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled correctly and our brief contends that the court should decline further review.”

 


 

Second Amendment FoundationThe Second Amendment Foundation is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

  • 14 thoughts on “SAF Files Amicus Brief In Support Of 9th Circuit Gun Rights Ruling

    1. The 2nd amendment only reaffirms our natural right to bear arms in self defense. Remember it says THE RIGHT, which means it already exists prior to the amendment, for which Justice Scalia so wisely reminded us all in Heller v. DC. The 9th circuit really had no choice but to make this ruling because of Heller.

    2. Although open carry is not always the smartest choice, it is ALWAYS my right. Nobody thought much of it in the old West because it was the norm. An armed society is a polite society. You don’t flip someone off at an intersection if you figure he might have a .44 Mag strapped on.

      1. Actualy I just might still do it. After all no one has the right to use deadly force because they were offended. They would be infringing on a person’s first amendment right. I would however be completly justfied in returning fire on someone who chose to use deadly force because they were offended. That type of example just gives gun controll cooks more ammo. Being armed does reduce violent attacks & other crimes & is the far better argument. One that is far harder to counter with a “this is why gun rights need to be restricted” counter argument.

    3. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a document that Restricts the Government, rather than granting privileges to the citizenry.
      “…Shall Not Be Infringed”
      What don’t you understand?

    4. As far as I am concerned, the only good justification for open carry by civilians is when gathering to demonstrate for gun
      rights, when permitted, before government authorities. I attended such a rally, a few years ago, in front of Independence
      Hall in Philadelphia. It is perfectly legal there when demonstrators are licensed.

      1. License implies that ability to bear arms is a privilege and not a right. A driver’s license is a privilege. You don’t need a license to exercise rights, whether speech, press, assembly, or to be free from unwarranted search & seizure.

      2. And your thinking/value set is precisely what has led to the general public having an inordiinate fear of firearms. Back when guns were carried openly everywhere, and nothing happened almost all the time, no one ever gave a second thought about “he’s got a gun”. Yeah, he’s got boots, a rainhat, glasses, and a bandana. So what? Nothing to see here, move long and MYOB.

        Now, let the butt of a concealed handgun on someone’s belt poke out from under a shirttail, the 911 wsitchboard lights up with “man with a gun” calls. And the stupid 911 operators never ask any more questions to find out why he’s got one or what he’s doing with it (waving it aobut and shouting threats of death to all, or bending over to retie a sholelace? Or, just waling up the street whislting Rufus.

        So, by not carrying openly much any more, we have, in a real sense, brought this upon ourselves. It has come to the sad pass these days that any gun is evil, and any who have them are doublly so. Thus we the taxpaying PEOPLE now pay out missions in legal fees to try and preserve what few RIGHTS remain unfettered.

        Don’t forget, Caifornia used to “allow” (thank you Mommie….) open carry, loaded at first, but then only unloaded, and so they who wished to COULD go about armed in public. Mother May I Cards were near impossible to get in nearly every county in that sorry excuse of a state. Then the Cards got to the point they were unattainable in many high population counties (LosAngeles have issued I think aobut 250 Mother May I Cards, with a population of several millions. More rural areas realised that their LE cannot be anywhere quickly enough, and so were pleased to “recruit” armed citizens as a deterrent. Tulare COunt, population of maybe 200K, had over 4,000 active Mother May I Cards five years ago, more now. When the Sheriff in San Bernardino County began to be concerned about rapidly rising crime in his county, but no budget increases to help in his lawman capacitu, he went on the loca TeeVee statioins and announced that he WANTED the citizens to come in, get their Mother May I Cards, and CARRY. Aftter that, the aforementioined “crime wave” waved bye bye and dropped drastically. More shootings? Nope. Perps made informed decisions that San Bernardino COunty was too risky a place to be waylaying folks on the street, and housebreaking.

    5. I agree that HI has overstepped their authority but myself would NEVER open carry even thought it is legal in my state

      Anyone who openly displays their weapon will be the first to be killed

        1. Dave, if a bad guy comes into a gas station store and starts waving his gun, if you got one strapped on, they will probably kill you. If it is concealed, probably not, that is why I am “full of it”
          Been a shooter for 72 years and carried for 40 years. Cop in Alaska and I know of what I speak

    Leave a Comment 14 Comments