Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Finds No Right to Bear Arms in Second Amendment

Comp-Tac eV2 Max Holster and eV2 Mag pouch Concealed Carry
Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Finds No Right to Bear Arms in Second Amendment

U.S.A.-( The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc panel, has found there is no “Right to Bear Arms” in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion was written by Judge Bybee.

The case is the long-delayed Young v. State of Hawaii. It will undoubtedly be appealed to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Whether SCOTUS will grant a writ of Certiorari is unknown at this time. SCOTUS has refused to grant a hearing to nearly all Second Amendment cases for over a decade.

On 15 June, of 2020, SCOTUS refused to hear ten pending Second Amendment cases.

The consensus, at the time, was the Court was evenly split, with four justices likely in favor of enforcing the Second Amendment, and four justices in favor of gutting the Second Amendment. Justice Kennedy was considered a swing justice which could go either way. Therefore, neither side was willing to risk a case that might go against their desires.

Since then, Justice Kennedy has retired. Justice Ginsburg has died. They were replaced by Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett. Both were advertised as strong originalists and textualists, who would uphold the Constitution as written.

The ruling class considers SCOTUS to have a strong conservative majority. It is far from clear. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinions turned sharply to the Left with his controversial opinion which upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare. Roberts was reported as bullying SCOTUS into finding the State of Texas did not have the standing to sue regarding constitutional irregularities in the 2020 elections.

Several seminal cases are coming before SCOTUS. Senate Majority leader Schumer directly threatened the court in March of 2020. Many think the threat was effective.

The majority in the Young v. State of Hawaii relies on two weak arguments. One is the qualifier sentence which Justice Stevens bragged about as being inserted into the Heller decision as the price of obtaining the vote of Justice Kennedy to uphold the Second Amendment. From the

His only success, he said, was in getting Kennedy to persuade Justice Antonin Scalia to include language limiting the reach of his majority decision in Heller.

The limiting language was:

 The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The majority takes this sentence out of Heller and claims that an 1852 law made in the Kingdom of Hawaii, before it was ever part of the United States, shows a ban on the open carry of arms has been long-standing. There are numerous other references to a scattering of local laws and decisions, often out of context. The claim is that banning the open carry of firearms is a long-standing prohibition. It is a false claim, as noted in the dissent by Judge O’Scannlain:

Respectfully, the majority’s opinion—and in particular,its extreme and bizarre reliance on the mere fact of some historical regulation of firearms—represents a gross misapplication of the textual and historical inquiries that Heller demands.

The majority uses long-winded, and often, out-of-context quotes from irrelevant laws, to obfuscate the irrelevancy in 109 pages.

The second argument is to ignore the right to bear arms because Heller did not specifically cover the right to bear arms outside the home. In other words, because the Supreme Court did not directly mention it in Heller, it does not exist.

Judge O’Scannlain, dissenting, states it bluntly:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place.

The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned Circuit Court in the country.

It will take time to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not required to take it. Several other cases are in the process about the right to bear arms outside the home.

There were eleven judges on the en banc panel at the Ninth Circuit. Six were appointed by Republican presidents. Five were appointed by Democrat Presidents. All the Democrat appointees and two of the appointees by G.W. Bush voted to eviscerate the Second Amendment. It was a seven to four decision.

Majority Judges:

  • Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, appointed by President Clinton
  • M. Margaret McKeown, appointed by President Clinton
  • Kim McLane Wardlaw, appointed by President Clinton
  • William A. Fletcher,  appointed by President Clinton
  • Richard R. Clifton,  appointed by President  G.W. Bush
  • Jay S.Bybee, appointed by President G.W. Bush
  • Michelle T. Friedland  appointed by President Obama

Dissenting Judges:

  • Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, appointed by President Reagan
  • Consuelo M. Callahan, appointed by President G.W. Bush
  • Sandra S. Ikuta, appointed by President G.W. Bush
  • Ryan D. Nelson,  appointed by President Donald Trump

The dissent by Judge O’Scannlain is well worth reading.

About 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 retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Let me shed some light on this. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place. Let’s go back, way back, back before the troglodyte and birtha butt… Read more »


mm – “Three years of college” – there’s yer problem – ya just didn’t spend nearly enough time in the institutes (mental ones perhaps?) of higher indoctrination oops I mean ‘learning’ so your brain didn’t get totally fried like them judges apparently did.
Note – I have something like 8 or 9 years (and 3 degrees) from 7 colleges and universities. I think my brain still works pretty well. Maybe it was because I started back in the 60’s?


The 2A debate really isn’t about self defense as a natural right. It’s a political debate about who will ultimately have power. Anti-2A politicians and judges need power transferred from the individual, where the Constitution intended it, to the state (think Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden). Once the right to bear arms is off the table, the tyrants will rule, not govern, and the Constitution will become an historical artifact. The 2A is the canary in the coal mine of freedom.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bob

Bob – good comment. I’ll add a reminder – particularly applicable to those ‘judges’ that the entirety of the Constitution constrains the government, NOT us individuals. I’m not sure if there is any way to convince them of their error, perhaps a 2×4 upside the head (like has to be done with Missouri mules) would get their attention………………..
NOTE – I am not advocating any sort of violence against them but something needs to be done to get them in check.

Roland T. Gunner

I am getting weary of the constant “not advocating violence” disclaimer, that never applies to our enemies, but hamstrings us.


Odd, as the Second Amendment is ALL ABOUT removing tyrants by violent force of arms.
Cowardice and inaction have their consequences.


You aren’t advocating the proper punishment of criminals, nor the upholding of the law, nor the protection of your rights?

I think I’ve uncovered your problem, Gomez….

Last edited 1 year ago by JimmyS
WI Patriot

Hmmm, reading comprehension must not be their strong point…


These judges all need to be disbarred for their tyranny and corrupt actions against the US Constitution. Disbar them!


Disbarred? WTF does the Bar have to do with this? The Bar is a pseudo-legal organization based in London. These open traitors need to be disemboweled.


My disdain for the court system is much like HR human resources, as system that touts support of the employees yet always sides with the company. The various courts run interference for the government, but should a lower court rule in favor for the people, it is immediately challenged by the government and the law is somehow stayed. Referred to a higher court with almost certainty to overturn the lower courts decision. If somehow this higher court agrees with the lower court, then the government will push it to the Supreme Court, meanwhile the bad law remains whether or not… Read more »

Ryben Flynn

9th. Circus can’t read or understand English.


Ryben – and yet most of us mere mortals do not have that problem. They apparently ‘forget’ (or never knew) that the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. IIRC one of the guiding principles of the framers was to insure that the language was NOT overly legalistic or complicated so it could be understood by common men.


Maybe if I keep repeating myself this will finally sink in? “If ANY elected or appointed official that gets up in the morning, and after thanking their God for a new day, doesn’t have Freedom and Liberty on their minds for ALL Americans, is in the wrong job and WE, The People need to act to ouster them immediately.”


What about hired government employees?

Without LEOs who will follow any order to enforce any law, new gun control laws are just the bad ideas of politicians (which are confirmed by judges).

Here is how government employees should be treated:

Pastor Expels the Mask Police from his Church during Holy Weekend (


All that is on most of the swamps mind is what can I do to get rich and more powerful today.


The simple practice of nullification makes this all go away.


The 2nd Amendment is not subject to interpretation by any court. It means exactly what is written. It is a right, not to be determined by mere men, but by GOD.


The Hiss Act of 1954
They should be forced to relinquish their “Pension” as a result of the disloyalty to the Oath of Office, Constitution, and the American people?


Pension relinquishment for all LEOs who enforce new registration/confiscation laws as well? Same goes for all active military who provide equipment, consumables, training, and advice?

Roland T. Gunner

“New” laws? “All” laws.


Roland, A lot of people have worked to prohibit state, county, and city LEOs from cooperating with federal LEOs to enforce gun control laws enacted after 1/1/21. That legislation was opposed by state, county, and city LEOs. Unfortunately, a large percentage of Republican voters see LEOs as experts on all things related to firearms. I spent a lot of effort to get that legislation passed. The legislation failed, largely due to efforts by: State Highway Patrol; All of the sheriffs in the state; All of the police chiefs in the state; Moms Demand Action; and Everytown for Gun Safety. Good… Read more »


Give them all pink slips and 2weeks severance pay. Ban them from ever holding public office, like they’re trying to do to members of the Trump administration.

Deplorable Bill

Well guys, it’s almost here. Don’t be surprised to see a presidential decree to force us to turn them in —— or else. All they are looking for is some form of semi legal excuse. Biden said he would ban them, harris said she would ban them D.A. o’rourke said he would ban them and swallwell said he would nuke anyone who didn’t turn them in. Communism/socialism cannot survive when the population is armed because once the people see the truth they will rebel. That is the reason there is a fence/barrier wall around the house etc. They know what… Read more »


The new agenda for humanity requires that no one will have the capacity to fight back. It has been said: “Our Task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” No other explanation is possible. Welcome to “common sense” gun control.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that disarming good people in the name of making bad people harmless only eventually facilitates politicians shooting their own countrymen. History…learn from it or be doomed to relive it….or die by it.


When I was young (stupid) in school I asked my history teacher why aren’t we learning about the future and space instead. What is done is done and we need to create more and new wonderful things. Your last three sentences is damn near and exact quote from her. Made me think and come to a different realization of life. She did her job.

Roland T. Gunner

I am in 100% agreement; but it truly does scare the hell out of me.


What scares the hell out of me is that nearly no one in America seems to know what a right is, or that the law was written in the US to restrict GOVERNMENT, not the People. There is no winning of this battle while ignorance reigns supreme.


I think the people are now WOKE to use one of their definitions to the fact that it is coming to a final crux and are done giving in and sacrificing freedoms for their fears and illogical thinking. When you have legislators and presidents calling for the use of military weapons like F15 and nukes to control Constitutionalists then you have slammed the hammer. I wait for Rand Paul or Ted Cuz to be thrown in jail or change their stance on the second amendment and then we will have the sign that freedom is slipping away but not for… Read more »


You are not alone brother.


Love the air mail line. Good one. Didn’t laugh but it made me smile.


The Ninth Circus needs to be disbanded.

WI Patriot

They need to be admonished and censured…


That would be better.

Red Falcon 1325

Just proves libturds on the left coast can’t read.


A prime example of the court rendering OPINION and not LAW, what part of ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’ do they not understand???


too – apparently they can’t figure out the clear meaning of “keep and bear” either. I double dog dare any of them to explain their ‘reasoning’ on that phrase.


ENGLISH!! These BAFFOON so-called “judges” are trying to do CONgress’ job. These “judges” need to be DISBARRED, FIRED and NOT RECEIVING ANY RETIREMENT BENEFITS for RENEGGING on their OATH OF OFFICE!!


Congress’s job? Congress has the job of infringing upon the rights of the People?


There is only one way that we will get our country back. It’s not with the soap box, or the ballot box.
The communistic dogs in our education system, and those in government need to be gone, along with those in the military, and the gov police forces.
Alas too many sheep.


The US Constitution: “The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.”
The 9th Circuit Court: “There is no right of the people to bear arms.”
In a word, WTF?


I’m not sure I follow the 9th’s reasoning here. 1st, MacDonald v. Chicago forced the states to follow Heller if my understanding is correct. 2nd and more importantly, maybe, according to the logic of “it never mentions Heller directly” the actual 2a has no language in it referring to one’s home or place of residence. How did this understanding, that guns are only allowed in the home, become legal Gospel. It doesn’t mention it so how do we know it only is allowd there. Is it Bec cause it must be allowed somewhere Bec arms are physically allowed to exist… Read more »


It’s because of WE, The People being so damn apathetic to these matters and not standing up to confront them, REGARDLESS of what each of us may have to “sacrifice”.


USMC – I don’t know about you but I certainly have NOT been “apathetic” – there is unfortunately only so much each of us as individuals can do. That is particularly true when those courts claim that we have no standing – which is their lazy way of refusing to listen to the merits of a case without actually ever even looking at it. Since it is Easter season, their lack of action is simply them washing their hands of any responsibility, sorta like that Pontius Pilate feller did back when. Maybe a better way to say it is “not… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner

Well stated.

Roland T. Gunner

Those of us with a lot to lose, will be sacrificing a lot.


The Ninth Circus court is MAKING LAWS via COURT JUDGES FEELINGS. They are NOT BASING THIER “RULINGS” USING THE CONSTITUTION!! This, according to the Constitution — IS ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There has been a lot of that going on for years and where we are at today is the result. We have to stop in from progressing any further.

Get Out

Are these buffoons required drug testing? If not, start drug testing now.


I always say the same thing about our officials and people at the capital. They would almost all be fired and I can almost guarantee that the biggest percentage of people left remaining would be republican.

From the biggest shit hole in OreGONE, portland