Ruling Against Bearing Arms Show Extent Corrupt Judges Willing to Ignore Supreme Law

Why I Am Suing The Governor of Virginia, iStock-1055138108
The political charlatans presiding over the federal courts have no professional or personal incentives to acknowledge that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (iStock-1055138108)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “‘There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment,’ U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the majority of an 11-judge panel in a 127-page opinion,” Courthouse News reported. “Looking back on 700 years of legal history dating back to 14th century England, seven judges in the majority found ‘overwhelming evidence’ that the law has never given people ‘an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces.’”

This was in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a collection of black-robed Nazgûl that has been subverting and undermining the right of the people to keep and bear arms for a lifetime. There have been occasional rare glimpses of light that snuffed themselves out, like Alex Kozinski, who appeared to understand 2A and Founding intent better than most but resigned under a sexual misconduct cloud. It’s the court that denied the Second Amendment applied to individuals back in the pre-Heller/pre-McDonald case of Hickman v. Block, when Circuit Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, a Reagan appointee, added this footnote to her 1996 opinion:

“Moreover, even if we determined that Hickman had standing to sue for violation of the Second Amendment, his suit would nevertheless fail because the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights.”

The case the Ninth Circuit ruled on here is Young v. Hawaii, an ongoing and longstanding legal battle reported on several times by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News and being fought by attorneys Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh. George Young is a veteran denied his right to carry a gun either openly or concealed, who has had his case on appeal since 2012, and who turned 71 last September. It’s almost like the oath-breakers on the court are trying to tell him (and us) something about when they plan on recognizing our unalienable rights.

Leave it to arrogant statists on the bench not to recognize the basics of the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold. The law doesn’t give people the “unfettered right” to do anything, Besides, by seeking a government permit with plenty of conditions and restrictions, what Young is going for has plenty of “fetters.” That alone shows “Justice” Bybee to be a dammed liar (among other things).

With the courts placing all their stock on stare decisis precedent whenever they want to collectively give a finger to Founding intent, it’s curious such a wrong-headed declaration could be offered in light of what the Supreme Court acknowledged in Cruikshank (and cited in Heller):

“This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

Rights are preexisting and whether you favor “endowed by our Creator” or inherent to the condition of being human, everyone has them, whether tyrants recognize it or not.

But speaking of stare decisis, it’s remarkable how official swindlers ignore it and resort to lies of omission when the record is inconvenient to their agenda. Because in all the “research” these Ninth Circuit frauds insist they put their clerks through about the 1348 Statute of Northampton and other misdirections in order to convey the illusion of sounding authoritative and scholarly, it’s curious no one was inclined to recall another Supreme Court decision. Tell me no one knew about the much more recent (and infamous) 1856 Dred Scott v. Sandford case.

Here’s the relevant passage:

“It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Yeah, the majority fell into the same “give rights” trap, but here’s an unmistakeable one the court recognized “citizens” had:

“…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

Per what I call Steiger’s Maxim:

“We’ve been conned. [email protected]$$ naked in the town square conned.”

“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion, which finds the Second Amendment right does not apply outside the home at all, contradicts the decisions of every federal circuit court in the country that has ruled on this issue,” Courthouse News quoted attorney Beck. “We will be seeking Supreme Court review in order to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s erroneous decision.”

But all the Supreme Court has to do to let that decision stand is…nothing. They can refuse to hear it and don’t even have to give a reason why. And with all the ways John Roberts has shown us he was either a Democrat mole or else someone’s got some juicy photos of him he doesn’t want to be made public, that seems to be the preferred tack.

I’ve repeatedly pointed out over the years that there is no more egalitarian power-sharing arrangement than the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I’ve also observed that those who would rule never voluntarily relinquish power, and we can expect no truly fundamental changes in that dynamic unless there’s a credible “or else” attached to the demand.

Our situation is not unique. The Founders acknowledged it in their remarkable Declaration:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

At some point, something’s gotta give. As long as a critical mass of gun owners are committed to not just proclaiming, but meaning “WE WILL NOT DISARM,” those who won’t stop pushing are setting themselves up to find out just how serious of a pledge that is.


About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

Subscribe
Notify of
30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rich7553
Rich7553
3 days ago

SCOTUS has already held the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond one’s doorstep. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), Jamie Caetano was convicted of possession of a stun gun while in public in violation of Massachusetts law. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the conviction, Caetano petitioned SCOTUS to grant certiorari. The Court, in a virtually unprecedented move, issued a Per Curiam ruling reversing the conviction without even so much as a hearing. The Court held: 1. The right to keep and bear arms applies to all instruments that constitute bearable arms (including stun guns). 2.… Read more »

Last edited 3 days ago by Rich7553
KK
KK
5 days ago

Nothing new, I’ve been waiting since 1981 for a Second Amendment right to “bear” arms.
The Second Amendment is interpreted here a little differently:
The right of government law enforcement officials, active and retired, to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed.
Everyone else – keep what we allow you, securely locked up at home . . . until we confiscate it.

Finnky
Finnky
5 days ago

Not everything and everyone in Ninth circuit is bad. Saint Benitez is a shining beacon for hope within that cesspool. Would there were more of him, in fact that his logical, fair and legally correct ruling were simply routine.

Contrast between his rulings and typical rulings from the 9th – show just how extreme the rest of the circuit is.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC
5 days ago
Reply to  Finnky

Ken Lee is a a hero as well – he was one of the roof-top Koreans.

Whodaty
Whodaty
5 days ago

Love the Nazgûl reference! It seems particularly fitting when applied to jurists entrusted with upholding our rights enumerated in our Constitution. The 9th Circuit is located in West Mordor is it not?

PMinFl
PMinFl
5 days ago

I only got as far as the second amendment isn’t incorporated in the bill of rights……how stupid is that? The bill of rights IS the first ten amandments, so how could the second not be THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Last edited 5 days ago by PMinFl
Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
5 days ago
Reply to  PMinFl

Read the rest of the article it’s worth it!

it is specifically on these kinds of issues where David Codrea shines big time! This article is in the top 10.

Larry
Larry
5 days ago
Reply to  PMinFl

“Incorporated” isn’t shorthand for “incorporated in the BOR,” it means “incorporated onto the states by the 14th amendment.” Since McDonald, states as well as the fed are bound by the prohibitions in the Second Amendment.

hoss
hoss
5 days ago

You hit the nail on the head regarding John Roberts. It’s because of him we ended up with the ACA, all because he changed one word, “fine to tax”.
Regardless of what anyone says the right to defend oneself is absolute!
These EOs,and EAs do not carry the weight of laws that have been legislated. Come to think of it, because of the laws broken, and, or ignored the Biden, Harris administration is counterfeit.

Tionico
Tionico
5 days ago
Reply to  hoss

because he changed one word, “fine to tax”.

and NO ONE called him on his egregious violationo of his oath of office shich he swore.

What he FAILED to recognise is that the Constitutoin demands that ALL bills relating to taxation MUST originate in ONE house.. can’t remember which, but not the other…. and the ACA debacle originated in the OTHER house, thus the fine cannot be a tax. because the bill originated in the non-taxing house of the legislature.
So e’s wrong no matter what anyone says.

Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
5 days ago
Reply to  Tionico

All appropriations bills have to be started in the House of Representatives.

Bill
Bill
3 days ago
Reply to  hoss

If one goes so unfortunately far as to delusionally think that Biden and Harris were ever really elected, gaining more votes than the record landslide by which Trump won.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
5 days ago

I present the Ninth Circuit judges with a hearty, single-fingered salute… and a cheerful invitation to to straight to hell – do not pass GO and do not collect $200 – and, of course, to engage in at least one act of auto-eroticism on the way down!!

That’s the simple way to convey to those wastes-of-human-skin that I (for one) flatly refuse to comply with their un-Constitutional idiocy. (Do I need to resort to stronger language to get my point across?)

HLB
HLB
5 days ago

Well, two comments now “Awaiting Approval”.

HLB

HLB
HLB
5 days ago

Well, I have no clue why my comment of an hour ago is “Awaiting Approval”. Here it is again for good luck:

>>>>

The Constitution is a contract between the States. The 9th Circuit is a body hired by the people through taxation to resolve conflicts in a professional manner. Because they have failed does not mean we are now bound to obey such a ruling. Our weapons are for the purpose of defending our life, liberty, and property.

HLB

UncAl
UncAl
5 days ago

Ruling against total ignorance in the 9th Circuit Circus of Commiefornia, should be the next major push; We The People!

Bob
Bob
3 days ago
Reply to  UncAl

Sorry, I refuse to go left of West Arizona/Nevada/Utah/Idaho!

pureamericana
pureamericana
5 days ago

The authority granted to US citizens to defend from both foreign and domestic enemies was cemented in the Bill of Rights backing up the whole fight for our freedoms. For a temporary politicians to now say they have the votes to take that away ‘ triggers exactly why the 2A was established. A signed piece of paper cannot remove it as it was not created by paper but by blood and courage.

Tionico
Tionico
5 days ago
Reply to  pureamericana

not created by paper but by blood and courage.

mre accurately, it was given us by the same God who made us and gave us breath, Along with that breath comes the right, and even duty, to preserve that breath as long as we can, and to do so by whatever means are available. Thus this right even precedes the blood and courage that have been spent to preserve it, and will continue to exist long after the last of us have ceased to breathe.

HLB
HLB
5 days ago

The Constitution is a contract between the States. The 9th Circuit is a body hired by the people through taxation to resolve conflicts in a professional manner. Because they have failed does not mean we are now bound to obey such a ruling. Our weapons are for the purpose of defending our life, liberty, and property.

HLB

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
5 days ago

Looking back on 700 years of legal history including that of England. Hello ninth circus court of seals. You are in America. Wake up. How can these highly developed and educated people be so dam stupid is beyond me?
I guess they never heard of the revolutionary war or what it meant or why we, the English people in America had it.

They really need to disband this circus and start over.

Stripeseven
Stripeseven
5 days ago

It’s not the judiciary’s job to interpret the law, but to apply the Constitution and the laws of Congress.

uncle dudley
uncle dudley
5 days ago

The problem I see from my uneducated view is, why would an eleven court panel look at any other evidence than what the constitution lays out by the founders. What went on in any other country should have no sway in forming their opinions only the constitution should be followed. Our country is not 700 years old, thus they should ignore any other countries beliefs on firearms and the right to carry. The judges are using party opinions and agenda to push their anti gun views and violate the rights of all citizens. When judges don’t sentence criminals to get… Read more »

Bob
Bob
5 days ago

Why do “liberal” judges take issue with, and oppose, the 2nd Amendment? What’s in it for them to not accept the founder’s premise that this right shall not be infringed? It makes me question their integrity, jurisprudence, and the oath they swore to “uphold” the Constitution.

UncleT
UncleT
5 days ago

You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy… The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. – Thomas Jefferson – 1820

Mac
Mac
5 days ago

Yes there are MORONS wrapped in STUPID serving as judges!

APG member
APG member
5 days ago

Back and forth, and so it goes the pattern repeats forever. The democrats and republicans keep the Holly Polly in check with their masterful political theater. Keep voting republican that’ll help…

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy
5 days ago

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”Ah yes,the exit Claus and one might reason that… Read more »

musicman44mag
musicman44mag
5 days ago
Reply to  Green Mtn. Boy

Such an old saying that I learned in history class back in the 7th grade many years ago. You would think if this was repeated in history classes all across the country for the last 45 years that I have not been in school that everyone would have got the message by now and hopefully young people’s minds would have developed an even stronger understanding of what it means but, DUH, NOPE!!!!!

Last edited 5 days ago by musicman44mag
Larry
Larry
5 days ago
Reply to  musicman44mag

In 1998 a news article discussed what sort of questions were on the US immigrant citizenship test. One example was, “what is the most important idea expressed in the Declaration of Independence?”

The proper answer to this is, “governments are instituted to secure personal liberties, and any government that does not do so and abuses its citizens instead can justifiably be discarded and a new one instituted.”

The “correct” answer, according to the INS, is “all men are created equal.”

Why, it was as if the Declaration of Independence had absolutely nothing to do with “independence.”

Last edited 5 days ago by Larry