Breaking: Ninth Circuit Rules “No Right” to Carry Firearms, Either Openly or Conceale

[Rotney]

Liberal judges

https://www.infowars.com/posts/breaking-ninth-circuit-rules-no-right-to-carry-firearm-either-open-or-concealed/

[flywise]

If true......they don’t have a clue what the hell their talking about and should be removed from the bench

[txpitdog]

Here’s the case review

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

[Playa]

BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED

[glen]

Id watch out for Infowars and would read the actual case

[47]

and I still don't care

[Clay C]

Who cares what tyrants have to say? Why not just ignore their ruling and any unconstitutional laws?

[Ironman]

Who cares what tyrants have to say? Why not just ignore their ruling and any unconstitutional laws

Exactly.

[rtp]

F the ninth circuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stickerpatch59]

Who cares what tyrants have to say? Why not just ignore their ruling and any unconstitutional laws?

EXACTLY!!! just like the dems ignore anything that they don't agree with!!

[tvc184]

Who cares what tyrants have to say? Why not just ignore their ruling and any unconstitutional laws?

I would imagine that the people sitting in jail and prison cells would care.

[Capt.Brown]

Id watch out for Infowars and would read the actual case

^^^^^this

[tvc184]

Id watch out for Infowars and would read the actual case

I read it. It pretty plainly states that you have no right to carry an open firearm in public. They had ruled previously in another case that you had no right to have a concealed firearm in public.

This was an en banc decision. Many people probably don’t know that the circuit courts have many judges, maybe 18 - 24. It is not like Scotus where there are nine judges (unless a vacancy exists) and they all hear the same case. The circuit courts hear way more cases and they usually do a case in a three judge panel. Which three judges you get I believe is like a spin of the wheel. It is rarely granted but a plaintive or defendant who loses can ask for an en banc decision which means all the judges, up to 20 something, review the case. So if the standard 3 judge panel issues a ruling, you can ask that all of them hear it for an en banc decision. It is almost like an indictment so a certain number of judges have to agree to the en banc hearing. One of the most famous cases that people might be familiar with is the Tom Brady deflate-gate suspension. The court ruled against him and his attorney asked for an en banc decision and it was denied. So the three judge panel upheld his five game suspension.

In this case the entire ninth circuit heard the case and ruled against the man who wanted a handgun permit. The man’s challenge was facially that the entire statute was unconstitutional. The ninth circuit ruled on that only saying that the requirement for a permit to carry a firearm was legal and not unconstitutional. One of the contentions in the lawsuit was that the chief of police had unlimited authority to deny the permit for any reason he saw fit. The other was the Hawaii law also required you to state a reason why you need to carry a gun. The man that applied never listed a reason and was rejected twice.

If I read the case correctly, the ninth circuit left open the possibility of an as-applied challenge. A facial challenge or a ruling says that the entire statute is just unconstitutional and is removed. An as-applied challenge is where the court rules that the basic law is constitutional but a narrow part of it is not. I believe what they are saying in this case is that he could have maybe challenged a narrow decision of giving the chief of police entire discretion or he could have challenged the requirement to state why you needed a permit. In such an as-applied challenge, the court could rule that those parts of the law were unconstitutional. In other words they could have ruled that Hawaii could require a permit to carry a firearm but they could not give the chief of police the authority to reject for any reason. They did not rule on these issues because they took it as a facial challenge only, meaning the entire statute was unconstitutional which they overruled.

So the plaintiff could go back to state court and start over again accepting that Hawaii has the right to issue a permit but contesting whether the chief of police should have the authority to reject you on his opinion only or that you had to have a reason to justify the carrying of a firearm. If he did so, the court left open the possibility that they would issue an as-applied ruling. That theoretically could have the court ruling Hawaii had to remove the chief of police from the process or the need to explain why you should carry a gun.

I don’t see that happening. If this goes forward it will do so in front of the Supreme Court. I don’t think the guy would start back over in Hawaii state court just end up back at the ninth circuit again before this clown circuit.

In my opinion....

[RJH1]

Back before LTC/CHL was there any "right" to carry in Texas either? Seems like the normal guy was just screwed if he wanted to carry a handgun, but it has been a while and I honestly can't remember

[Hills of Texas]

Back before LTC/CHL was there any "right" to carry in Texas either? Seems like the normal guy was just screwed if he wanted to carry a handgun, but it has been a while and I honestly can't remember

I don’t believe it was legal. I always remember my grandfathers carrying small pistols in their pockets.