9th Circuit Again

[JLL21473]

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Rules Americans Have No Right to Carry Guns, Either Open or Concealed - Becker News

Here we go again with the 9th Ct. I guess this will go straight to SC, hopefully very soon.

 

[Ackley1952]

Why do we care about rulings in foreign lands?

 

[fordson]

Before we get too excited over this, lets check out and confirm the source. I think it’s suspicious.

 

[BloodyThumb]

I have already found it on a couple of newspaper websites. LA Times for one...

 

[JLL21473]

There is a link to the court documents and ruling in the article.
And for those curious I’ll link it here

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

 

[ldausmc1369]

9th Circus wrong again... the SCOTUS will hopefully wind up hearing the case..

 

[CH4]

In regards to the 2A, it’s bizarre how many states are moving toward the people’s right to carry while a handful are doing everything they can to extinguish it.

 

[llowry61]

And the beat goes on...... This will be a constant unless the SC puts a stop to it.

 

[CH4]

And the beat goes on...... This will be a constant unless the SC puts a stop to it.

Then there will be a renewed push to stack the court or concoct some scheme to create a pool judges who would be rotated through the 9 seats in an effort to gain and keep a liberal majority. Some think this can be done without violating the constitution.

 

[vipermd]

Garbage as usual. My 2nd will not be infringed. Not in NYC Ca Nj, or anywhere else. My right to self defense is God Given and will not be Infringed. Be Safe,

 

[Muss Muggins]

Garbage as usual. My 2nd will not be infringed. Not in NYC Ca Nj, or anywhere else. My right to self defense is God Given and will not be Infringed. Be Safe,

Good luck with that . . .

 

[Muss Muggins]

Then there will be a renewed push to stack the court or concoct some scheme to create a pool judges who would be rotated through the 9 seats in an effort to gain and keep a liberal majority. Some think this can be done without violating the constitution.

The Constitution does not address how many Justices serve on the Supreme Court . . .

 

[CH4]

The Constitution does not address how many Justices serve on the Supreme Court . . .

Correct.
However, instead of adding to the 9 seats some have talked about creating a pool of Supreme Court justices and rotating them through the 9 seats to reconstitute the ideological make up of the court without adding seats and circumventing the lifetime appointment issue.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Correct.
However, instead of adding to the 9 seats some have talked about creating a pool of Supreme Court justices and rotating them through the 9 seats to reconstitute the political make up of the court without adding seats and circumventing the lifetime appointment issue.

The Constitution also does not authorize lifetime appointments. According to the text, Article III Judges and Justices "shall serve for good behavior . . . "

 

[stansdds]

I'm not going to discuss the makeup of the SCOTUS, but I will say that there was another thread that indicated the SCOTUS was looking for a case to determine the legality of carrying a firearm for protection outside of one's residence. This case may be what they were looking to rule on. I will also advise that given the current SCOTUS's track record, there is no guarantee of a good outcome for those of us who do believe that personal defense extends beyond the walls of our residence.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Based on the Summary, which is not an official part of the opinion, it seems the Ninth Circuit held that even if there is a Right to Bare Arms, Arm Bears or Bend Arms to Drink Beer, there was no need to determine if the Second Amendment was violated because the Second Amendment does not apply one wit to ordinary People who want to Bear Arms outside the home. The Ninth Circuit also held that for technical legal reasons there was no need to decide the Due Process questions. From a lawyer's perspective (mine) this was a results oriented decision and nothing a lawyer could have done or argued to the Ninth Circuit would have changed the pre-ordained outcome.

 

[Telecaster]

Based on the Summary, which is not an official part of the opinion, it seems the Ninth Circuit held that there was no need to determine if the Second Amendment was violated because the 2A does not apply at all to carry outside the home, and for technical legal reasons there was no need to decide the Due Process questions.

They need to be drug tested.

 

[Pef]

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

Reposting the link. The first dissent begins on page 128. Start there.

"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 ofour 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 —that same firearm for self-defense in any other place."

 

[stansdds]

An unabashed attempt to rewrite the 2A.

 

[Jon651]

An unabashed attempt to rewrite the 2A.

Well, how about we say: "An unabashed attempt to reinterpret the 2A" instead?

And we shouldn't be surprised - the 2A has been interpreted and reinterpreted several times over it ~230 year history. We are currently living in the most liberal time for gun ownership in our country's history (and I am enjoying it very much, thank you!) but if there is one thing the courts have shown us over the years is that nothing is constant, and most things do and will change with the times.