9th Circuit Again

[BOB FRONSEE]

They are saying if by the grace and benevolence of your state legislature you are allowed to carry a gun outside your home, sure, you can defend them with the gun. Otherwise, if your wise state legislature decides law abiding citizens are too dangerous to bear arms outside their home, well, those citizens can use pointy sticks.

Pointy sticks. I feel safe already.

 

[steelslaver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer X View Post
So, we don't have the right to protect ourselves outside our home, and law enforcement is not required by law to respond to a 911 call, so, what? We are on our own?

Perhaps Taekwondo?

Taekwondo sounds like the perfect name for my 325

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Well I for one did NOT know that the possessive of Hawaii is Hawai'i's.
I ain't gonna read 200+ pages of screed from the 9th so I will rely on thr SUmmary. Based on the summary, it would appear that this would be a no brainer overturn and may very well be the case the Supremes are looking for.

 

[ladder13]

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,

Many “gun owners” are just fine with infringements.

 

[stansdds]

Many “gun owners” are just fine with infringements.

Sad, but very, very true.

 

[britbike1]

What the second says

Apparently some courts have trouble understanding the meaning " shall not".

 

[PALADIN85020]

I don't know how much more clearly the Founders could say it.

John

 

[NMPinNYC]

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

Stole my thunder! Ninth CIRCUS indeed!

 

[bushmaster1313]

Well I for one did NOT know that the possessive of Hawaii is Hawai'i's.
I ain't gonna read 200+ pages of screed from the 9th so I will rely on thr SUmmary. Based on the summary, it would appear that this would be a no brainer overturn and may very well be the case the Supremes are looking for.

Supremes could say that the 2A does protect right outside home and send it back down.

 

[Bucher33]

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

When FDR tried packing the court back in the 1930's even democrats in congress opposed such a reach. In todays political climate rest assured that will not happen again.

 

[stansdds]

When FDR tried packing the court back in the 1930's even democrats in congress opposed such a reach. In todays political climate rest assured that will not happen again.

Just last night it was announced that bills will be introduced into both the House and the Senate to add 4 justices to the SCOTUS. We'll see what happens.

 

[fordson]

When FDR tried packing the court back in the 1930's even democrats in congress opposed such a reach. In todays political climate rest assured that will not happen again.

FDR tried this in 1937. He wanted to “ease the case load” on the sitting nine justices by adding six more (that would see things his way). He paid the price in the 1938 Congressional election. This move turned out to be the biggest mistake of his Presidency.
As you pointed out, that while Dems didn’t support then, it would be a different case today.