Jump to content

9th circuit court rules that Hawaii's open carry ban violates the Second Amendment


Recommended Posts

It will be interesting to see how California handles this ruling as they are in the same jurisdiction of this circuit court.

 

Quote

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday found that a Hawaii gun regulation that strictly limits permits to openly carry handguns violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

 

Citing heavily from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down handgun restrictions in Washington, D.C., Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote the Hawaii law, which restricts open carry to people whose jobs entail “protecting life or property,” would by necessity limit open carry permits to “a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens.”

 

“Just as the Second Amendment does not protect a right to bear arms only in connection with a militia, it surely does not protect a right to bear arms only as a security guard,” wrote O’Scannlain, who was joined in his opinion by Judge Sandra Ikuta.

 

In his dissent, Judge Richard Clifton, who sits in Honolulu, wrote that the majority opinion ran counter to the court’s en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego, which found California’s restrictions on carrying concealed firearms was constitutional. O’Scannlain, it’s worth noting, wrote the panel opinion that was reversed en banc in the Peruta case.

 

The majority, Clifton wrote, “disregarded the fact that states and territories in a variety of regions have long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms.”

 

D. Kaena Horowitz, deputy corporation counsel for the County of Hawaii, said the county is considering its options, including whether to seek en banc review.

 

“The Young decision is unfortunate as it invalidates Hawaii law designed to protect the safety and well-being of the people of Hawaii,” Horowitz said. “Carrying firearms in public clearly poses a significant danger to the safety of our community and greatly increases the risk that police officers confront.”

 

At oral argument before the Ninth Circuit panel, San Diego attorney Alan Beck represented Hawaii resident George Young, the plaintiff whom the County of Hawaii twice refused a license to carry a handgun, either concealed or openly. Beck said in an interview Tuesday afternoon that he doubted the Ninth Circuit would reverse Young’s case as it did in Peruta.

 

“If they rule against me in the en banc they have to say that ‘carry’ doesn’t exist outside the home. That would go against every other court in the country,” Beck said. “The Ninth Circuit is going to have a hard time doing that without being heard by the Supreme Court.”

 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the Peruta case last year, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent of the denial of review with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining.

 

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous,” Thomas wrote. “But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a state denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Slug said:

I'm hoping this stands, because it will affect NJ.  Frankly I've never understood how that restriction flew in the first place.  It doesn't make sense.

 

It won't directly affect NJ, as this ruling only affects the ninth circuit, which is mostly the West Coast states plus Hawaii and Alaska.  If the case makes it to the Supreme Court and they agree it's a violation, then yes, it would affect NJ.

 

US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

It won't directly affect NJ, as this ruling only affects the ninth circuit, which is mostly the West Coast states plus Hawaii and Alaska.  If the case makes it to the Supreme Court and they agree it's a violation, then yes, it would affect NJ.

 

US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_m

I'm hoping that it at least strengthens our argument here.  Let me have this. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Yeah and Reagan and the NRA violated their second amendment "rights" and tried to take their guns away... the one time the NRA supported gun control.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-california-open-carry-ban/

 

I do wonder why.

Just like when they were silent a couple of years ago when philando castile was shot after he told a cop he had a firearm. Something just wasn't quite white about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Just like when they were silent a couple of years ago when philando castile was shot after he told a cop he had a firearm. Something just wasn't quite white about it

That always bugged the shit out of me.  I mean, I know why they didn't want to say anything, but it was still bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, elbobo said:

 

its killing a shit ton of my potential future children several times a week 

 

Pro-lifers only care about your "children" until the baby leaves the vagina. Then they immediately stop helping or caring.

 

And god forbid that child becomes LGBTQIA+. Then the pro-lifers will want to kill them. Also, they love guns, which kill a lot of people. Also, they are pro-death penalty.

 

Not sure how pro-life these people are. I think they are pro-semen, pro-ovaries, and pro-fetus but after that they are anti-life. :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Hawaii was a state back then.

 

I have a friend who I’ve know for the past 10-12 years. His family moved to the mainland from Hawaii when he was in 8th grade.

 

According to him, Hawaii isn’t even a state. It’s an illegal occupation. I’ve never dug too much, but he brings it up every chance he has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, osxmatt said:

 

I have a friend who I’ve know for the past 10-12 years. His family moved to the mainland from Hawaii when he was in 8th grade.

 

According to him, Hawaii isn’t even a state. It’s an illegal occupation. I’ve never dug too much, but he brings it up every chance he has.

We did kinda overthrow the Hawaiian monarchy so white people could grow sugar. So there's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...