It is well known that globalists, like progressives, have wild contempt for the 2nd amendment and the US constitution which they see as a “charter of negative liberties.” Both the Hawaii state government and the 9th Circuit Court are notoriously globalist and far-left progressive.
This week, in the case of Young V. The State Hawaii, the 9th Circuit court openly legislated from the bench when it overturned a 9th Circuit Panel’s decision and ruled 7-4 that openly carrying firearms in public is not constitutionally protected by the 2nd Amendment
This is despite the fact that the second amendment clearly disallows any infringement by any US government forces of citizens’ right to “keep and bear arms.”
An appeals court on Wednesday ruled that states may restrict people from openly carrying firearms in public—upholding a Hawaii gun regulation that bans residents from openly carrying guns without a license.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that restrictions on carrying guns in public except for hunting do not violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.
“The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places—including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets—the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,” Judge Jay Bybee, appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote in his opinion (pdf) for the court’s majority.
“Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square,” the judge added, saying, “There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.”
Bybee added, “It remains as true today as it was centuries ago, that the mere presence of such weapons presents a terror to the public and that widespread carrying of handguns would strongly suggest that state and local governments have lost control of our public areas.”
Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, who dissented, called the decision “unprecedented as it is extreme.”
“At its core, the Second Amendment protects the ordinary, law-abiding citizen’s right to carry a handgun openly for purposes of self-defense outside the home. Despite an exhaustive historical account, the majority has unearthed nothing to disturb this conclusion,” wrote O’Scannlain.
Another judge who dissented, Ryan D. Nelson, criticized Hawaii County’s law, writing that it “restricts gun ownership only to security guards [and] violates the Second Amendment.”
In 2016, the 9th Circuit decided that Americans don’t have the constitutional right to carry concealed guns in public.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) wrote that the ruling impacts “right to carry” laws in Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Montana, and California.
“This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this,” the group wrote on Twitter.
The case was brought against the state of Hawaii by a man who sought a permit for open carry for self-protection but was later denied. According to the Los Angeles Times, evidence in court showed that the county’s permits were only given to security guards.
The county law has limited permits for carrying guns other than hunting for persons with an urgent need for firearms and who are involved “in the protection of life and property.”
The case is Young v. the State of Hawaii.
The 2nd Amendment does not give any limiting language on when and where a citizen may keep and bear arms. It does not state that weapons may only be kept and used in private dwellings.
What it does state, though, is that the right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. A state preventing people from using their guns outside of there home would be a clear infringement of that right, would it not?
So, is a court legislating from the bench when it tells all Americans that they have no guaranteed right to practice the 2nd Amendment in public?
We will let you know if this case is appealed to the SCOTUS.
