Comment by Jim Campbell
July 24th 1018
I’m not at all certain that this was the best of rulings.
It would seem to me that approving concealed carry would have been the better choice.
Tell your story to the local police.
They could care less about the new law even if they were told about it.
So you decide to go walking down the street with you AR-15, I decide to take it from you, you decide to shoot me.
That doesn’t seem like a happy ending, particularly with the statistics from the Department of Justice and the FBI show clearly that a well armed community is a safer community. (Source)
We must not forget that when nominee, Sonya Sotomayor was interviewed before the United States Senate Judiciary when asked about her position on the Second Amendment, she replied that Heller was already case-law.
When given the opportunity to vote against the 2nd Amendment, she rarely if ever failed to do so. (Source)
Great video below.
Her counterpart and Obama’s second choice, Elana Kagan is likely the least honest of the two. (Source)
As Solicitor General for Bill Clinton, she lied about The American college of Obstetrics position on third term abortion. (Source)
So what’s my point in opening this article with such a long opening statement?
It’s simple, with the approval of Justice Kavanaugh the entire country including the Democrats know what they will be getting.
His writing in his opinions have been patently clear.
He’s pro Second Amendment, and would not take any position against Roe V Wade.
This is just nonsense the left and their counterparts in the media whip themselves into hysterics because they have no workable agenda.
The Ninth Circuit is one of the most liberal courts, and the one that gave
the Trump White House heartburn over its executive order on immigration.
But even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again
This court recently ruled that we have a constitutional right to open carry in public for self-defense (via Reuters
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second
Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense,
rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns
kept at home.
The extent of the right to gun ownership protected by the Second Amendment
is one of the most hotly contested debates in the United States, where life
has been punctuated by a steady stream of mass shootings.
The ruling issued by a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, based in San Francisco, came a year after the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to rule either way on the carrying of guns in public.
“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence,” Judge Diarmuid
O’Scannlain wrote in Tuesday’s ruling.
“But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
So, does this get bumped up to the Supreme Court?
If Judge Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, and it looks like he will be, then the chances improve that the high court could hear arguments to finally decide whether we have the
constitutional right to carry loaded firearms in public.
According to SCOTUS blog, the question was thrust before the Court in Drake v. Jerejian four years ago : (Source)
1)Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second
Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to
carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing
The Court declined. In 2013, Woollard v. Gallagher also asked whether the so-called justifiable need provision for concealed carry
permits was constitutional.(Source)
Again, the court declined.
On the question about the constitutionality of state-based assault weapons bans, the Court again decided to take a pass. (Source)
So, based on this history, I’m not going to jump for glee just yet.
Then again, it shows that the fight for our Second Amendment rights shouldn’t let up, nor should we give up no matter what, even if it’s in the deepest, bluest, most
Democratic part of the country.
Fight on-that’s how we got the Heller and McDonald decisions. (Source)
Besides abortion, anti-gun liberals can probably guess the odds of the Court accepting this case if Kavanaugh is confirmed.
The Supreme Court has been under pressure to accept for gun rights cases. (Source)
Some have argued that the gay marriage ruling in Obergefell should apply to
concealed carry permits.
At the time, the National Rifle Association warned
this logic is not worth gambling on until the Court decidedly issued a ruling on this question: (Source)
Please see the entire article below.
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of
Obergefell v. Hodges, which concerned whether same-sex marriage is a right
protected by the U.S. Constitution. (Source)
Although the case did not address the right to bear arms, some pro-gun advocates began debating whether the Court’s reasoning and analysis had application to national concealed carry licensing reciprocity.
This is a reasonable question.
If states that formerly did not sanction same-sex marriage now have to recognize all marriages from states that do, shouldn’t that also mean restrictive “may issue” concealed carry jurisdictions have to recognize concealed carry licenses from less
restrictive “shall-issue” jurisdictions?
Some commentators went even further, insisting that Obergefell has conclusively settled the national reciprocity issue in favor of gun owners.
Unfortunately, the answer is not that simple.
In particular, we strongly advise concealed carry license holders not to assume Obergefell provides them with the legal basis they need to carry without an in-state license in strongly anti-gun states such as Maryland, New Jersey, or New York.
Doing so at this point would still subject the traveler to arrest and criminal
This is so for a number of reasons, chief of which is that the U.S. Supreme
Court has not yet ruled squarely on the question of whether the Second
Amendment protects the right to carry a loaded handgun in public, and if it
does, whether states must recognize each other’s permits.
The landmark cases of Heller and McDonald only concerned the question of handgun possession in the home.
Until the Supreme Court rules on the issue conclusively, certain reliably
anti-gun jurisdictions can be counted on to exist in a state of denial and
If states and lower courts can ignore a congressional statute like
Firearm Owners’ Protection Act – and they do, they certainly can ignore
arguments that the philosophical basis for interstate recognition of
same-sex marriage compel interstate recognition of concealed carry permits.
The day that these questions concerning open and concealed carry being
answered could be drawing closer, but for now, let’s celebrate this legal