9th Circuit Rules: NO Constitutional Right to Open or Concealed Carry in Public

Despite President Trump’s appointments, the liberal, seemingly unconstitutional, 9th circuit has ruled that Hawaii has a right to deny people concealed carry licenses if they can’t prove an ‘urgency or need’ to carry a firearm, as reported by therightscoop.com.

I didn’t recall reading the words ‘concealed,’ ‘urgency,’ ‘need,’ or ‘public’ in the Second Amendment. So, I checked one of my 8″ x 6″ x 1/2″ hardbound copies of our constitution. And, sure enough, there none of those words in question were to be found.

The Second Amendment reads as follows:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Please note ‘Militia,’ ‘security,’ ‘keep and bear,’ nor ‘Arms’ are specified. This open window leads my mind to much imagination: Whether to conceal or not to conceal? Whether to carry strapped over my shoulder or in my hand or in a holster or in my pocket? Whether to carry a hand gun, a shot gun, or a rifle? You catch my drift, right?

The next questions we Second Amendment proponents, and all Americans in my opinion, must now be asking ourselves: How in the hell will the Supreme Court respond to this? and Has Chief Justice Roberts made good yet on his debt to the Deep State so he’ll be free to begin voting in accordance with the constitution, as written, not as liberals choose to interpret? Or will he screw conservative deplorable patriots again?

The following from DAILY CALLER:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Hawaii gun regulation, ruling Wednesday that states can restrict the right to openly carry a firearm in public.

The 7-4 decision said restrictions on carrying guns in public do not fall within the scope of what is protected by the Second Amendment.

“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 wrote for the majority.

The majority based their decision on previous rulings and a review of both American and English law.

“We have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces,” the majority ruled. “Indeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self defense.”

“The en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawaii’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.”

The case was brought by George Young, who applied for a license twice in 2011 to carry a gun in public either openly or concealed and was denied both times because he didn’t prove the “urgency or the need” to openly carry a firearm in public, the decision said. Instead, Young relied on his “general desire to carry a firearm for self-defense.”

Under Hawaii’s law, residents have to show the “urgency or the need” to carry a firearm in public and must be of good moral character and “engaged in the protection of life and property.”

Young sued, arguing the “denial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded handgun in public for self-defense.”

The court said the question was “whether individuals have a right to carry weapons openly in public.” The court reviewed the Supreme Court’s decision in both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago and found “Hawaii’s restrictions on the open carrying of firearms reflect longstanding prohibitions and that the conduct they regulate is therefore outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment.”

“We have previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public,” the court also added. The 9th Circuit previously ruled in 2016 that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon in public.

I believe this ruling is wrong and not in accordance with our constitution. The idea that the founders envisioned that someone can protect themselves only when they are at home is absurd. Or that someone must first prove a need or a fear or rationale is also absurd.

For the 9th circuit to provide such extra-constitutional restrictions proves how much reform is truly needed. There are far too many Clinton, Obama, and Bush judges on the 9th circuit that must be replaced for the good of the people and the nation.

What say you Def-Con News readers? We each have a pocket copy of our constitution, yes? Please check it out and share what you think.