« Boulder mass killing | Main | 6th Circuit strikes down ATF "bump-stock" determination »
Young v. Hawaii, en banc
Opinion here. The Ninth Circuit ruling en banc 7-4, if my count is correct, upholds Hawaii's "may issue" (which is practice is "won't issue") permit system for firearms carry. A major part of the huge opinion is devoted to claiming that Medieval English kings, and the statute of Northampton, restricted going "armed" in public. I've compiled quite a bit of historical evidence that up through Tudor times, "armed" meant wearing armor, not carrying weapons. In that era, carrying blades was simply being well-dressed, and carrying bow and arrows was simply performing one's legal duty. Wearing armor, on the other hand, meant you were looking for a fight.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
This is hardly a surprise to anyone, but I truly feel bad for Mr. Young. How long has he been seeking justice on this? I realize that if he really wanted relief he could simply move to another state (practically ANY other state)! But it’s the Dick Heller’s, Otis McDonald’s, and George Young’s who stay put, fight the good fight, and slowly move the ball forward.
Significant that the majority opinion is based on history and tradition (really light on the text though). If I were on SCOTUS, this is the case to review ... the 2d Amendment does not protect any right to bear arms outside of the home. The question doesn't get much more clearly presented than this.
The underlying rationale for the decision in Young boils down to this:
"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."
(Young v Hawaii at 112)
The court's bias against the people and for the State is palpable when reading through this overly long opinion.
Regarding Hardy's comment on armor vs arms, the opinion discusses at length laws against going armed in public and notes that the typical penalty was forfeiture of one's armor (and horse).
The court unwittingly confirms Hardy's observation about "going armed" but then concludes that the term refers to specific concealable weapons.
"As we recognized in Peruta, English law restricted public firearm possession as early as the thirteenth century. 824 F.3d at 929." I wish we had such forward-looking thinkers in our midst today. Firearms were being regulated in English law a couple hundred years before they appeared in England!
It doesn't matter what restrictive laws England had.
The Second Amendment was written to be a lot more liberal than the neutered right bear arms in the English Bill of Rights.
"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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty ...
The right of self defence is the first law of nature: In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."
-St. George Tucker
It is no surprise.
Logic, common sense and original intent mean nothing. Our benevolent masters want us indebted, dependent, silent, afraid, and unarmed.
Didn't we fight a war to throw off the tyranny of those English kings?
This decision as intelligently bankrupt as it is, is good in that the newly constituted Supreme Court of the United States (per Justice Barrett) will vote with Justice's Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas to form a 5 to 3 to 1 majority. I suspect that J. Roberts's (assuming he is still on the Court by the end of 2021) will not join the majority or dissent but write separately for himself arguing why the Court should not have granted cert.
This way Roberts (1) will balance (a) his need to [not vote] with the conservative jurists as this will surely result in the revelation his blackmailers have on him, and (b) equally he will [not vote] with the liberals because he actually is an ideological conservative (2) as confirmed by his votes to form the majority opinion(s) in:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct.
2783 (2008)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).
Once again “Shall not be infringed” has been interpreted to read “Shall be infringed “