First Circuit Court of Appeals Rule No Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

Ammoland ^ | 2 November, 2018 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On 2 November 2018, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held the Second Amendment effectively does not apply outside the home.  From uscourts.gov:

This case involves a constitutional challenge to the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline. All of the individual plaintiffs sought and received licenses from one of those two communities to carry firearms in public. The licenses, though, were restricted: they allowed the plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities but denied them the right to carry firearms more generally. 

The plaintiffs say that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment. The district court disagreed, and so do we. Mindful that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008), we hold that the challenged regime bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendants. In the last analysis, the plaintiffs simply do not have the right” to carry arms for any sort of confrontation” or “for whatever purpose” they may choose. Id. at 595, 626 (emphasis omitted). 

The Court specifically said the decision applies to both open and concealed carry of handguns. They reserved the power to infringe on concealed carry more than open carry.

Judge Selya wrote the decision for the unanimous three-judge panel. They held that allowing police to decide if a citizen has a “need” to carry a gun outside the home allows sufficient

[William Tell]

"... or become a criminal or they are a danger to the public."

I'm pretty sure that the military occupiers of Boston considered Adams, Revere, Hancock, Washington, and Jefferson to be criminals and a danger to the public. The whole point of the Second Amendment is to take out of the government's hands the ability to disarm the public.

Why would a person support taking firearms away from a person due to their misbehavior and yet trust them with a three-thousand pound car? The infringement of MY rights should not be justified by the behavior of others. If an adult person cannot be trusted with firearms then they cannot be trusted with liberty at all.

[arrogantsob]

There are far too many who cannot be trusted with Liberty. Look at the elections.

Before anyone can drive a car, they have been tested by the states and have passed those tests.

The right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited or universally valid. I don’t think MS-13 has any right to bear arms nor the scum shooting up the ghettos.

[oldtech]

I’m in 100% agreement with this removal of unconstitutional-thinking justices & this needs to start now while President Trump is in the WH. If this was done right,it should leave a lot of openings in the various state & federal courts.

[oldtech]

I’m in 100% agreement with this removal of unconstitutional-thinking justices & this needs to start now while President Trump is in the WH. If this was done right,it should leave a lot of openings in the various state & federal courts.