Posted on 11/08/2018 10:09:02 AM PST by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I knew this was going to happen once they legalized marijuana and people moved on to opioids.
“The earth is my home.”
And Gaia is our Mother.
Men in Black
Did NH still require that people open carry ?>
If some freeloading ***hole in Honduras has the constitutional right to come into my home and demand cash, food, housing, education and healthcare, I have the contitutional right to keep and bear arms anywhere I want. PERIOD.
Ya, and the Third Reich ruled there was no freedom of religion outside of Church.....
The right to bear arms is not limited to any place.
Current limitations are customary
>
Mindful that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
>
So much for the SCOTUS ‘greatest minds’ debate...
“shall NOT be infringed” has morphed into “is not unlimited”
Since opinions are like. . ., everybody has one. This decision is valid only in the court where these three . . . keep their opinions.
To the Left, there is no such thing as settled law when it comes to their desires. Settled law only binds conservatives.
This is what I was referring to when I stated the Left would tie up any executive orders regarding immigration. A bunch of dolts jumped all over me about how it already went through the courts and the law was settled.
Note that Democrats win the House and judicial tyranny raises its ugly head.
You’ve provided the SCOTUS with the reason why they should throw this nonsense spewed by these three stooges out into the street.
Nationwide constitutional carry with the exception of felons convicted of violent crimes and illegal aliens and short term visa holders. It is the only solution that does not infringe the 2nd Amendment.
Maybe, Maybe not.
The only court of appeal is the Supreme Court, as this is a First Circuit decision.
The plaintiffs could ask for an en banc ruling, I suppose.
The Supreme Court has been refusing to hear cases that uphold the Second Amendment for about three years.
If the case is not heard en banc, and the Supreme Court refuses to grant Ceriortari (to hear the case), the case will stand in the First Circuit.
Shall not be infringed means that there will be no wholesale barring of having arms. It does not mean you can do anything you want or that there is no control possible.
Felons, the mentally unstable are not guaranteed the right to bear arms.
I said many cases, your son is surely the exception, as I have known others. Should your son be the decision maker vis a vis a constitutional right?
Yeah, the cops around here are quite well educated and not dummies by any means. But this might not be true everywhere.
Huh?
It’s like they chose to simply ignore Heller altogether.
LOL. Yeah, I made that decision to move up to fentanyl the day mj became legal in my state. Never looked back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.