Ninth Circuit Rules Openly Carrying Firearm in Public Is Constitutional

[Revmitchell]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that openly carrying a firearm in public is constitutional.
The ruling, issued by a three-judge panel, is a rebuttal to Hawaii’s claim that Second Amendment protections only applied to carrying a gun openly in one’s home.

Reuters reports that the case was brought by George Young, after Hawaiian official “twice [denied] him a permit to carry a gun outside.” A District Court ruled that the denial did not infringe rights protected by the Second Amendment, but the Ninth Circuit panel disagreed.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...tional/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

[carpro]

Color me surprised!!!! The Ninth???

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This would seem to be an atypical 9th Circuit ruling. Usually, the 9th is the place for the most liberal rulings.

 

[Jerome]

It was a three judge panel, one appointed by Reagan and two by GWB.

 

[Revmitchell]

Why do libbies think its important to name who appointed the judges as if it is supposed to tell us something about their ideology?

 

[Rob_BW]

Because, generally, it does.

Do you honestly think a panel of 2 Obama and 1 Clinton appointed judges would have come to the same conclusion? Lol...

I'm more interested in how these three judges ended up on the case. Do they draw straws?

 

[Revmitchell]

Because, generally, it does.

Do you honestly think a panel of 2 Obama and 1 Clinton appointed judges would have come to the same conclusion? Lol...

I'm more interested in how these three judges ended up on the case. Do they draw straws?

Uh whenever a liberal ruling comes down and some judge appointed by a conservative rules in a liberal fashion, liberals always tout it out as if it props up the ruing somehow. All it means is they are liberal as well.

 

[Rob_BW]

I stand by my statement. Listing the appointing president isn't deep reserch into a judge's career, by any means, but is useful as a quick tidbit of info.

Otherwise, why do people in both parties tout the effect of the future president on the court system in their campaign ads?

 

[Rob_BW]

And I'm still waiting for @Jerome to give me the details on how this was empanelled. I've about given up googling it myself.

 

[Revmitchell]

I stand by my statement. Listing the appointing president isn't deep reserch into a judge's career, by any means, but is useful as a quick tidbit of info.

Otherwise, why do people in both parties tout the effect of the future president on the court system in their campaign ads?

It is certainly good to know in advance. Afterward what does it say about the ruling? Nothing

 

[Jerome]

(pdf) Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals - Cornell Law Review

 

[Rob_BW]

(pdf) Panel Assignment in the Federal Courts of Appeals - Cornell Law Review

52 pages...

Lol, thanks, though. The introduction pretty much answered my questions. The idea of stressing collegiality was informative.

 

[carpro]

I would expect the litigants to now request a review by the entire court. Odds are the full court will reverse.

If it goes to SCOTUS, they will agree with this ruling.

 

[HankD]

THE 9th! Sounds fishy, smells fishy...