Second Amendment: Court of appeals says states can restrict open firearms

Second Amendment: Court of appeals says states can restrict open firearms

by

“There is no right to bear arms openly in public; nor is it within the scope of the Second Amendment,” wrote Judge Jay Bybee, nominated by George W. Bush, in the majority’s opinion.

The decision comes at a time of intensified national discussion about the scope of the Second Amendment after the mass shootings in Colorado and Atlanta this month. The White House is considering whether to issue a series of weapons security measures through executive action, even as it publicly pressures Congress to move forward with legislation designed to curb violence.

Hawaii law specifically prohibits residents from carrying weapons openly if they do not have a license to do so. Licenses are given only to residents who can prove that they need a firearm because of “reason to fear injury” to “person or property”.

Bybee wrote that “the contours of the government’s power to regulate weapons in the public square are at least these: the government can regulate, and even prohibit, in public places – including government buildings, churches, schools and markets – the open transport of small arms that can be hidden, whether hidden or openly carried. “

Supreme Court to discuss case that could expand Second Amendment rights

“Our analysis of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: the government has the power to regulate weapons in the public square,” he continued.

“The story is confusing and, as we anticipated, the record is not uniform, but the overwhelming evidence of state constitutions and statutes, cases and comments confirms that we never assume that individuals have an unrestricted right to carry weapons in public spaces. “

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, disagreeing with three other judges, said the decision makes the Second Amendment a “smear of ink”.

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees ‘the people’s right to keep and bear arms’,” wrote O’Scannlain.

“Today, the majority of our court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority argue that while the Second Amendment can guarantee the right to maintain a firearm for self-defense within the home, it does not provides for the right of any kind to bear – that is, bear – the same firearm for self-defense anywhere else. “

Conservatives with high expectations eager for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to show her hand

If the Supreme Court resolves the case, it would bring a rare decision from the higher court on the scope of the Second Amendment, an issue that has been evaded since the issuance of two landmark opinions in 2008 and 2010.

Gun rights advocates and even some of the judges themselves expressed frustration that the court refused to define the scope of the law in more detail, as lower courts across the country upheld the restrictions.

Neal Katyal, a senior Obama administration lawyer who defended the case for Hawaii last fall tweeted, “It really is a victory for the State of Hawaii” and “common sense weapons regulation everywhere.”

CNN’s Ariane de Vogue contributed to this report.

.Source