The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a ruling that denies the very language of the Second Amendment.
The court case, Young v Hawaii, approves of Hawaii’s requirement that residents of the state most prove they have an “urgency of need”, “good moral character”, and are “engaged in the protection of life and property” in order to open carry. This ruling means that the state has the privilege to grant citizens the ability to carry firearms, not that citizens have the right to carry.
From Bearing Arms:
While the decision by the Ninth Circuit is absolutely atrocious, the timing actually couldn’t be better. On Friday of this week the Supreme Court is expected to take up a case in conference called New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, which challenges New York State’s “may-issue” licensing scheme for carry licenses, and thanks to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, there’s now an even more compelling reason for the Court to accept a carry case. It could be NYSPRA v. Corlett, or SCOTUS could hold off a few more weeks until the Young case arrives on its doorstep, but there is now a clear conflict on the right to bear arms in the various appellate courts, and that greatly enhances the odds of the Court taking at least one of these cases in the very near future.
If and when that happens, expect Democrats to once again call for the nuclear option on the filibuster and threaten to pack the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices. We first saw those threats in 2019 when SCOTUS accepted a case challenging a New York City law prohibiting the transfer of lawfully owned firearms, but the Court ultimately declared that case moot after the city changed the law before oral arguments were held. Now SCOTUS has not one but two opportunities to take a case dealing with the right to bear arms in self-defense, and Democrats are sure to respond with more threats of court packing in return.
What decent there was on the case was powerful, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in his dissent on the majority opinion:
“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.’ U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self defense in any other place.”
This decision is concerning to the same extent that DC v Heller was, this decision should show many that the Second Amendment is always one court case away from being erased. While the Supreme Court is currently full of Trump appointees who are likely to uphold it, there is a future where that is not the case and the possibility of someone opposed to the Second Amendment packing the court is very real.
