Image courtesy Pima County Public Defender's Office
Previous Post
Next Post

“Hawai‘i law began limiting public carriage of dangerous weapons, including firearms, more than 150 years ago—nearly fifty years before it became a U.S. territory and more than a century before it became a state. Hawai‘i enacted its first statutory regulation of public carry in 1852. The aptly named ‘Act To Prevent the Carrying of Deadly Weapons’ recognized that ‘the habit of carrying deadly weapons is dangerous to life and the public peace.’”

That’s how a seven-judge en banc majority opened its 215-page 7-4 ruling in Young v. Hawaii upholding Hawaii’s ban on the open carrying of firearms. The court bent over backwards, taking into account English law going back a century and a half, before the time Hawaii was part of the United States in order to uphold the state’s ban.

From . . .

The court spends nearly 50 pages discussing the time-honored regulation of weapons under the law. This section starts in Middle Age England and ends in the Post-Reconstruction United States.

The thorough (and admittedly non-exhaustive) historical inquiry, necessarily long and time-consuming, begins by invoking “a series of orders to local sheriffs that prohibited ‘going armed’ without the king’s permission” which were promulgated by “King Edward I and his successor, King Edward II.” The final laws cited in this section are two explicit prohibitions on the public carrying of firearms which were upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1876 and 1882.

A cert petition to the US Supreme Court is a certainty.

The Firearms Policy Coalition issued this statement . . .

Today, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii—a case in which Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a supporting brief—where the court upheld Hawaii’s de facto ban on the public carry of firearms. 

Hawaii law, H.R.S. § 134-9(a), requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm demonstrate good moral character, that he or she will be “engaged in the protection of life and property,” and “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm. In practice, virtually nobody ever demonstrates a strong enough urgency or need to be issued a license, so the licensing requirement operates as a prohibition. 

In 2011, George Young submitted two applications for an open-carry license. Both were denied because he failed to demonstrate a sufficient “urgency” or “need.” Young challenged the denials in court, arguing that his desire to carry a firearm for self-defense was all the Second Amendment required. 

After the district court ruled against him, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in his favor—holding that the Second Amendment must protect some method of carrying outside the home, and because the Ninth Circuit has previously held that concealed carry is not protected, open carry must be. But then, the Ninth Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc—i.e., before an 11-judge panel. 

The en banc court held that Hawaii’s open carry law did not violate the Second Amendment. Rather, the court determined that because history demonstrates a “longstanding” tradition in English and American law of government “prohibit[ing] certain weapons from entering . . . public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic Tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic Violence,’” there “is no right to carry arms openly in public.”

The dissent pointed out that the majority’s “holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme,” and that it “reduces the right to ‘bear Arms’ to a mere inkblot.” Moreover, the holding “undermines not only the Constitution’s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself.”

The majority opinion cited FPC’s brief and adopted much of the history it provided. Specifically, FPC’s brief proved that firearm carrying was common in the colonial and founding eras, and that it was even required by many colonies and states. As the opinion noted, the brief effectively demonstrated “a general acceptance by local governments of some firearms in the public square.” But the court nevertheless held that the Second Amendment does not protect such carrying.

“We are very disappointed in the outcome of this case. As the dissent pointed out, the Ninth Circuit has effectively eliminated the word ‘bear’ from the Constitution,” explained FPC’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “Now that tens of millions of Americans have been told, for the first time ever, that they have no right to carry a firearm, it is more important than ever for the Supreme Court to address the issue and define the right to ‘bear arms.’”

“While this latest misguided Ninth Circuit decision is far from surprising, FPC will continue to aggressively take action to restore the right to bear arms throughout the United States,” said FPC Senior Director of Legal Operations Adam Kraut. “In fact, FPC has multiple active carry cases, including against New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York City, and will be filing more in various circuits in the coming weeks and months. Our mission is to create a world in which individuals can freely purchase, possess, and carry loaded, operable arms for self-defense in public, and we intend to achieve nothing short of that.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to hear a different carry case—in which FPC also filed a brief—at its March 26 conference. That case is NYSRPA v. Bruen, and it involves a challenge to New York’s severe carry restrictions.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space, having recently filed two United States Supreme Court petitions for certiorari (review) (Folajtar v. Attorney General and Holloway v. Attorney General) and several major federal Second Amendment lawsuits, including challenges to the State of Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh), Philadelphia’s Gun Permit Unit policies and practices (Fetsurka v. Outlaw), Pennsylvania’s ban on carry by adults under 21 years of age (Lara v. Evanchick), California’s Handgun Ban and “Roster” laws (Renna v. Becerra), Maryland’s carry ban (Call v. Jones), New Jersey’s carry ban (Bennett v. Davis), New York City’s carry ban (Greco v. New York City), the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition by federal firearm licensees (FFLs) to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. BATFE), and others, with many more cases being prepared today. To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition ( is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Surprising that the en banc overturned the court of appeals opinion.
    This will certainly cause division within the 9th circuit.
    That said it wasn’t unanimous and I would hope we would take this to SCOTUS.
    Now the question is whether SCOTUS has the spine and fortitude to actually take on an real case worth hearing.
    Considering they have punted any and all cases with and real relevance to Americans, becoming more of a damp squib un upholding the rights of the individual, I won’t hold my breath.

    • Being a native/long-time resident (who has now escaped) I like the old Gallagher joke: “California is like a bowl of granola; what ain’t fruits and nuts is flakes.”

    • What do sticks have to do with this?

      Unless maybe you’re saying they have all the logical ability of sticks?

  2. Crazy how many thought this would end differently. They’ll nthink the same with the scotus petition and the mag ban. Shows you how far we have to go to til people understand the Final Solution. By then no one will be left with the will tondo what needs to be done though.

    • Not crazy at all. Having eliminated a right to concealed carry, the Ninth circuit either had to acknowledge a right to open carry–or eliminate the right outright despite the express provision of “and bear” in the Second Amendment, and the decision in Heller recognizing that “keep” meant in the home, and perforce, “and bear” must mean to carry outside the home. Although the latter is dicta, it was rather surprising that the Ninth essentially ignored Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller on this point.

      I suspect that the Ninth wants a showdown on the meaning of the Second Amendment, a right it has spent years seeking to limit and to the extent possible eliminate. The (current) majority believes that carrying firearms in public will mean more “gun violence,” and that therefore as a matter of good public policy persons other than security guards or LEOs should be prohibited or discouraged from carrying weapons. As the oft heard refrain goes, “More guns means more gun crime.” They believe this to be true.
      For a good read on what the Second Amendment really means, the dissent by Justice O’Scannlain is enlightening, and not his first foray into this arena.

      Obviously a petition for certiorari will be filed, and I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court will punt on a case that so cleanly tees up the issue.

      • “…I suspect that the Ninth wants a showdown on the meaning of the Second Amendment…”

        Nailed it.

        They put in a sh!t-ton of work attacking Kavanaugh’s “History and tradition” mention in his DC AWB dissent a few years back.

        They are scared, and busting tail to pre-emptivly limit the damage a Kavanaugh inspired decision will do to gun control, even if it means manufacturing facts out of thin air. They are evil scum…

        • Sorry, Kavanaugh already has shown his colors on the Second Amendment and they aren’t that great. He refused to sign on to Clarence Thomas’ assertion that the Second Amendment was not limited to the home. Thomas has forgotten more than Kavanaugh knows.

        • Red, regarding people who have forgotten more than other people know… let’s not have that be our benchmark, please. Biden has forgotten a whole lot too*, and I just don’t think that counts as a reason to do what he says…
          *kids are not sex toys, public servants work for the people, voting doesn’t determine your ethnicity, cornpops are for breakfast, brandishing and discharge of a shotgun without meeting certain requirements is generally illegal, etc.

  3. I have no faith in SCotUS. The “right” has a majority IF…if you count Roberts. However, with so much at stake here, I can’t rule out threats, intimidation, blackmail, and an untimely death (or two).

    Remember, with a tie, the ruling of the lower court holds.

    • After the addition of Justice Barret, the right has a majority even if you do NOT count Roberts. Barret, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanaugh and Thomas.

      • SCOTUS originally consisted of 6 Justices to coincide with the 6 original Districts. The total number of Justices on the Court varied until finally resting at the current 9.

        • SCOTUS originally consisted of 6 Justices to coincide with the 6 original Districts.

          I know the history of SCOTUS, but thanks anyway… My comment was a reply to “Lost Down South” who said “With a TIE, the ruling of the lower court holds”… I was simply reminding that person that there are CURRENTLY NINE Justices which negates the probability of a TIE (mathematically not possible) unless one of those Justices recused (no one has a reason to do that)… And again thanks for the history lesson…

      • But with things like recusals (and justices SHOULD recuse themselves far more often than they do), the fact that in our medium-term history most justices have been on the “well-seasoned” side of the age spectrum (with the accompanying health issues, etc.), and so on, it is far from unusual to have an even number. Ties happen.

    • I share your lack of faith in the SC.

      They have already failed the people on a few occasions at critical times in my opinion. I believe they will do it again with this.

  4. Taking this, and any gun case to the Supreme Court will not end well for us. The Court was stolen along with the election

    • The composition of the Court has not changed since before the election, so therefore it was not “stolen.”

      • Unless they intend to add justices, and the one good thing in our favor is Ginsburg’s own words, on video, saying the court should stay at 9.

        We need to start throwing that in their faces…

        • Well said, and i do agree with the late Justice Ginsburg . She was a very intelligent woman I dont agree on most of her political views. That being said I have to give credit where credit is do. S.C. has REFUSED to take up any and all 2A. Cases in the passed decade or so. Correct me if i’m wrong here, but didnt Justice Thomas just right a brief about it being way over dew in his opinion. Which was that the lower courts are ruling with there opinions and not by law, or applying said law of past case to draw there opinions on. They are ruling on there own feelings, which is not what should be passing as law and that they need to be railed back in and shown the way to apply said law.
          Thats not his exact words obviously but thats was pretty much what he was getting at, that the lower courts are incompetent about the law and rights they were ruling on . Its just SICKING and SHAMEFUL at best and treasonous at worst because they are violating the rights of all AMERICAN CITIZENS ruling on their own feelings!!

        • . S.C. has REFUSED to take up any and all 2A. Cases in the passed decade or so. Correct me if i’m wrong here,

          The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Caniglia v. Strom today, a case that may go down in history as the single gravest blow to the Second and Fourth Amendments in American History. What is at stake? Police in Rhode Island are being challenged for seizing the firearms of Mr. Edward Caniglia without a warrant under the thin justification of a very narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment called “community caretaking,” If we see a bad ruling on this case combined with HR 127‘s universal background checks, firearm permit and insurance requirements and SB7‘s Red Flag Ex Parte Orders, the Second Amendment might not survive the year 2021.

        • @MADDMAXX–

          If “community caretaking” gets upheld, the Bill of Rights is GONE. That happens to be one of the concepts the Nazis used to strip away right from anyone they felt like — it’s hard to believe anyone with more than three brains cells could approve of it.

        • “S.C. has REFUSED to take up any and all 2A. Cases in the passed decade or so.”

          Incorrect, the ‘NY Pistol’ handgun transport case was granted cert, and then ruled moot, within the last 2 years…

        • If we had any real statesmen in Congress, they’d go ahead and add two justices, allowing each party to pick one and confirming them together.
          Or better yet, let the third, fourth, and fifth largest parties in the country and each pick one and let the Senate choose two from that group.

    • Election not stolen, and be sure to send your money to Sidney Powell, she’ll be needing funds to pay off the judgment for her false claims against dominion.

      • Well keep quoting your stupidity. Dominion is the one who will be paying. Plenty of evidence. You can keep turning a blind eye but that does not change the truth.

      • Well with China spreading influence into the gulf it will become much more important in the near future. A little research into their influence with Jamaica, D.R. and the Bahamas will show they are gaining foot holds in the western hemisphere

    • Guam and PR?? I could give a s***. Hawaii? Well, I have my own issues over how we ACQUIRED possession of Hawaii – but if it hadn’t been us, it would have been the Brits, and they would have handed it over to Japan in WW2, if not before, so . . . I vote we keep Hawaii.

  5. “The en banc court held that Hawaii’s open carry law did not violate the Second Amendment. Rather, the court determined that because history demonstrates a “longstanding” tradition in English and American law of government “prohibit[ing] certain weapons from entering . . . public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic Tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic Violence,’” there “is no right to carry arms openly in public.”

    Pay attention, because this ruling will be (extensively) cited in the future when a Leftist Scum biased SCOTUS destroys the ‘Heller’ and ‘McDonald’ 2A decisions.

    Notice in particular that mention of “…history demonstrates a “longstanding” tradition in English and American law of government…”, that’s a direct attack on Kavanaugh’s “History and Tradition” mention in his dissent of DC’s assault weapon ban.

    Read the gist of it here :

    (TTAG isn’t allowing my links, but Google Kavanaugh and Assault Weapons’ and there are a pile of hits on how the Leftists are freaking out on Kavanaugh.)

    The 9th circuit is scared shitless of his decision being used to declare semi-auto firearms with large capacity magazines expressly constitutional.

    I hope Kav, Thomas, and Coney-Barret team up and write a blistering decision when it eventually hits the SCOTUS docket…

    • What you see is some very clever sleight of hand by a Court that believes that guns are bad and that it is duty bound to find a way to prevent them from being present as a matter of right in the public arena. The ancient laws they were reviewing banned arms in SOME public fora, fora that Scalia would describe as “sensitive places.” What this court did was to conclude, in essence, that anywhere in public is a “sensitive place.” Therefore guns may be restricted or banned in public. Granting the government the power to ban requires a further conclusion that there is no right to bear except as granted by the State, as an exercise of State sovereignty.

      As the dissent so cogently puts it, this conclusion as to the scope of the sovereign power is at odds with the preamble to the Constitution.

  6. Ninth Circuit is about to get smacked by SCOTUS “AGAIN”… How can a U.S Circuit Appellate Court base a decision on a world that existed prior to the Constitution which THEY swore to protect and defend.. Invoking King Edward I and II, who cares what some Brit had to say 700 to 800 years ago… State v. Buzzard (the Arkansas case) was about the state regulating a “concealed” firearm and actually concluded with a divided court…

    • Read Heller and you will soon figure it out. In Heller, Scalia traced the origins of the right to keep and bear arms back to its English roots.

      • If anyone is really interested in learning just how we got the second amendment? Then read this book. I did. I made it a source/reference for my college paper. On teaching the 2A to elementary and high school kids. I had no idea just how bad it was in England hundreds of years ago. When it came to owning arms. Less than 240 pages.

        “To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right”

      • ” In Heller, Scalia traced the origins of the right to keep and bear arms back to its English roots.”

        And the 9th’s decision is basically saying, “No, it doesn’t, it never did.”

        Mark, we can quote until the cows come home, it won’t matter one whit in the future when a Leftist scum leaning SCOTUS utterly destroys the 2A. You know it, and I know it. You and I will be long expired, but they have zero intentions of letting the little people have the tools to remove them from power…

        • Right now there are five conservative justices. If they take this case and issue a definitive decision, stare decisis should preserve it for many years to come. That is what I am hoping.

          Yes there is a risk of a court packing plan, but I believe that most in the Senate, including Democrats, are leery of doing so.

        • Geoff,

          ” . . . You and I will be long expired,”

          From your mouth to God’s ear, my friend. I fear it will be MUCH sooner than that.

  7. Lol. Longstanding tradition.
    John has always beaten his wife therefore John should continue to beat his wife.

    Good job, judges.

    • “Longstanding tradition.”

      That’s a near direct quote of Kavanaugh’s DC circuit dissent on an DC AWB a few years back. Starting out of the gate with that quote proves how scared they are of his dissent being thrown back at them…

  8. There sure are a lot of gun owners on TTAG. Who agree with this ruling. They are very comfortable with only the representives of the goverment, police or military, being allowed to open carry weapons.
    If you don’t support open carry, then you don’t support the 2A.

    • “There sure are a lot of gun owners on TTAG. Who agree with this ruling.”

      Chris, in no way do I agree with the ruling, but I am glad they ruled the way they did.

      That ruling will be dropped in the high court’s in-basket.

      Had they folded, those who live in the 9th circuit would get carry immediately, but not those in the other slave states. I really expected that 9th would ‘fall on their own sword, so to speak, and not allow the rest of those in the other slave states to get their rights recognized, for as long as possible.

      Spite, so to speak. Like a child that destroys a toy rather than let another kid play with it…

    • Yes and you are one of them. You believe Governement in general should have a monopoly on violence. Typical statist that you are kette meet pot.

      This goes well beyond open carry, concealed is next on the chopping block.

  9. I’m not sure using laws from a time before there was recognition of human rights does anything to bolster their arguments.

    Laws from a time of hereditary rulers and laws designed to keep a race subjugated?

    One must conclude their arguments are bankrupt.

    • “laws designed to keep a race subjugated”

      So the ruling (and therefore the majority of the 9th Circuit) is racist. Wonder if we can force the left to include the 9th in their circular firing squad? Turnabout is fair play.

    • “I’m not sure using laws from a time before there was recognition of human rights does anything to bolster their arguments.”

      It’s the ‘history and precedence’ argument Kavanaugh made in the DC circuit’s AWB dissent.

      They aren’t creating something from whole cloth, so to speak. There’s history in there…

      • It shouldn’t be hard to argue in front of the SC that any of these ‘history and precedence’ arguments from before the ratification of the 2nd Amendment should be moot.

  10. So we are now under the dominion of the past Kings of England and the Hawaiian monarchy? We are rapidly reaching a state of anarchy, where laws and words mean nothing!

    • The discussion of long-standing Hawaiian law and tradition had no place in the decision, since it all preceded Hawaii being granted statehood, and because Heller concluded that the Second Amendment applies to the state–so when construing the Second, one does not look to Hawaiian law, even if a state statute was in issue, because the question was whether that statute violated the federal right.

      • “The discussion of long-standing Hawaiian law and tradition had no place in the decision,…”

        I argue from their perspective, it DOES. They are *terrified* of Kavanaugh’s DC circuit dissent (where he says “History and tradition) being extensively cited. It looks to me like a legal tactical nuclear strike on something that scares the hell out of them, and they’re trying to “head off at the pass”, so to speak…

  11. When I say, “Jim Crow Gun Control” I ain’t just blowing smoke. There are clearly some very sick people in high places looking down their noses at everyone…Yessa masser we’s don’t need no guns if you say so. Eyes go back to pickin cotton now while you do all my thinking for me.
    So why wait on plantation owners in black robes to decide when it should be clear by now they are going to cater to Jim Crow?

      • She speaks the truth.

        You haven’t exactly been making an impression of brilliance so far, Thomas.

        Glass houses, stones, etc… 🙂

        • Hey Geoff, if all you did was repeat “jim crow”, “democRats are the real racists” and “NAZI NAZI NAZI” or some fucking ridiculous combination thereof, for any gun related topic, I’d be giving you shit too. If you seem to think debee’s pathetic boomer takes are enlightening, that says more about you than me.

        • “If you seem to think debee’s pathetic boomer takes are enlightening, that says more about you than me.”

          Oh, *please*.

          *News Flash*! Not everyone reading the comment section regularly follows TTAG.

          New folks pop in and out all the time. What she’s doing is getting her message maximum exposure out there.

          And there’s no one holding a metaphorical gun to your head to read Every. Single. Last. Comment. on TTAG. There are numerous folks here I no longer bother to read, based on their comment history. (*cough* Enuf *cough*).

          Apply the same ‘filter’ to your reading in TTAG, and Deborah (and anyone else, for that matter) won’t annoy you any more… 😉

        • Lol, Geoff, i know our little tete a tete wasn’t the most contentios thing to be typed on here but I appreciate your humor and the fact it didn’t get nasty.

    • It isn’t about race. It never really has been. It’s about class and control, race is a powerful lever.

  12. Simple solution: They haven’t been a State for very long. Cancel their membership, Cut ’em loose. A lot of them don’t like being in the Union. The only reason they are a State anyway, is because of the US Military bases. We can do without their pineapple.

    • We don’t even get their Pineapple. Hawaii represents .13% of the world market. The U.S. doesn’t even make the top 15.

      The Pineapple we get in stores comes from Costa Rica and Mexico primarily. The last major cannery there closed in 2008.

      Fuck Hawaii.

    • I agree it’s good news, I was expecting them to fold, postponing an inevitable SCOTUS showdown.

      I hope Thomas is looking at it now, and strategizing on destroying their attack on Kavanaugh’s DC circuit decision where “history and tradition” was brilliantly argued in his dissent…

    • But SCOTUS has to grant cert, and that means four judges. The current Court hasn’t done a spectacular job so far of wanting to support the 2A.

      • Oh praise be. The illustrious ‘I Haz A Question’ has come back from his hiatus to shower us with his wisdom. Such greatness.

        As it was, is and ever shall be!

        All Hail.

        • Troll, haven’t you died from terminal stupidity, yet???

          Hie thyself off to the theological place of eternal punishment. Stand not upon the order of your going, but GO.

        • I came by today to see what’s to be seen, saw this article, and decided to drop a rare comment. TBH, I do miss the company and commentary of several TTAG’ers here, though I really don’t like the new front page format. Never will…it’s absolutely horrible to navigate on a phone.

          Looks like my pet troll is still lurking. Someone must have left the door open…

      • I Haz,

        I, too, have been frustrated by the OBVIOUS reluctance of SCOTUS to address the issue of rampant p***ing on the 2A and Heller by the circuit courts, and SCOTUS playing the three monkeys in response.

        A little background you might be interested in. I purely HATED Scalia’s weak-@$$ opinion in Heller, particularly his dipwad footnotes. Turns out (and I got this from a source who KNOWS – further deponent sayeth not), he HAD to water down his opinion, to preserve his 5-4 majority (I leave it to you to speculate as to who the problem Justice(s) are/were).

        We now have Roberts the Windsock, and people have no idea how much power the Chief Justice has. Roberts isn’t, and never has been, conservative. Couple that with the fact that he’s a wimp, and there are pictures of him on the “Lolita Express” (and we can only assume that the Left has more and more graphic examples), and anyone who relies on Roberts as ANYTHING except a ‘beard’ for the Leftists . . . well, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Oklahoma I’m willing to part with, cheap.

        Clarence Thomas is, at this point, our ONLY reliable voice for individual liberty. I hope he can persuade enough of his fellow Justices to get the job done, but . . . hope don’t float.

        • The Chief Justice has one vote, the same as the other members of the Court. The position he holds is essentially administrative, although it does contain the power to assign the author of the majority opinion after a consensus has been reached.

      • ” The current Court hasn’t done a spectacular job so far of wanting to support the 2A.”

        They ‘punted’ on the NY Pistol transport challenge. That may yet prove to be a strategic move in 3-D SCOTUS chess.

        But they *did* grant it cert. Pro-2A votes are there…

      • “Never will…it’s absolutely horrible to navigate on a phone.”

        On iOS, the order the posts are made sequential. That makes you phone valuable in determining the order they were posted.

        And WB, I was hoping you’d come back. And I’m sure your autistic troll missed you as well.

        (And speaking of autistic trolls, I got my COVID vaxx first dose! Wheeeeee! COVID Vaxxinations should be mandatory, at gunpoint if necessary… 😉 )…

        • Have you started to grow that second tiny head on your left shoulder? All I got was an almost uncontrollable desire to consume human flesh.

        • ” All I got was an almost uncontrollable desire to consume human flesh.”

          I’ll sate that urge with a visit to a girlfriend… 🙂

        • COVID Vaxxinations should be mandatory, at gunpoint if necessary…

          You do it your way and leave me to mine… AND be careful who that gun is pointed at…

      • Agreed. Their spineless stalling is quickly backing them into a corner of irrelevance (which the “modern” court’s ego can’t tolerate). If they don’t take the case they loose their power (and the nation looses a vital 3rd leg). If they take “The Case” and decide wrongly (likely) the consequences for their personal hides and for the nation may be very very bad. Whichever direction might become “wrong”.

        It’s not all about the pretty black dress, a big paycheck, and light hours.

  13. Sad to say that I will not be holding my breath waiting for the United States Supreme Court to right this proverbial ship. If they do, I will be pleasantly surprised.

    • Every once in a while, I have to watch that video and realize, that fuckwit was re-elected, how many times?

  14. You can’t rely on any court to protect you rights. The only way to protect them is to educate the child about their rights. And the responsibilities that go with them. This way, years later, when they are judges, and voters, they will always side with Liberty.

  15. SCOTUS will simply find a way to deny cert, like they’ve done with every major case submitted to them this year. I guess they think that if they don’t sit on their hands with everything the Dems want, Biden, Pelosi and Chucky will pack the court. In any event, I expect the Feds to complete trashing the constitution completely before the year is out.

    • Although it is true that the Supreme Court has absolute discretion as to which cases it accepts and the thousands it denies, there are factors that weigh in favor of a grant, such as a circuit split (different decisions on the same issue) or questions of significant public policy. Although it is not technically a factor, the more directly (cleanly) an important issue is presented, the more likely the court is to grant cert. A case with a lot of facts can cloud the issue when other cases come along. This particular case tees up the issue about as cleanly as one can imagine. The Hawaii statute denies a right to carry to all but a few, and in practice the State and each of its various counties issue only to security guards, effectively precluding exercise of the right by the average citizen. On these facts, the panel concluded that there is no right to bear arms in public except as allowed by the government. When combined with an earlier decision in the same circuit denying a right to a concealed carry permit (the only way to bear arms in any incorporated city or town in California), the Ninth has very clearly concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to bear arms outside of one’s own home.
      Now THAT is an issue that is clearly and directly presented by this case, a big fat fast ball across the middle of the plate. It is essentially a shot across the bow daring the Supreme Court to address the ultimate question left open by Heller.

    • AS long as crazies are running around, the anti gunners have an excuse to ban them. We need laws to lock these people up and get the the help they need personally and that we need as a society. Just go downtown LA and see the homeless, 90% are mentally challenged, 10% are there to sell them drugs and most of them are violent. The jails just turn them loose, since the DA won’t charge them with crimes.
      They don’t need jail, they need mental hospitals. It is cheaper than jail to keep them in a mental unit for the criminally insane. We need courts to put the mentally dangerous away to get better and a parole/probation system with the authority to put them back in care.

      • They are all demtard VOTERS and the dems count on EVERY vote. The 2nd District in Iowa was “decided” by 6 votes (until Piglosi overturns it).

  16. And in other news water is wet.

    “Breaking news!: ninth circuit declares it is constitutional to ban all private on ownership and confiscate all privately held firearms by force using the full force of the police and military to go door to door to confiscate all guns by force and execute every single person found in a home with a gun.”

    “Breaking news!: The 9th circuit upholds the complete and total ban of all private gun ownership and the mandated extermination of every gun owner, every person in a home with a gun as well as every single United States us in that opposes and uphold decision allowing the Democrats to use nuclear weapons in the effort to do so.”

    Breaking news!: The ninth circuit has declared in addition to the complete and mandated extermination of every single gun owner and every single person in a home with a gun that the entire population of the United States that opposes or exist that must be executed.”

    Breaking news!: The ninth circuit declares the complete and total extermination of all human life in the United States that opposes or resist the Democrats in anyway is constitutional”

    Breaking news!: The ninth circuit has upheld the complete and total extermination of all human life in the United States with the exception of Democrat party members and illegal aliens.

    Of course you can replace Scotus where I said ninth circuit and it would still be true.

    • It ain’t called “the Ninth Circus” for nothing, Shawn. My biggest concern is that SCOTUS is still ridiculously reluctant to assert its authority over the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and establish as clear standard of review for 2A cases. But we have that complete weenie of a windsock, Roberts, to thank for that. Someday I’d like to see the purse that his wife keeps his balls in.

  17. Just because a judge says he is conservative does not mean that he wants the unwashed masses to bear firearms.

    JFK was progun and a Democrat. Reagan was anti gun and the darling of the Republicans

    • Yeah, . . . no.

      JFK wasn’t “progun” (although he was sufficiently 2A to have made him a pariah in today’s “Democrat” party), and Ronnie wasn’t “anti gun” (although he agreed to more anti-2A nonsense than I could stomach – Ronnie was NOT a “conservative” for any rational meaning of the term). Both were politicians, which meant they did what they thought would serve themselves, and their power base, the best.

      Such is true of ANY politician, and if you believe otherwise? Do you also believe in Santa Claus?

      I understand that we need to lobby for and support laws upholding individual liberty, but . . . if you rely on politicians, the question isn’t WHETHER you’re going to get screwed, it’s WHEN. And whether they’ll give you the courtesy of lube and a reach around.

      • Ronnie wasn’t “anti gun

        “Ronnie” signed a letter to Congress with Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter in “FAVOR” of the 94 AWB written by DiFi.. That is pretty damn Anti-Gun…

        • Maxx,

          Yeah, I hated that, too. But Trump EO

          d the “bump stock” ban, etc., etc. We have RARELY had true “pro-2A” politicians who were true to their principles (oh my, did I just actually type “politicians who were true to their principles”???? What in HELL was I thinking???)

      • Ronnie signed the law banning loaded open carry in California (a law enacted due to fear of the Black Panthers who were running around with loaded firearms, as was perfectly legal at the time). That law opened the floodgates to the later complete ban of open carry, leaving firearms owners to the “tender mercies” of a may issue concealed carry law.

    • Reagan was a Democrat who only became a Republican in his own words; I never left the Democratic Party, they left me.

      He hated non whites and guns, why you Republicans love him so much is beyond me.

  18. Logic would suggest that SCOTUS, which seems to have been searching for as close to a perfect case as they can get, would take this and overrule the 9th.

    Of course, logic is rather passé these days and with the current situation I wouldn’t be surprised that they took it and turn ’21 into ’42 all over again.

  19. This is what I said some time ago about Associate Justice Kavanaugh’s legal theory of practices “deeply rooted in our history and tradition”. Of course, the 9th was adamant earlier that the SC had not found open carry to be a constitutionally protected right, so open carry must not be a protected right.

    “Reasonable restrictions”, and “deeply rooted in our history and tradition” provide a devil’s playground for legal mischief.

    • Sam,

      How much ink has been expended on the idiocy of the “militia” dependent clause of the 2A??

      ANY excuse to chop logic will suffice. To paraphrase a law school professor of mine (he was referring to the 1A, but the logic still applies), “I wish the Founders had been a little clearer with the First Amendment. Why not just say, ‘Don’t f*** with freedom of speech!’?”

      Just like “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand????”

  20. Hawaii used to have slaves, castes, and a monarchy before becoming a state. These traditions date back millennia, so we must allow them to keep these long-standing pillars of government overreach.

    • Should not have been allowed in as a state. As PR.

      I wonder what it would take to get Spain to take PR back? Would be $ well spent and less expensive than keeping it/them.

  21. “…a law school professor of mine (he was referring to the 1A, but the logic still applies), “I wish the Founders had been a little clearer with the First Amendment.”

    I have to side with your former professor: “Congress shall make no law….” is wide open to subjective interpretation and confusion. With those ancient guys, you gotta be a mind-reader. What were the founders thinking?

  22. “It’s the ‘history and precedence’ argument Kavanaugh made in the DC circuit’s AWB dissent.”

    Zackly. Kinda like machine guns can be regulated, even banned, because they are not in common use, because were they banned and regulated, keeping them from becoming in common use.

  23. Lol, Geoff, i know our little tete a tete wasn’t the most contentious thing to be typed on here but I appreciate your humor and the fact it didn’t get nasty. Have a good evening, sir.

  24. So basically their argument is that the very laws we rebelled against should apply here.


  25. I’m going to put on my helm of prognostication and look into the future…

    SCOTUS is going to agree to hear this case… but the state of Hawaii, knowing that they don’t have a constitutional leg to stand on, are going to change the law so this case doesn’t make it to SCOTUS. At which point they’ll wait a few years before changing the law back.

    • They could try, but after the Ninth declared so vociferously that there is no right to bear arms in public, a clear elimination of a constitutional guarantee, I think that it is already to late for such a ploy.


    Why are we even talking about this?
    How many ways can you parse this self-evident phrase: “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” ?

    Is every democrat in America a flagrantly illiterate moron ?
    Did ANY democrat ever really graduate from kindergarten ?

    Is the notion that democrats are not idiots the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the America people and the world?

    Why are people who deliberately kill children then sell their body parts not considered criminally insane?

    Would you agree that any person who voted for a senile, unbalanced, dementia laden freak for president, is himself a sick, demented asylum escapee?

    Is it true that anyone who hates the Second Amendment is a truly vile and disgusting “human” being who wants to kill us, our families, our relatives, our friends, and anyone nice to us?

    There is ONLY one way to end this…

  27. Maybe Hawaii longs to return to their political/social situation as it was “150 years ago”. It’ll be a great tourist attraction with Kings (with multiple wives and concubines), slaves, barely there straw garments, and everybody doing the hula-hula dance living happily ever after. Hey, if that is what they want let them have it.

    • barely there straw garments

      And that’s a problem WHY? When were you last on a beach in Hawaii, grass skirts and bare breasts are modest compared to the shoe lace bikinis I saw last time I was there… NOT complaining…. As far as kings and wives and concubines, slaves and whatever else, that’s no different than Saudi Arabia (today)… Just sayin…

  28. I’ve always thought that an exception should have been made for Hawaii anyway, letting them keep their king so long as they otherwise had a republican form of government.

  29. People still holding out hope for SCOTUS. At this point, I’ll believe it when I see it.

    Their history is wrong. Hawaii was shall issue on concealed carry and no permit was needed for open carry until 1931. It was part of their rewrite of their gun laws in 1927. I don’t know how they were before that but they weren’t great when they were the “Kingdom” of Hawaii as a permit was needed to own anything.

  30. “How many ways can you parse this self-evident phrase: “…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” ?”

    Plenty, which is why the political landscape is as it is (“is” is “is”, is what it is).

    Infringements are in the eye of the beholder. Any exception or carve out is merely the favored infringement, usually justified by, “It’s just common sense” by 2A supporters and gun grabbers alike.

    Should prisoners in jail or penitentiary be denied the right to firearms for self-defense? Infringement.

    Should the mentally ill in institutions (or elsewhere, even) be denied the right to firearms for self-defense? Infringement.

    Should felons released from jail after fulfilling their sentences (deals or no) be denied the right to firearms for self-defense? Infringement.

    Should people who arm themselves to commit crimes be denied the right to firearms for self-defense? Infringement.

    Should those legally blind be denied the right to firearms for self-defense?

    And on it goes. 2A is either absolute in all circumstances, or there are infringements that are permissible; all that is left is justifying the excuse.

Comments are closed.