George K. Young, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v State of Hawaii, et al, Defendants-Appellees (9th Circuit)

WuWei · 2018-08-05T23:39:15.556Z

Yet, with Heller on the books, cases in Buzzard’s flock furnish us with little instructive value. That’s because Hellermade clear that the Second Amendment is, and always has been, an individual right centered on self-defense; it has never been a right only to be exercised in connection with a militia.

Emphasis mine. I love this judge.

WuWei · 2018-08-05T23:49:08.515Z

The dissent rested on Peruta and “we’ve always done it this way so it’s ok.”

This is the one Goresuch and Thomas are waiting for. There’s another one from California on hold for this one.

WildRose · 2018-08-06T05:27:12.637Z

The county’s attorney looked like he’d been run over by a truck.

Hellsbane · 2018-08-06T06:26:36.214Z

If the county actually believes that the 2nd A does not cover carrying a firearm outside the home, that county has reps as dumb as box of rocks.

WildRose · 2018-08-06T07:29:21.516Z

While Heller does not directly address carry outside the home all of the references in Scalia’s opinion directly speak to “bearing arms” as being outside of the home.

“To Keep” and “Bear”.

Hellsbane · 2018-08-06T15:24:47.925Z

That is the problem with modern law. It ain’t law till the courts say its law ans say what the law is. Thats total BS.

WuWei · 2018-08-08T01:06:33.511Z

Still no lib love for the 9th?

WuWei · 2018-08-08T23:27:48.904Z

Another night. Another day.

WildRose · 2018-08-09T04:13:36.367Z

I’d love to see this case make it to the SCOTUS next year after Cavanaugh has been seated.

WuWei · 2018-08-10T23:22:30.616Z

Still nada.

Samm · 2018-08-11T03:56:41.046Z

WuWei:

Still nada.

No wonder you have so many posts … you don’t need anyone else to have a conversation.

WuWei · 2018-08-11T14:06:37.949Z

Samm:

WuWei:

Still nada.

No wonder you have so many posts … you don’t need anyone else to have a conversation.

I don’t need you to have one.

Samm · 2018-08-11T20:39:59.502Z

WuWei:

Samm:

WuWei:

Still nada.

No wonder you have so many posts … you don’t need anyone else to have a conversation.

I don’t need you to have one.

That’s what I said.

WuWei · 2018-08-12T19:03:09.497Z

Mr. Young is so lonely.

WuWei · 2018-08-12T19:05:46.467Z

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/ninth-circuit-protects-gun-rights-california/amp/

A little more from the 9th a couple of weeks ago.

WuWei · 2018-08-12T19:10:35.968Z

A little something for the hoplophobes

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/03/us/ap-us-california-gun-rulings.html

Writing for the majority, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said the inability to buy particular guns did not infringe the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense in the home.

By “particular guns” they mean anything designed after 1993.

And from the excerpts of her ruling I’ve read, it would seem Judge Mary Margaret is under the impression the stamp goes on the part that stays with the body.

Samm · 2018-08-13T07:37:15.557Z

WuWei:

A little more from the 9th a couple of weeks ago.

The next thing you know, California is going to be demanding that the 9th Circuit Court be broken up.

Samm · 2018-08-13T07:41:05.523Z

WuWei:

A little something for the hoplophobes

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/03/us/ap-us-california-gun-rulings.html

Writing for the majority, Judge M. Margaret McKeown said the inability to buy particular guns did not infringe the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense in the home.

By “particular guns” they mean anything designed after 1993.

And from the excerpts of her ruling I’ve read, it would seem Judge Mary Margaret is under the impression the stamp goes on the part that stays with the body.

I’m confused by her reasoning.

What is sacred about 1993?

And what gun has been designed since then?

WuWei · 2018-08-13T14:24:15.863Z

Samm:

I’m confused by her reasoning.

What is sacred about 1993?

And what gun has been designed since then?

That’s when the billed was signed I believe.

Samm · 2018-08-13T20:01:46.119Z

Okay.

The only part of this story that makes sense is the dissenting Judge’s remark: “If the state adopted a requirement that no gun manufacturer could satisfy, the law would not help the state solve handgun crimes and would illegally restrict gun purchases.”