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

15:39. :rofl::rofl::rofl::ok_hand:

Yet, with Heller on the books, cases in Buzzardā€™s flock furnish us with little instructive value. Thatā€™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. :rofl: I love this judge.

The dissent rested on Peruta and ā€œweā€™ve always done it this way so itā€™s ok.ā€

This is the one Goresuch and Thomas are waiting for. Thereā€™s another one from California on hold for this one.

The countyā€™s attorney looked like heā€™d been run over by a truck.

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.

While Heller does not directly address carry outside the home all of the references in Scaliaā€™s opinion directly speak to ā€œbearing armsā€ as being outside of the home.

ā€œTo Keepā€ and ā€œBearā€.

That is the problem with modern law. It ainā€™t law till the courts say its law ans say what the law is. Thats total BS.

Still no lib love for the 9th?

Another night. Another day.

Iā€™d love to see this case make it to the SCOTUS next year after Cavanaugh has been seated.

Still nada.

No wonder you have so many posts ā€¦ you donā€™t need anyone else to have a conversation. :wink:

I donā€™t need you to have one.

Thatā€™s what I said. :stuck_out_tongue:

Mr. Young is so lonely.

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.

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 ā€œparticular gunsā€ they mean anything designed after 1993.

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

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

Iā€™m confused by her reasoning.

What is sacred about 1993?

And what gun has been designed since then?

Thatā€™s when the billed was signed I believe.