The United States Constitution is neither a suicide pact nor an invitation to be overwhelmed and conquered by an armed adversary.


The media-hyped mass hysteria of the Democrats…

Once again, the words of Rahm Emanuel ring throughout the land, "Never let a crisis go to waste.” With a number of mass shootings committed by criminals, crazies, and terrorists, the progressive socialist democrats are attempting to disarm law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights by redefining and limiting the scope of those rights within the law.

Asking the wrong question…

In a 215-page ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the theory, an artificial construct, that individuals generally do not have a constitutional Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon in public.  

A matter of commonsense and common law...

Given that criminals, crazies, and terrorists do not follow the law and, for the most part, do not legally obtain weapons;

Given that the government does not have a general duty to protect a specific individual and the government is generally immune from legal actions for damages relating to consequential harm;

Given that law enforcement authorities may not be available during a critical time period where intervention can affect the outcome of an encounter;

Given that the government can capriciously order law enforcement authorities to “stand down” and deny protection to individuals; and

Given that certain members of the government have an increasing fear of being held physically responsible for their tyrannical actions;

it appears to me that this particular court challenge involving the Second Amendment asks the wrong question.

The question is not whether individuals have a right to bear arms in public under the second amendment, but do you, as a lawful citizen, have an inalienable right to self-defense that supersedes the U.S. Constitution?

Excerpts from the published opinion…

While three 9th Circuit federal appeals court judges originally ruled in Young’s favor (2018), the State of Hawaii requested that the full panel of judges (en banc) hear the case.



(GEORGE YOUNG, JR. V. STATE OF HAWAII - No. 12-17808; D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00336- HG-BMK)


Civil Rights

The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action challenging Hawai‘i’s firearm licensing law, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 134-9(a), which requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm in public must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm, must be of good moral character, and must be “engaged in the protection of life and property.”

Appellant George Young applied for a firearm-carry license twice in 2011, but failed to identify “the urgency or the need” to openly carry a firearm in public. Instead, Young
relied upon his general desire to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Both of Young’s applications were denied. Young brought a challenge to Hawai‘i’s firearm-licensing law under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The district court upheld Hawai‘i’s statute.

The en banc court first held that the scope of its review would be limited to Young’s facial challenge to HRS § 134-9.

There was no need to determine whether Hawai‘i County properly applied § 134-9, because Young did not bring an as-applied challenge.

The en banc court noted that this Court has previously held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public.

It should be noted that the ruling only affects right-to-carry laws in Alaska, Hawaii, California, Arizona, Oregon, the State of Washington, and Montana.

A ruling based on a “theme” …

“Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square. History is messy and, as we anticipated, the record is not uniform, but the overwhelming evidence from the states’ constitutions and statutes, the cases, and the commentaries confirms that we have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces,”

Indeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.

The power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain called the ruling extreme. writing…

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

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 holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme. While our sister circuits have grappled with—and disagreed over—the question of whether public firearms carry falls within the inner “core” of the Second Amendment, we now become the first and only court of appeals to hold that public carry falls entirely outside the scope of the Amendment’s protections.

In so holding, the majority reduces the right to “bear Arms” to a mere inkblot. The majority’s decision 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.

Once again, we see another federal court ruling that the right to have and bear arms, as enshrined in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, is not absolute. And, while this published opinion is a departure from other federal rulings that have generally upheld Second Amendment rights, the case is likely to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Robert’s Court has a history of rulings that are blatantly unconstitutional and fabricated from whole cloth.

Bottom line…

A statistical rarity? To claim that less than 20 mass shootings in a population of 330 million are a pervasive problem demanding stringent gun regulation, registration, and confiscation is absurd. Likewise, creating regulations to prevent suicides, domestic violence, and gang disputes.

This is not a matter for scientists to study or bureaucrats to regulate, but a matter of life and death for individuals facing existential threats.  Many will agree that some degree of regulation is necessary and that we are simply arguing about the details. My belief is that while restrictions on military-level ordinance (grenades, rockets, and fully-automatic weapons) should be regulated, a citizen should have the firepower necessary to meet multiple threats and compensate for the lack of accuracy (missed shots) likely under periods of extreme stress. Hence, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight, as the saying goes. 

As for the idiots who keep babbling about "assault rifles," the physical appearance of a gun is not an acceptable criterion. It may look like a military weapon, but it has the same functionality as any other semi-automatic firearm -- one trigger pull, one shot.  And, with more and more of the bad guys wearing ballistic protection and clothing, even now-illegal armor-piercing ammunition should be allowable. 

I wonder if anyone else has ever wondered if the Supreme Court Justices, being compensated government employees, has an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to ruling on matters involving the federal government and does that not speak to the necessity to impanel some ordinary non-lawyer citizens on the bench to bring a modicum of common sense to those whose noses are buried in law books?

If we want to reduce crime, the solution is to harden targets -- individuals carrying concealed arms are more likely than not to be a deterrent. For those who argue that more guns mean more suicides, spousal abuse, public arguments, and more unlawful behavior; the issue is with the individual, not the weapon. Nothing stops a seriously ill suicidal person from using any means at hand (drugs, knives, ropes, vehicles, jumping in front of a vehicle or off a high place, etc.) to commit suicide. Likewise, those individuals that use knives, chains, baseball bats, etc. to intimidate or harm others. 

We are so screwed.

-- steve

Reference: For those wishing free access to the case history and original documents, they can be found on Michel & Associates, my favorite gun rights attorneys, web site.

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS