{"id":34218,"date":"2021-04-13T06:05:57","date_gmt":"2021-04-13T10:05:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=34218"},"modified":"2021-04-13T06:05:57","modified_gmt":"2021-04-13T10:05:57","slug":"9th-circus-once-again-ignores-the-constitution-part-145242","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/angry.net\/blog2\/?p=34218","title":{"rendered":"9th Circus once again ignores the constitution Part 145242"},"content":{"rendered":"

Good day all. I\u2019ve been busy and this one slipped under my radar. There was a case that reached the 9th<\/sup> Circus Court of Appeals regarding the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Once again, the 9th<\/sup> Circus ignored both the constitution and precedent and said \u201cNope! You slaves have no rights!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The short version is simple. Hawaii passed a law telling people they have no right to carry a gun in public. Hawaii is one of those states, (controlled by the Democratic CommuNazis), where you need to have the state\u2019s permission to exercise your constitutional rights. Someone wanted to carry, and the all powerful State said \u201cNo. You have not demonstrated that you have any need to. Back to the cotton fields slave!\u201d Well, the person sued saying that his rights were being violated. It ended up in front of the 9th<\/sup> Circus and true to form, they backed the plantation owner<\/i><\/span> State government. Here are some of the details from the Daily Caller<\/b><\/a>:<\/p>\n

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Hawaii gun regulation, ruling Wednesday that states can restrict the right to openly carry a firearm in public. The 7-4 decision said restrictions on carrying guns in public do not fall within the scope of what is protected by the Second Amendment. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThe government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places \u2013 including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets \u2013 the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly,\u201d Judge Jay Bybee wrote for the majority<\/a>. <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

First, I looked up Jay Bybee. I assumed he was just another Obama Judge, however, it turns out he was appointed by George W. Bush. (Yet another failure from that worthless globalist of a president) Reviewing his bio on that wonderful and accurate source of information, Wikipedia<\/a>, it turns out Bybee signed a memorandum endorsing enhanced interrogation techniques against Islamic terrorists. This in turn, drove the left insane and they demanded that Bybee be tried for crimes against humanity. I think it\u2019s safe to say that may have affected his thinking.<\/p>\n

The majority based their decision on previous rulings and a review of both American and English law. <\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cWe have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces,\u201d the majority ruled. \u201cIndeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self defense.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

\u201cThe en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawaii\u2019s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I wonder, did these idiots actually read the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment? It\u2019s pretty explicit in what it says. Here is the text of the 2nd<\/sup> Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:<\/p>\n

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. <\/b><\/i><\/p>\n

Right there, between two commas, is the phrase to keep, (Own, possess), and Bear, (carry, hold), arms. That seems pretty straightforward to me, but then I\u2019m not an over-educated Deep State Globalist lawyer who can\u2019t be bothered to actually refer to the Constitution when it stands in the way of reducing the American People to the level of chattel.<\/p>\n

The case was brought by George Young, who applied for a license twice in 2011 to carry a gun in public either openly or concealed and was denied both times because he didn\u2019t prove the \u201curgency or the need\u201d to openly carry a firearm in public, the decision said. Instead, Young relied on his \u201cgeneral desire to carry a firearm for self-defense.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

Gee, he didn\u2019t want to be robbed, beaten and murdered, that\u2019s why he wanted to carry a gun? How dare he? It is his DUTY to allow himself, as a subject of the ruling elite of Hawaii to allow himself to be killed if that is what it takes.<\/p>\n

Under Hawaii\u2019s law<\/a>, residents have to show the \u201curgency or the need\u201d to carry a firearm in public and must be of good moral character and \u201cengaged in the protection of life and property.\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n

Good moral character? Well now, that lets out every Progressive Liberal Democrat. None of them have any moral character at all.<\/p>\n

Young sued, arguing the \u201cdenial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded handgun in public for self-defense.\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hawaii is one of those \u201cMay issue\u201d states, and they regularly deny people the means to protect themselves. There are any number of cases where people, especially women, who were under real threat to their safety and lives, were denied their rights to defend themselves, and ended up being murdered.<\/p>\n

Frankly, I am of the opinion that if some government official, elected or appointed, whose deliberate actions deny someone the means of self defense, and that person is later injured or killed in a criminal act, those officials should be charged with the appropriate crime, up to and including 1st<\/sup> degree premeditated murder. If a few of these judges, elected officials, etc, are tired in a court and convicted due decisions they made that fly in the face of the Constitution, then the remainder might finally stop making things up that supports the Government at the expense of the people.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As for this case? I am assuming it will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. As I understand it, it take the agreement of four justices for a case to be heard. There are a large number of 2nd<\/sup> Amendment cases moving up through the legal system, and no matter what that political coward, John Roberts may want, some of these cases are going to be heard. After that, it\u2019s anyone\u2019s guess.<\/p>\n

Thatisall<\/p>\n\"1\"2\"3\"4\"5 (1<\/strong> votes, average: 5.00<\/strong> out of 5)
<\/span><\/span>Loading...<\/span>\n

~The Angry Webmaster~<\/b><\/i><\/p>\n