No products in the cart.


Did the Ninth U.S. Circuit just legalize OPEN CARRY firearms in all 50 states?

by Lance D. Johnson

A three judge panel for the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court has ruled in favor of open carry firearms in all fifty states. Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote, “We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence. But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

The ruling is a rebuttal to Hawaii’s discriminatory statute, which only allows for a concealed or open carry permit, if an individual can convince the local police chief that “urgency” or “need has been sufficiently indicated,” whereas the individual “is engaged in the protection of life and property.”

The original case was against George Young, a Hawaiian native who simply sought to protect himself outside of his home. Young was twice denied a permit to carry a firearm outside his house. A discriminatory official repeatedly restricted George Young’s application, denying Young of the fundamental human right of self protection. A Hawaiian District Court ruled in favor of the official and proclaimed that the denial of a permit to carry did not infringe on Young’s Second Amendment rights.

Officers cannot receive preferential treatment over private citizens when it comes to self defense.

Hawaii insists that open carry is only constitutional when the individual is in their own home. However, by requiring individuals to prove their need for personal protection with an authority figure, the statute favors law enforcement and discriminates against private individuals. This statute is similar to old laws that restricted African Americans from carrying firearms while giving preferential treatment to Caucasians.

Read more here.

Attribution:The Common Sense Show


Shorty Dawkins



  1. “Did the Ninth U.S. Circuit just legalize OPEN CARRY firearms in all 50 states?”

    No. But until it is overturned, it is now legal in the States comprising the 9th Circuit –

    Northern Mariana Islands

    It can be overturned [or upheld] by a review of the full 9th Circuit, IF the majority of 9th Circuit judges agree to review it, though they have no obligation to do so. Neither the appellant nor appellee have a ‘right’ to a review by the full 9th Circuit. This decision could of course, be appealed to a higher court [SCOTUS] where it could be overturned or upheld.

    1. ““Did the Ninth U.S. Circuit just legalize OPEN CARRY firearms in all 50 states?””

      No, but it is actually following the US Constitution which REQUIRES that ALL those that serve within our governments support and defend the people’s right to carry. Remember this is an OPINION. They issue opinions of if something is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution or not. Of course, to actually do so they must study the US Constitution, the writings of the time, the debates, etc instead of being educated in precedent – previous judge opinions. The judicial branch is also Oath bound to support and defend the US Constitution.

      Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822): “For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.”

      Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

      Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

      Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

      Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972: “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”

      Preamble to the Bill of Rights: Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
      THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia that urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate: ““When an Army is sent to enforce Laws, it is always an Evidence that either the Law makers are conscious that they had no clear and indisputable right to make those Laws, or that they are bad [and] oppressive. Wherever the People themselves have had a hand in making Laws, according to the first principles of our Constitution there is no danger of Nonsubmission, Nor can there be need of an Army to enforce them.” (from Oathkeepers)

      For consideration;
      United Nations: “Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”

      1. ” They issue opinions if something is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution or not. Of course, to actually do so they must study the US Constitution, the writings of the time, the debates, etc instead of being educated in precedent – previous judge opinions”.
        Cal is correct. There are many legal decisions out there that are cloaked in a ‘judicial opinion’ of being Constitutional, but are not. Many Judges use ‘selective constitutionality’, i.e. opinion shopping, to find prior legal opinions they can quote to support their current opinion[s]. That and a little legal mumbo jumbo and they have a decision that fits the outcome the Judge[s] desire.
        Little emphasis seems to be placed on the wording of the 2A, ‘…shall not be infringed’. Four words that legal scholars can not seem to understand, but are more than willing to ‘interpret’.

Comments are closed.