9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY – either openly or concealed in public
The National Rifle Association just issued a tweet claiming that the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has declared in a case that there is no inherent right to carry a concealed weapon listed in the Constitution.

“The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit just ruled that THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CARRY – either openly or concealed in public. This ruling impacts RTC laws in AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT. This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this,” the tweet noted.

Details are scarce at this time, but the ruling comes as Democrats use their thin majorities in the House and Senate to push new gun control legislation and the Biden regime is reportedly considering executive actions on guns in the wake of two recent mass shootings.

“We are considering a range of levers, including working through legislation, including executive action,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Tuesday. “That has been under discussion and will continue to be under discussion.”

trendingpolitics.com

Legislation from the bench? This is a truly underhanded way to subvert the 2nd.

We need to nullify these unconstitutional rulings, states must take a stand.

ETA: Nothing on the NRA website . . .
home.nra.org

AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT.

Blue states, they asked for it...

et tu, Montana?

I heard it has the largest pop of pedos so F them too, if true! LOL

Well you can't have a tyrannical government if the people have the tools to rise against it.

DO these people even understand what the Constitution says?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
This is so utterly foolish...so the right to protect ourselves enumerated in the Constitution...apparently was only intended inside the log cabin...not for protection from bears, wolves, lions, or highwaymen....naw

So, in other words, nobody has the right to hunt except on their own land. I guess I don't need to buy a hunting license this year. Public includes public lands including road easements.

a reply to: Butterfinger

No the people of Washington didn't ask for this, Inslee used the homeless to steal the election and refused any transparent investigation into the voting ill regularities. Go figure.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT.

Blue states, they asked for it...

et tu, Montana?

I heard it has the largest pop of pedos so F them too, if true! LOL

FYI a number of us that live in the Mountains, or on the coast in Washington and Oregon got fegged by mail in voting 20+ years ago

The case in question . . .

PDF File Link

A a good article from The Hill . . .

The Hill Article

I think we have 4 states and 400 odd counties last I saw that are 2nd amendment sanctuaries, I expect that to accelerate in the coming months..

Especially since many of the people rushing to buy guns are buying their first not there 15th.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT.

Blue states, they asked for it...

et tu, Montana?

I heard it has the largest pop of pedos so F them too, if true! LOL

Good point! Serves Arizona right for electing Joe Biden. haha!

a reply to: Butterfinger

The state of Montana does not recognize Federal rulings like this as they are unconstitutional, so are not enforced.

We recently changed our open carry laws to open carry anywhere, for instance.

As far as pedos in the state, we are currently experiencing a large influx of people moving here from CA and WA, so you may be right...

Where I live we just shoot them.

👍

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

As we saw during the election challenges, Appeals Courts have been infiltrated by America-hating judges.

We'll see what the Supreme Court says.

In the meantime, be sure the NRA is really accomplishing something before sending them your money. They take advantage of things to gain power and raise money, just like Democrats.

Delete

a reply to: carewemust

The Supreme Court won't dare go against this ruling. You forget; the Democrats run both houses and the Presidency. If the Supreme Court steps out of line, they'll just pack the court and try again.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck



“..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Keep -“have or retain possession of.”
Bear -“ carry the weight of; support.“

Then again, they can just change the definition of the words like they have done for quarantine and vaccine.

Easier to change a law or constitutional right by changing words which effectively changes the law.

Game On

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

The constitution clearly states the right to bare arms.

It doesn't however mention abortions.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
AK, HI, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT.

Blue states, they asked for it...

et tu, Montana?

I heard it has the largest pop of pedos so F them too, if true! LOL

I'm not so sure about AK being a blue state.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

The constitution clearly states the right to bare arms.

It doesn't however mention abortions.

It wiil probably be translated into your right to wear a tanktop shirt so you can show off your bare arms.

originally posted by: Mandroid7

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

The constitution clearly states the right to bare arms.

It doesn't however mention abortions.

It wiil probably be translated into your right to wear a tanktop shirt so you can show off your bare arms.

Easier to get the jab that way