What a clusterfuck the 9th Circuit is. Some examples of rampant stupidity in the majority opinion:
Accordingly, a regulation does not burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment if the record contain evidence that [the subjects of the regulations] have been the subject of longstanding, accepted regulation.” (Fyock v.Sunnyvale, 779 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 2015).)
Oh, you mean accepted regulations on behavior like slavery? I mean, that thing has been around for as long as humans have walked upright, so **** the 13th Amendment, right?
The twelve pages then discuss the history of limitations and restrictions on the right to carry weapons in England, dating back as much as 640 years. Wait, wasn't there some type of disagreement, war even, between England and the United States because some group of people - I'll call them "Americans" - disagreed with England on a large number of issues and set about to establish a government with entirely DIFFERENT rules? I could be wrong on that, I guess.
Next, the blithering idiots continue:
The contours of the government’s power to regulate arms in the public square is at least this: the government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places—including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets—the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly
"At least" that much regulation, i.e., more is undoubtedly allowed. So cannot carry in any fashion, open or concealed, in government buildings, churches, schools, and markets. Public areas would of course also necessarily include roads, theaters, parking lots, public parks, businesses of any type, supermarkets, basically every area in the United States that was not a residence or a business not open to the public. In other words, 95% of America.
Good thing the Constitution is silent on this topic so these geniuses can tell us what our rights are. I mean,
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
That is so goddamn ambiguous. Next, the seven people so much smarter than Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, etc. held:
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.
Wow, great news. Except, geniuses so ******* smarter than Madison, Jefferson, etc., HOW THE **** AM I SUPPOSED TO GET THE FIREARM TO AND FROM MY ******* BUSINESS?? I guess these Mensa members believe that Scotty can transport me to and fro, since the government can AND MOST CERTAINLY HAS banned carrying firearms in your car and certainly on any public transportation.
Then the stupid seven - protected by armed guards and metal detectors at the front of their public space, and by armed guards inside their public courtroom cuz important rather than the stupid, unimportant people who don't deserve armed guards at the door - show how connected they are to 21st century America when they write:
Defense of the public square stands on entirely different footing. “One of the first duties of government is to afford []protection.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 163(1803). Indeed, among the fundamental privileges of citizenship in the United States is “[p]rotection by the government.”
Oh, yes indeedy, that government is sure as **** going to protect me from robbery, assault, vandalism, beating and murder, like in every major city in this country. I mean, the biggest problem facing police today is boredom, because citizens never have their safety jeopardized by criminals, morons, idiots, antifa, etc.
americanmilitarynews.com
