The Ninth Circus Gets One Right
A three-judge panel says the Second Amendment applies outside the home, too.
It’s always refreshing to see all hope for individual rights and freedoms in the U.S. is not yet lost. Such was this case in a 2-1 ruling in Peruta v. San Diego from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a case centering on the Second Amendment. Of course, Patriot Post readers are well aware that this Amendment is the final guarantor of all the others, not to mention the Constitution itself. Thus it should come as a welcome breath of fresh air that the normally Looney Tunes court known more commonly as the “Ninth Circus” is actually standing up for this right. Sadly, however, only two-thirds of the three-judge panel deciding the issue “gets it.”
Through a string of relatively recent landmark Second Amendment cases beginning with District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) put to rest as settled law the fact that individuals have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms within their homes. The case before the Ninth Circuit involved a challenge to a policy imposed by San Diego County requiring residents to show a “pressing need” (a.k.a. the “Good Clause” policy) – whatever that is – to be able to receive a permit to carry weapons outside their homes. Of course, the idea that the Second Amendment makes any distinction between “bearing” (i.e., “carrying”) in public as opposed to private venues is simply silly. Thankfully, the normally silly Ninth Circuit acknowledged this truth. In any case, from our perspective at least one “pressing need” and “good cause” is to uphold the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment!
Still, this story isn’t over: At least three other federal appellate courts in Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia upheld state laws restricting public carriage, and SCOTUS is set to hear consolidated appeals from all of these cases at the end of this month. Additionally, Peruta is likely to be re-examined en banc by the entire Ninth Circus clown act, whose looniness historically seems to be exponentially proportional to the number of clowns participating in the show. Should the ruling survive, however, endorsing it should be a slam-dunk for the Supremes. Then again, of late SCOTUS has not been known for sinking slam-dunks: Think, “ObamaCare.”
Start a conversation using these share links: