OPINION | This article contains opinion. This site is licensed to publish this content.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that state governments can restrict people regarding open carries in public, according to The Blaze.
These restrictions are tightening the people’s right to bear arms outside of their homes.
The appeals court noted that as a longstanding tradition in English and American law the government could prohibit “certain weapons from entering… public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic Tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic Violence.”
The National Rifle Association has vowed to fight against the decision.
“This was not an NRA case but we are exploring all options to rectify this,” the NRA said.
Joseph Greenlee criticized the ruling.
“We are very disappointed in the outcome of this case. As the dissent pointed out, the Ninth Circuit has effectively eliminated the word ‘bear’ from the Constitution,” Greenlee said.
“Now that tens of millions of Americans have been told, for the first time ever, that they have no right to carry a firearm, it is more important than ever for the Supreme Court to address the issue and define the right to ‘bear arms.'”
New Jersey state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal was pleased with the decision.
“Today the Ninth Circuit agreed that laws that limit carrying guns in public are constitutional,” Grewal tweeted.
Today the Ninth Circuit agreed that laws that limit carrying guns in public are constitutional. Proud that NJ led a brief for 10 states in that case, & proud to support firearm safety laws that protect both the public & law enforcement officers. Read more: https://t.co/5uHC4fGaaW
— AG Gurbir Grewal (@NewJerseyOAG) March 24, 2021
“Proud that NJ led a brief for 10 states in that case, & proud to support firearm safety laws that protect both the public & law enforcement officers,” he added.
More from The Blaze:
The court issued an en banc opinion in the case of Young vs. Hawaii over a lawsuit by a Hawaiian resident who argued that the restrictions set by the state on his ability to openly carry a firearm was against the Constitution.
— Advertisement — The dissent opinion criticized the ruling for whittling down the right to bear arms to a “mere inkblot.”
