2-A, American Independence, Braveheart, British Empire, concealed weapons, Death penalty, Edward Longshanks, fortification, Freedom, gangs, Hammer of the Scots, illegal immigration, India, Jews expulsed from England by Edward I, Kamala Harris, King Edward I of England, militias, Monarchy, open carry, Revolt of English Barons, Right to Bear Arms, Royal Decree, Scotland, Scottish independence, second amendment, self-defence, slavery, Stone of Destiny, Tower of London, US 9th Circuit, US border, US constitution, US Federal courts, Wales, War of 1812, William Wallace
If English King Edward I, “Hammer of the Scots”, is their model, do the 9th Circuit judges plan to reinstate the sorts of punishments meted out in 1305 by English King Edward I to Scotsman William Wallace (Braveheart)? Edward I also killed hundreds of English Jews and deported the rest, so he didn’t have to pay his debts. Now he’s a model for the US 9th Circuit judges!? King Edward I’s punishment for bearing arms without his permission “included “forfeiture of life and limb, lands,” and any other holdings in the king’s realm“, according to the judges. In other words the king might have you killed, your arm or leg cut off, and/or your property taken for bearing arms without his permission. Are they proposing that too?
What happened to the American Revolution and the War of 1812? We are back under the British monarchy? Is this why we have been sent the former subjects of the British Empire, like Kamala Harris, en masse for over half a century? If we owe allegiance to the British monarchy, why do we have no right of return there, to our indigenous British homeland? Kamala Harris and other recent British subjects have right of return to their indigenous homelands. Why don’t we?
Too many of our ancestors fought for freedom from Edward I and other British monarchs, so this isn’t going to go down well. US courts were allowed to forbid concealed weapons, which was apparently a first step. We don’t agree with private “militias” marching around with weapons with the seeming intent of intimidating people. However, the BLM-Antifa riots and the push to defund the police proved the need for the second amendment – right to bear arms for self defense (not intimidation). It’s always been necessary in rural areas. Frankly, concealed carry is more polite, less intimidating, and people need to simply assume that people have weapons. What about swords and knives?
We are really living in the lunatic asylum. First the US government under Biden is letting gang members, potential terrorists, and the Covid, TB, and maybe Ebola, infected, into the country, and while that invasion-operation is underway, the courts are trying to strip Americans of their right to bear arms outside of their homes. This will, of course, go to the US Supreme Court, but they refused to defend election integrity, so all bets are off with them.
William Wallace “responded to the treason charge, “I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject.” Following the trial, on 23 August 1305, Wallace was taken from the hall to the Tower of London, then stripped naked and dragged through the city at the heels of a horse to the Elms at Smithfield. He was hanged, drawn and quartered—strangled by hanging, but released while he was still alive, emasculated, eviscerated and his bowels burned before him, beheaded, then cut into four parts. His preserved head (dipped in tar) was placed on a pike atop London Bridge… A plaque unveiled 8 April 1956, stands in a wall of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital near the site of Wallace’s execution at Smithfield. It includes in Latin the words “Dico tibi verum libertas optima rerum nunquam servili sub nexu vivito fili” (I tell you the truth. Freedom is what is best. Sons, never live life like slaves.), and in Gaelic “Bas Agus Buaidh” (Death and Victory), an old Scottish battle cry…“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace#Wallace.27s_capture_and_execution
“Edward I (17/18 June 1239 – 7 July 1307), also known as Edward Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots (Latin: Malleus Scotorum), was King of England from 1272 to 1307. Before his accession to the throne, he was commonly referred to as The Lord Edward… The first son of Henry III, Edward was involved from an early age in the political intrigues of his father’s reign, which included an outright rebellion by the English barons… After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276–77, Edward responded to a second rebellion in 1282–83 with a full-scale war of conquest. After a successful campaign, he subjected Wales to English rule, built a series of castles and towns in the countryside and settled them with English people. Next, his efforts were directed towards the Kingdom of Scotland. Initially invited to arbitrate a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal suzerainty over Scotland. The war that followed continued after Edward’s death, even though the English seemed victorious at several points… At the same time there were problems at home. In the mid-1290s, extensive military campaigns required high levels of taxation, and Edward met with both lay and ecclesiastical opposition… When the King died in 1307, he left to his son Edward II an ongoing war with Scotland and many financial and political problems… he is also often criticised for other actions, such as his brutal conduct towards the Welsh and Scots, and issuing the Edict of Expulsion in 1290, by which the Jews were expelled from England. The Edict remained in effect for the rest of the Middle Ages, and it was over 350 years until it was formally overturned under Oliver Cromwell in 1657.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England (He also killed hundreds of Jews, as well as expelling them. It was his way of canceling the debt).
Edward I stole the Scottish Stone of Scone, the Stone of Destiny, and Scotland didn’t get it back until 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone
Traditionally personal vehicles have been considered extensions of the house.
“UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE K. YOUNG, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAII; NEIL
ABERCROMBIE, in his capacity as Governor of the State of Hawaii; DAVID MARK LOUIE I, Esquire, in his capacity as State Attorney General; COUNTY OF HAWAII, as a sub-agency of the State of Hawaii; WILLIAM P. KENOI, in his capacity as Mayor of the County of Hawaii; HILO COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, as a sub-agency of the County of Hawaii; HARRY S. KUBOJIRI, in his capacity as Chief of Police; JOHN DOES, 1–25; JANE DOES, 1–25; DOE CORPORATIONS, 1–5; DOE ENTITIES, 1–5, Defendants-Appellees.
D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00336-HG-BMK
Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw, William A. Fletcher, Richard R. Clifton, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta, Michelle T. Friedland and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Bybee; Dissent by Judge O’Scannlain; Dissent by Judge R. Nelson”
[Circuit Judge O’Scannlain was joined by Consuelo M. Callahan, Sandra S. Ikuta and R. Nelson, Circuit Judges, in dissenting]
“Hawai‘i law began limiting public carriage of dangerous weapons, including firearms, more than 150 years ago—nearly fifty years before it became a U.S. territory and more than a century before it became a state…
our first task is to determine whether the right to carry a firearm openly in public is protected by the Second Amendment. We have been down a similar road before. In Peruta, we addressed the question of whether the Second Amendment protected the right of individuals to carry concealed arms. After canvassing the historical record, we concluded that “the Second Amendment does not protect the right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Peruta, 824 F.3d at 939. The question we address here is a variation on that theme: whether the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to carry arms openly in public…
We begin with a review of the historical record, starting with the English tradition, and then review the Colonial era and the post-Second Amendment era…
1. The Royal Decrees
As we recognized in Peruta, English law restricted public firearm possession as early as the thirteenth century. 824 F.3d at 929. King Edward I and his successor, King Edward II, issued a series of orders to local sheriffs that prohibited “going armed” without the king’s permission. In 1299, Edward I ordered the sheriffs of Salop and Stafford to prohibit any one “from tourneying, tilting . . . or jousting, or making assemblies, or otherwise going armed within the realm without the king’s special licen[s]e.” 4 Calendar Of The Close Rolls, Edward I, 1296–1302, at 318 (Sept. 15, 1299, Canterbury) (H.C. Maxwell-Lyte ed., 1906) (emphasis added). The punishment for violating the order included “forfeiture of life and limb, lands,” and any other holdings in the king’s realm. Id. Although the 1299 order was only addressed to the sheriffs of Salop and Stafford, the king intended the order to apply to “to all the sheriffs of England.” Id.
Three years later, Edward I similarly instructed the sheriff of York to prohibit “any knight, esquire or any other person from . . . going armed without the king’s special licen[s]e.” Id. at 588 (July 16, 1302, Westminster). Any person “found thus going with arms after the proclamation” should have his “horses and armour” arrested. Id. In 1304, Edward I ordered the sheriffs of Leicester and York to issue a proclamation prohibiting any person from “going armed in any way without the king’s licen[s]e.” 5 Calendar Of The Close Rolls, Edward I, 1302–1307, at 210 (June 10, 1304, Stirling) (H.C. Maxwell-Lyte ed., 1908).
Edward II issued several similar orders. In the months leading up to Edward II’s coronation in 1308, he issued an order prohibiting any “knight, esquire, or other” from going “armed at Croydon or elsewhere before the king’s coronation.” 1 Calendar Of The Close Rolls, Edward II, 1307–1313, at 52 (Feb. 9, 1308, Dover) (H.C. Maxwell-Lyte ed., 1892). Two years later Edward II issued an order to the sheriff of York, and to all the sheriffs of England, prohibiting any “earl, baron, knight, or other” from “go[ing] armed, under pain of forfeiture.” Id. at 257 (Apr. 9, 1310, Windsor). Two years after that, the king ordered the sheriffs in Warwick and Leicester to proclaim that “no one shall, under pain of forfeiture, . . . go armed . . . without the king’s special licen[s]e.” Id. at 553 (Oct. 12, 1312, Windsor). He also ordered “[t]he like to all the sheriffs of England.” Id….”
The frequency and consistency of the royal orders and their subsequent local proclamations demonstrated a regulated approach to going armed in public. There was some ability to do so, but it was subject to first obtaining the “king’s special license.” 4 Calendar Of The Close Rolls, Edward I, 1296–1302, at 588 (July 16, 1302, Westminster) (H.C. Maxwell-Lyte ed., 1906). Absent the king’s permission, any person going armed in public was subject to punishment.
In 1326 Edward II again ordered the sheriff of Huntington to arrest anyone going armed without the king’s license…”
“YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII 128
O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, with whom CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting:
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place.
This holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme. While our sister circuits have grappled with—and disagreed over—the question of whether public firearms carry falls within the inner “core” of the Second Amendment, we now become the first and only court of appeals to hold that public carry falls entirely outside the scope of the Amendment’s protections.
In so holding, the majority reduces the right to “bear Arms” to a mere inkblot. The majority’s decision undermines not only the Constitution’s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself.
I respectfully dissent“. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
“Braveheart: Freedom Speech” link: https://youtu.be/hIvRkjOd1f8