The 9th Circuit Approves Of Common Sense Gun Laws In Sensitive Locations.

On Sept. 6th, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has made a significant ruling on gun control, upholding California and Hawaii's bans on carrying guns in certain public locations. This decision comes after the US Supreme Court's June 2022 ruling that expanded the right to bear arms in public, while also allowing for restrictions in "sensitive places". The 9th Circuit's ruling clarifies what types of locations can be considered "sensitive places" and provides guidance on the limits of gun control laws.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld California and Hawaii's bans on carrying guns in certain public locations, including:

- Bars and restaurants serving alcohol

- Parks

- California: casinos, libraries, zoos, stadiums, and museums (including adjacent parking lots)

- Hawaii: beaches and private property open to the public without explicit owner permission

The court ruled that these bans are "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation" and can be considered "sensitive places" as defined by the US Supreme Court's June 2022 ruling. However, the court also struck down some bans, including those in banks, hospitals, public transit, and places of worship. The plaintiffs have indicated they may appeal to the Supreme Court.

Let's break down the second amendment concerning the militia aspect and then a couple of solutions to add to what measures the court has currently approved of.

The National Guard, established by the Militia Act of 1903, is the organized militia, while the draft is the official means of calling up the unorganized militia, fulfilling the militia aspect of the Second Amendment.

Moving to the civilian population, the 9th Circuit has ruled that restricting guns from 'sensitive locations' is a common-sense gun law. However, opponents argue that they should be able to wield guns anywhere, anytime, and fire them at will without restriction, under Second Amendment rights, demonstrating irrational thinking.

Here are five common-sense points (keyword common-sense):

1. Proper training, maintenance, and storage are essential skill requirements for anyone who buying a firearm, and anyone who owns or has used a gun should be in agreement with this statement. Let's be real, some people don't know how to use a safety, or ensure there are no rounds in the chamber.

2. Every American knows someone they wouldn't trust with a firearm for various reasons, highlighting the need for gun control laws.

3. Due to the previous point, rational individuals should support initial criminal and mental background checks, plus mental evaluations for gun purchases.

4. Semi-annual mental health evaluations are necessary, given that most shootings are linked to sudden mental health issues.

5. Guns should have liability insurance, and owners must report quarterly that their guns are still in their possession. If a gun is used and not reported stolen, the owner should be held liable as an accessory.

These five points address easily fixable problems, while more complex issues like 3D printed firearms require a separate conversation.

The United States was built on the values of pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth; having these values infect every culture and part of society in the nation. And the American people are some of the most egoistic, social-darwinistic, sociopathic, and megalomaniac people on the planet.

The decision by the 9th Circuit will be appeal and the five points listed will be argued against because Americans will tell you their individual rights or liberties come before the lives and safety of their fellow Americans, and some will even argue free will to claim they have the right to harm or unalive their fellow citizens if they desire to and that preventing them from doing so, or holding them accountable after doing so, is tyranny. That is the state of the mental health in the United States of America. If you do not believe there are Americans like that, visit the  Wayland / Danville NY bubble, as it is just one pocket in the U.S. with citizens who hold such beliefs.

Because I have seen both establishment party supporters in the United States say that there is nothing that can be done to stop gun violence due to the extreme consequences of trying to enact and enforce them; sometimes extreme measures need to be taken to conquer extreme situations, stop being afraid to use proportionate measures to deal with the resistance that threatens not only American citizens but humanity and the planet in some cases, depending on the issue.

I would expect organizations like the S.R.A. to prioritize safety measures, but instead, they appear to focus more on individualism and anarchism, seemingly at the expense of collective well-being, and come across as more recalcitrant than altruistic.