Case Name and the Court Where the Case Was Held
The debate about carrying guns in public places is still ongoing throughout the United States. The case of plaintiff George Young, who sues the state and county for denying him an application for a license for carrying a handgun in public for personal defense, is an illustration of such debate. Young underlines there was a violation of his rights, which were guaranteed to him by article one of the United States Constitution and the second and fourteenth amendments (Kopel & Mocsary, 2021). This case occurred in the court of appeal in the United States, the ninth circuit (Kopel & Mocsary, 2021). The en banc court confirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action of challenging Hawaii firearm licensing. In fact, the law states that residents who want to own guns and carry them openly must be of good moral character, and these individuals should be involved in protecting other people’s lives. Young’s application for taking the gun to public places was denied because he failed to explain the legitimate reason for bringing the weapon to public places.
How Court’s Decision Influenced Changes in Policies
Decisions made by the Supreme Court often influence regional laws, policies, and practices. Indeed, the Supreme Court holds the mandate to execute actions and overturn regulations if the laws are unconstitutional. However, the court does not directly enforce laws as it relies on rules for adherence to judgments and the constitution. Instead, one of the primary functions of the court is to decide on cases that raise ambiguous questions (Kopel & Mocsary, 2021). In Young’s case, the court first considered if the Hawaii law contradicted the second amendment. After reviewing the rules for the Americans carrying guns in public, the court concluded that Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying a firearm reflected the longstanding prohibitions. The court claimed that the second amendment did not give a personal mandate to citizens to carry guns in public areas for self-defense. In fact, Hawaii did not change its legislation related to weapons, making clear that the established restriction on carrying guns for individuals outside their homes will not be removed.
Court’s Decision and Its Wider Consequences
According to the second amendment, a person could keep guns at home for self-defense. However, the rule did not specify whether it allowed a person to bear arms in public. In the Young versus Hawaii case, a ninth circuit panel asserted that individuals could not carry firearms outside their homes (Kopel & Mocsary, 2021). The possible reason for such precautions is that if the public had a chance to have guns for self-defense, it might lead to mass shootings in schools, colleges, or other institutions. Hence, Hawaii’s restriction on acquiring guns under some measures is ideal for preventing uncontrolled violent acts.
Application to the Final Project
To conclude, various state and local laws regarding the registration and licensing of firearms have been developed due to the lack of agreement about gun control. For example, some states require citizens to have licenses to purchase guns, while others allow individuals to carry guns. The state laws governing distribution are restrictive, which has led to individuals acquiring guns through loopholes in the legislation. However, if these laws are not brought to a consensus, this variation in regional policies creates disparity among people. Overall, I consider the court’s decision on the restriction of carrying a gun in public effective in defending and protect civilians from harm. Finally, in application to my project, I would consider making a justifiable decision that favors the supporters of restrictive regulations about handguns.
Reference
Kopel, D., & Mocsary, G. (2021). Errors of omission: Words missing from the ninth circuit’s Young v. the State of Hawaii. SSRN Electronic Journal, 172-188.