quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
They forgot to mention protection from a tyrannical government.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
So constitutional rights only apply when people are inside their own homes??

Well, there, and outside the 9th Circuit.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
So constitutional rights only apply when people are inside their own homes??

Well, there, and outside the 9th Circuit.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:


...

I am sure this will be appealed. The Supremes have been avoiding cases about the contours of the 2d amendment for a long time. They will eventually take one or more up. It is hard to say when. Some think with Barrett on the Court, they may be more likely to do so.

quote:

oday, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii—a case in which Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a supporting brief—where the court upheld Hawaii’s de facto ban on the public carry of firearms.

Hawaii law, H.R.S. § 134-9(a), requires that residents seeking a license to openly carry a firearm demonstrate good moral character, that he or she will be “engaged in the protection of life and property,” and “the urgency or the need” to carry a firearm. In practice, virtually nobody ever demonstrates a strong enough urgency or need to be issued a license, so the licensing requirement operates as a prohibition.

In 2011, George Young submitted two applications for an open-carry license. Both were denied because he failed to demonstrate a sufficient “urgency” or “need.” Young challenged the denials in court, arguing that his desire to carry a firearm for self-defense was all the Second Amendment required.

After the district court ruled against him, a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in his favor—holding that the Second Amendment must protect some method of carrying outside the home, and because the Ninth Circuit has previously held that concealed carry is not protected, open carry must be. But then, the Ninth Circuit decided to rehear the case en banc—i.e., before an 11-judge panel.

The en banc court held that Hawaii’s open carry law did not violate the Second Amendment. Rather, the court determined that because history demonstrates a “longstanding” tradition in English and American law of government “prohibit[ing] certain weapons from entering . . . public spaces as means of providing ‘domestic Tranquility’ and forestalling ‘domestic Violence,’” there “is no right to carry arms openly in public."

quote:

The majority opinion also states “we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.” The majority further argued that the second amendment applies to the “defense of hearth and home” and “the power of the government to regulate carrying arms in the public square does not infringe in any way on the right of an individual to defend his home or business.”

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Here is my legal opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Who gives a shit what the 9th Circus thinks?

Aren’t they the most overturned court in the entire country on a regular basis?

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
Meh, 9th Circuit decisions should not cause us such angst. It does not invalidate any other laws in any other states. In context, you can't open carry in Florida either, with a few exceptions, as well as a number of other states, and I don't have a problem with that. Florida allows for open carry by law enforcement, and uniformed security officers, and has no provision for open carry licenses otherwise, and I don't have a problem with that. This started as an administrative issue. What I think happened here is this guy didn't get his way with an open carry license application so he took it to court and it ended up making bad law. Let's see what happens if the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case. I think they are going to be busy with 2A cases in the next couple of years.

quote:

Originally posted by Flash-LB:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Who gives a shit what the 9th Circus thinks?

Aren’t they the most overturned court in the entire country on a regular basis?

IIRC, you're right, they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...round%2070%20percent.

From 2010 to 2015, 79% of their decisions were overturned.

If I was a member of the 9th Circus, I'd resign and go hide where nobody knew who I was because of the shame.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I've quick browsed the pertinent language and here's my take:

1. This only involved Hawaii and their grounds for carry, open or concealed. Young wanted to openly carry and that words "open" and "openly" are everywhere in the majority decision. Hawaii makes little distinction on the grounds for a CCW between open carry in public or concealed carry but Young went down the open carry path.

2. This does not invalidate any of the states CCW laws that the 9th covers. Not at all and not even close.

3. It did not make a ruling that all CCW is unlawful. Not at all and not close.

4. It did say that Hawaii has a good cause requirement that the local chief didn't think was established. Young might not have exercised his full administrative rights with the chief but that seems to be side dish.

5. States remain free to adopt good cause requirements if they wish or not, if they wish. That was not addressed, overruled, modified or changed with this decision and there's no indication the court intended such an inference.

6. The dissenters believed that this is a 2nd A violation because the criteria to obtain a permit in Hawaii effectively leave it up to local officials who routinely deny permit requests to the point that one will never obtain a permit unless you are in a specific class of jobs.

7. You can carry all you want at home and work, provided your employer allows it.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
^^^^^ If that were to come to pass, I really believe that court cases would reach SCOTUS and that "bear" would get a favorable hearing. It may be that states/localities might be able to control some aspects of "bearing", but I don't think a total ban would pass Constittutional muster.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by ritter:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
^^^^^ If that were to come to pass, I really believe that court cases would reach SCOTUS and that "bear" would get a favorable hearing. It may be that states/localities might be able to control some aspects of "bearing", but I don't think a total ban would pass Constittutional muster.

flashguy

A complete ban on bear would absolutely now pass constitutional muster in any state in the CA9 under this ruling. If SCOTUS doesn't take the appeal (and it will be appealed), we're likely stuck with it until a new case challenging a new law winds its way back to SCOTUS over 10 years or so. The 9th isn't going to reverse itself and any inferior courts within the 9th will have to rule consistent with Young.

I'm not an attorney, just used to being fucked on gun rights by CA9.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Sorry, Constitutional muster is ultimately decided by SCOTUS. Until that happens, it is undecided (but may be applied).

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Who gives a shit what the 9th Circus thinks?

Aren’t they the most overturned court in the entire country on a regular basis?