U.S. appeals court: Constitution gives right to carry gun in public

esqappellate said:

That's what I like about Young. It calls the 9th Circuit's bluff after Peruta, where the court said en banc there is no right to concealed carry but pointedly said as well that they were not reaching open carry. Hawaii is stuck on the reality that they don't issue any sort of permits to anyone, thus imposing a complete ban ala the Illinois law struck down in Moore. So, given that, Hawaii has to take the tack they took in district court, viz, that there is no 2A right at all outside the home. That's a stark argument and an ideal case for the SCT on that narrow question. So, I am rooting for Hawaii to take this to the SCT. They will probably ask for en banc as well, and then the onus is on the 9th circuit on whether to rule that there is no right at all outside the home. That will make them uncomfortable. Maybe. Or maybe not. But it does put the question to them starkly of whether the 9th circuit have any intellectual honesty after Peruta. The cynics will say "NO!" emphatically. And they may well be right. We shall see.

Click to expand...

press1280 said:

I am seeing though with the dissent that the anti judges are not going to come out and say no right outside the home. They will say that as long as even a phony licensing scheme exists, then it's not a ban so we're happy. More legal and sloppy gymnastics.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Even the antis will have a hard time with that, given that Hawaii hasn't issued a concealed carry permit in decades. And said as much in open court.

Click to expand...

delaware_export said:

just a question, with a slight tangent.

regarding those states that require permit to carry, in any way, AND are no issue, no reciprocity for out of state residents, is there a case to be made?

i mean, lets say california. they are wont issue and won't honor anyone else, and don't allow open call for all intents and purposes.

is there recourse?

same for the other usual suspects. ny/nj/hi/?md?...

has this type of case been pushed?

(don't mean to derail, mod's please feel free to move if necessary)

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Even the antis will have a hard time with that, given that Hawaii hasn't issued a concealed carry permit in decades. And said as much in open court.

Click to expand...

GlocksAndPatriots said:

Sure, but all Hawaii would have to do is pass a may issue scheme that grants a few permits here and there, and I have no doubt that the 9th Circuit will rule that satisfies the two-step intermediate scrutiny. Didn't Peruta (en banc) as much as say that "Even if we presume that concealed carry is a right, the state's licensing system satisfies intermediate scrutiny?"

Click to expand...

Allen65 said:

That would make perfect sense for HI to do, but I doubt they will. Gun control has become an ideological battle, and for HI to give even one inch by allowing a few token permits, it would be viewed as an unacceptable loss and concession.

Let's hope they do try to stand their ground and take their absolutist position through en banc and on to in front of The Supremes (soon to be starring Justice Kavanaugh). Rabid ideologues usually end up as their own worst enemies.

Click to expand...

GlocksAndPatriots said:

None of this will stop until we get a Voting Rights Act style preclearance law, meaning that gun laws need to be approved prior to being implemented. Right now, it's too easy to pass them and then wait out the several years it takes for courts to hear them.

Click to expand...

GlocksAndPatriots said:

Yup. I've said it before and I'll say it again. None of this will stop until we get a Voting Rights Act style preclearance law, meaning that gun laws need to be approved prior to being implemented. Right now, it's too easy to pass them and then wait out the several years it takes for courts to hear them.

Click to expand...

ironpony said:

Yup, an entire populace could be disarmed within the legal time frame we currently have ... maybe.

Click to expand...

GlocksAndPatriots said:

Yup. I've said it before and I'll say it again. None of this will stop until we get a Voting Rights Act style preclearance law, meaning that gun laws need to be approved prior to being implemented. Right now, it's too easy to pass them and then wait out the several years it takes for courts to hear them.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

Only if that very well armed populace allows themselves to be disarmed.

Click to expand...

Allen65 said:

That is ingenious, and should be a default part of the request for relief in any suit challenging anti-Bill of Rights laws. And it's relief that only needs to be granted once for a long-term effect.

Click to expand...

Tungsten said:

Agreed. Until that occurs, why can't individual judges or citizens file lawsuits for an emergency stay of those laws until it is settled in appeals courts?

Click to expand...