- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
the land of fruits and nuts
And the one's who aren't fruits and nuts are just a bunch of flakes ...
the land of fruits and nuts
I'm afraid the En Banc Peruta decision is much worse than expected. (At least expected by us who thought the 9th Circuit would find some way out of granting permits.)
The panel ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public and specifically do not answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public, the panel made a point of saying that they "would entirely agree with the answer the concurrence" of Judge Graber.
Judge Garber "writeseparately only to state that, even if we assume that the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional.
So the vast majority of Ninth Circuit believes that even if open carry was protected by the Second Amendment that restrictions like the "good and substantial" requirement to get an open carry permit in the interest of "public safety" are constitutional.
You still do not get to carry your gun.
They have set a trap. If you only argue that open carry is constitutional the court will take years to say "yeah, but so what, as a matter of public safety we can limit the number of guns on the street." Then you are right back where you started. This is a perfect blueprint for other states to get around the 2nd Amendment completely. Every restriction will be ok as a matter of public safety.
I am truly not happy about this. Bad news for us all.
I'm afraid the En Banc Peruta decision is much worse than expected. (At least expected by us who thought the 9th Circuit would find some way out of granting permits.)
The panel ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public and specifically do not answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public, the panel made a point of saying that they "would entirely agree with the answer the concurrence" of Judge Graber.
Judge Garber "writeseparately only to state that, even if we assume that the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional.
So the vast majority of Ninth Circuit believes that even if open carry was protected by the Second Amendment that restrictions like the "good and substantial" requirement to get an open carry permit in the interest of "public safety" are constitutional.
You still do not get to carry your gun.
They have set a trap. If you only argue that open carry is constitutional the court will take years to say "yeah, but so what, as a matter of public safety we can limit the number of guns on the street." Then you are right back where you started. This is a perfect blueprint for other states to get around the 2nd Amendment completely. Every restriction will be ok as a matter of public safety.
I am truly not happy about this. Bad news for us all.
I guess we will have G&S permits for voting, free speech and attending church as well right?
Graber ' s concurrence only got 2 other votes, that has to tell you something. The open carry is another question, although I'm trying to wrap my head around CA9 killing off CCW in favor of open carry.
Not huge surprise. There is no right to concealed carry, while separately there is no right to open carry. Neat hat trick which allows the progressives to read bear out of the constitution.
This is how I see it. I wish I didn't.However the panel ruled that there was NO constitutional right to concealed carry, so there was no need to address the argument about the good and substantial reason being constitutional so they did not have to sign on to the concurrence, EXCEPT they went out of their way to say the agreed with the concurrence. Only reason to do that was to set the stage for the follow on lawsuit challenging the open carry ban. Basically saying to bring it on because we are just going to say it does not matter, the government can restrict your rights in the name of public safety.
hopefully a CERT petition will be forthcoming but with a 4-4 split, doesn't seem worth the effort.
If you follow the logic to its final conclusion, there are NO restrictions other than a total ban of handguns that are unconstitutional.
So:
Ban on assault weapons: OK
Handgun licenses: OK
No carry: OK
Etc, Etc, Etc: OK
DC is different because you don't have the option of Open Carry so they can't fall back on that loophole. They make the excuse you can OC so you don't need to be able to CC.
G&S for free speech is coming..[no sarcasm]
They didn't. There's no question their next ruling (Nichols) will kill off open carry.The open carry is another question, although I'm trying to wrap my head around CA9 killing off CCW in favor of open carry.
If Trump is elected and we hold both houses of congress, national reciprocity will be a reality, although I don't know how it helps us unless the MGA makes changes.
Well I've still got two carry cases out of Hawaii where my clients asked to carry either openly or concealed so I am still alive.