[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: Ninth Circuit: Second Amendment Secures Right to Carry Guns in Public Ninth Circuit: Second Amendment Secures Right to Carry Guns in Public The Ninth Circuit had earlier held -- citing D.C. v. Heller -- that the Second Amendment doesn't secure a right to concealed carry, but the panel now holds that it secures a right to carry openly (though it reserves the possibility that a state might be able to choose whether to allow open carry or to allow concealed carry) Eugene Volokh|July 24, 2018 1:56 pm Guns In today's Young v. Hawaii, a Ninth Circuit panel holds by a 2-to-1 vote (Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judge Sandra Ikuta, with Judge Robert Clifton dissenting) that the Second Amendment secures a right to carry guns openly in public places. Though the Ninth Circuit had earlier resolved in Peruta v. County of San Diego (en banc) that the Second Amendment doesn't secure a right to concealed carry -- as D.C. v. Heller had earlier suggested, in reliance on 19th- century cases that had generally rejected a right to concealed carry -- the panel concludes (also citing Heller and 19th-century sources) that there is a right to open carry, so as to be able to defend oneself in public places as well. The Supreme Court has stated that carrying can be banned in some "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," so any right to carry would not be unlimited; but it would apply to carrying a gun in one's car, on most streets, and the like. The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both and thus makes guns available to most citizens for self-defense in public places. It is of course quite possible that the case will be reheard en banc, which is what happened with Peruta (where the panel decision came out in favor of protecting a right to carry). But if the case isn't reheard en banc, or the panel decision is affirmed on en banc rehearing, then the case may well go up to the Supreme Court, since this decision reinforces a split among the circuits on the subject. UPDATE: Prof. Josh Blackman summarizes the decision in this Twitter thread. Congratulations to Alan Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh, the winning lawyers in the case Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest it would apply to carrying a gun in one's car, on most streets, and the like. The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both Great ruling,and should be affirmed by the SCOTUS..
#2. To: tpaine (#0) SOURCE and URL SOURCE: http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/24/ninth-circuit-second-amendment-secures-r Ninth Circuit: Second Amendment Secures Right to Carry Guns in Public - - - - - - - - - - THE COURT OPINION: https://www.scribd.com/document/384768514/Young-v-Hawaii-12-17808-9th-Cir-24-Jul-2018-Open-Carry
#3. To: tpaine (#0) "...but the panel now holds that it secures a right to carry openly (though it reserves the possibility that a state might be able to choose whether to allow open carry or to allow concealed carry)" The panel has only a portion of this statement correct. The Second Amendment was not intended to be a collective right but rather an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
Now the issue becomes as to whether the state elects to acknowledge the federal constitutional amendments per the Second Amendment language and apply that context into its own state constitutions. This is really not even another legal matter concerning states rights at all but one that those states choose to simply ignore.
#4. To: goldilucky, tpaine (#3) The panel has only a portion of this statement correct. The Second Amendment was not intended to be a collective right but rather an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps your issue is with Eugene Volokh rather than the panel of the court.
Young, slip op., at 23:
Thus, each of these nineteenth century cases found instructive by Heller when settling the Second Amendment as an individual right to self-defense is just as instructive when evaluating the application of that right outside the home. While nineteenth century legislatures enjoyed latitude to regulate the “manner in which arms shall be borne,” no legislature in these states could, “under the pretence of regulating,” destroy the right to carry firearms in public altogether. See Reid, 1 Ala. at 616–17. Accordingly, even though our court has read these cases to exclude concealed carry from the Second Amendment’s protections, see Peruta II, 824 F.3d at 933–36, the same cases command that the Second Amendment must encompass a right to open carry.9
#5. To: nolu chan (#4) No my issue is with the Ninth Circuit. They still want to put this issue and turn it into a states law issue. This is where a simple amendment like this becomes painted in a gray area.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|