9th Circut Court rules “Open Carry” is protected by the Second Amendment.
It would be nearly impossible for us at TAH to ignore this news. For the sake of clarity, you can read the actual Opinion Here. The interwebnet thingy has been abuzz with opinion on what all this actually means. Far be it from me to deny the Gun Nutz around here the opportunity to opine. I spent some time on the usual “Gun Channels” trying to sort through it all. Reuters is as good as any on the announcement:
A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, finding that Hawaii overstepped its authority to regulate firearms possession outside the home.
The ruling by a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, makes the San Francisco-based court the sixth U.S. circuit court to interpret the Second Amendment that way and could set the issue on a path toward the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not taken up a major gun rights case since 2010.
I wouldn’t rush into the streets covered in Glocks just yet. The 9th has been known to lean just a wee bit left of center…seems to me they are forcing the issue to the Supreme Court. Me thinks there be sound far left reasons some gun grabbers in robes ruled this way. If not, I enjoyed my time on the beaches in Israel…maybe I can enjoy the same kind of beaches here in the good ole U S of A.
Category: Guns
Where is the beach picture?
I can’t see it!
There, their, they’re … I fixed it fur ya.
More pictures less jabbering 🙂 I need to be able to form an opinion on this important issue – more bikini pics
Gotta love them IDF chicks! I’m disappointed that the internet has so few pictures of Gal Gadot with a rifle…
TOW, I think the photo is of USMC females. The type of rifles carried by the girls (M16A2 with 20′ barrels) and the weapons and gear seen in the background (including an M-60 GPMG) makes me think this is a shot of a USMC support outfit on beach liberty during a deployment during the 1980s or early 1990s…
Oh yeah, weapons….that’s right, they have weapons. Didn’t notice right away
Well, you know how it is – the barrel protectors block the view!
No guys in banana hammocks with revolvers?
You really know how to take the fun out of things, Dave Hardin.
324 years from now, everyone will be engaging in Open Carry out of necessity. You can’t shoot a spy if you don’t have a weapon on you, can you?
Please check your phone msgs.
That an interesting take Dave, some of the opinions I’ve read indicate exactly the opposite that the 9th ruled this way so SCOTUS doesn’t have to take up this case.
Being the left of center 9th circus the opinion I read offered the concept that the 9th is afraid if this went to SCOTUS and was overturned had they ruled the other way it could lead to open carry across the nation and reciprocal recognition of state carry laws….
With a SCOTUS that now leans right of center and is more likely to do so even further in the near future a SCOTUS decision is very unlikely to go against the 2nd amendment…of course anything is possible and what’s mostly unlikely is a little likely and these days that’s often a recipe for disaster.
I will be watching this closely from the safety of my heretic’s compound in the PRoM….
That must be an old picture from the 80s or 90s; there’s still an M-60 in the background; those young ladies are now probably grandmothers…
But are they GILFs?
It’s not over yet. Look for Hawaii to ask the 9th Circuit Court to an en banc session. Just my guess.
This. The en banc panel, if approved, will find against this ruling.
Sadly this is far more complicated than it appears. The 9th did not rule that states must allow open carry. What they said was that while the state has the power to regulate carry in a reasonable manner, Hawaii was not doing that. They banned concealed carry and only allowed open carry with a permit. Permits which were never issued by the state.
So my take is that at best Hawaii will begin issuing restricted permits to individuals who meet a highly restrictive good character clause and complete out rageously expensive training.
In that sense it’s a win for the left because it still allows the state to regulate firearms outside the home (open unloaded, open loaded, concealed unloaded, concealed loaded) and allows for restrictions to be placed on where you can carry with your permit (beaches, churches, bars, government buildings, gun free zones, etc).
That conforms with the restriction in Heller that the states have the right to enact “reasonable” restrictions. Having lost on Heller, the lefties desperately want that exception, knowing that they can try to restrict anything whilst claiming reasonableness, since it would take a court challenge to overturn. A good example of this was how the DC lefties essentially tried to gut Heller with their restrictions, and it took several years to overturn. Look how fast blatantly illegal ‘sanctuary cities’ are getting slapped down.
I think they are playing a longer game with Heller and Macdonald. They will lawfare every restriction under the reasonable restriction clause to either force the Federal government to step in (knowing they’ll be able to win through compromise there) or win in the courts.
Either way that’s 10 to 20 years of continued restrictions and gun control.
You seem to have the correct take on this. Basically the court stated that there are two types of bearing arms, open and concealed. Since the county in Hawaii in question was not permitted anyone to carry concealed, then it must permit them to carry openly since the Constitution allows people to bear arms. You cannot outlaw both since that is in direct violation of the Constitution. This is, however, jut the opening shot (pardon the pun) in a case that seems destined to go to the Supreme Court.
Has not permitted!!!
If I’m Hawaii I don’t want an enbanc hearing.
No I ask for a stay, for the common good, in order to get proper regulation and laws in place.
Then I start issuing permits for unloaded (rounds must be separated from the fire arm by at least ten inches) open carry to people of good character (no felony convictions and no misdemeanor convictions in the last ten years) who are found to be of good character (interview with the police) and can demonstrate appropriate firearms profency (pass FBI pistol qualification course for hand guns and the army qualification course for long guns) and who can show proof of insurance (1 million dollars).
That buys me another ten years at least before the legal challenges to those restrictions get to the 9th again. And in ten years President Trump is gone and his Democratic replacement will be in a position to replace Justice Thomas, Justice Breyer, and Justice Ginsburg.
Dear God! You don’t think that RBG is really going to cling to life for another 10 years do you? Modern medicine can work a lot of miracles, but that lifeless husk has got to be one abnormally hot or cold day away from judgement day.
RBG is carrying on like she’s getting blood transfusions from Keith Richards!
Or Richard Simmons.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/rbg-ruth-bader-ginsburg-workout-personal-trainer-elena-kagan-stephen-breyer-214821
Apparently her secrecy to longevity is a workout that nearly kills politico reporters.
I figure that and spite will keep her around until a Republican isn’t in office.
Not all of her liberal brothers and sisters are as healthy, and the folks appointed by Republicans are all younger.
Justice Thomas isn’t a spring chicken and if he retires next term or dies and the Repbulicans don’t keep control of the Senate, we get another Beyer or Kennedy (at best) to replace him.
You can open carry a rifle but not a gun.
The law prohibits open carry of a rifle also. The court chose not to address that issue as the plaintiff did not raise the issue in District Court.
(It’s in the footnote on the bottom of page 9 of the decision.)
Ok, my bad. I’ll try again.
You can open carry a “pistol” but not a “gun”.
Hawaii’s ridiculous assertion that the 2nd A is exclusively for protection inside one’s home was axed. How anyone could read the 2nd A and come away with that conclusion is proof positive that the lawyers in black robes are willing to go to any lengths to keep guns out of the hands of most citizens. For the life of me, I cannot find the words, “inside one’s home” in the 2nd A. Nor can I find any words in there that convey a similar restriction.
The opinion in dissent reasons that if States have been doing something for a while on their own…then it should be legal by default.
Strange logic, wtf would we need a Federal Appeals Court for if that was the case. I think, I may be mistaken, but, if States are allowed to act autonomously thats called a…
Confederacy – odd thing for a bunch of Libs to be pushing.
Not really it’s the tenth amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constituion, nor prohibited it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And since the Constitution makes no comment on private ownership of firearms it should be up to the States to decide how they regulate them under Heller…
Of course that ignores Macdonald and a host of other case law, but the left is all for States rights until they disagree with the states decisions.
Kane. I’m not following that. The Constitution’s “comment” is the right of the People to keep and bear arms. “People” means collectively and individually. If individuals can’t bear arms, the people can’t. As for ownership, it is understood that the right to keep and bear arms includes ownership. Were it not, the People would have to receive loaners from the gov’t, I guess. Finally, regulation of firearms is indeed an ind’al state issue, unless the regulation effectively smothers the 2nd A, as what happened in Hawaii. Anyhow, I’m not sure what you were getting at so this cmt may not fit with yours.
So, here’s the logic. The Constitution is the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is not and until the particular article is incorporated via the 14th amendment those amendments don’t apply to the State. They only apply to the federal government.
The second amendment wasn’t incorporated until McDonald v Chicago in 2010.
The dissent in Young v Hawaii basically says the McDonald ruling was wrong because the power to regulate firearms had always been left to the States under the 10th amendment.
Not odd at all Dave, Democrats were the Confederacy, by and large, and as a group, I have not heard of them being as upset as they are right now, SINCE slavery was abolished…. They were also the ones that founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crow laws, and gun regulations since they figured out it was a good way to control people..(especially blacks, after all the first ones were put in place because they were worried about recently freed slaves getting a little payback)
I got a pic of the well dressed Alaskan shopper wearing an auto loader on her hip.
This ruling by the 9th Circuit should invalidate California’s open-carry ban, should it not? This is the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, after all. Even if this is a ploy by fascists on the bench, the Supreme Court is getting more 2A-friendly these days.
With all the prog justices on the 9th Circus, you can bet there will be an en banc review of this case. It will likely have a different outcome.
The danger there is that if the en banc ruling of the 9th reverses this decision, it creates a “circuit split” which means that almost certainly this goes to SCOTUS which is about to become even more pro-2nd Amendment once Trump appoints another judge.
No. CA has concealed carry but leaves the particulars up to the local issuing authority (Sheriff or Chief of Police). So 9th says CA meets the spirit of Heller. SCOTUS has refused to hear Peruta v San Diego which the 9th initially found in favor of Peruta saying that San Diego County was violating the 2nd by denying concealed carry for self defense. Kamilla Harris inappropriately sought (no standing) an en banque review of that decision and to all good Montanan’s horror, the chief judge of the 9th from Bozeman Montana cast the deciding vote against Peruta. Scotus has been too chickenshit so far to even schedule the case to be heard because they know that they will have to overturn it and CA will sink under a wave of gun grabber tears when they are ordered to get rid of the onerous CC requirements.
For 37 years, I carried open carry when I worked for Brink’s and a little after the 30 year mark, I found out that the weapon had to be outside the jacket at all times because we were issued open carry permits and not concealed permits. If I wasn’t coming from or going to a customer the zipper was down in inclement weather but I always were aware of my surroundings. I was hired during the US Trucking merger with Brink’s back in 1970 and my green UST handbook mentioned that if you had to take your weapon home, it had to be unloaded and in a brown paper bag and carried on your person. I have to look and see if I saved both the UST & Brink’s handbooks.
The Second Amendment neither proscribes or prescribes a method of bearing arms, not empowers the government to do so.
Any such restriction is utterly un-Constitutional.