The Ninth Circuit Court (three judges not the whole circus) just ruled “that, by the logic of their Peruta vs. San Diego (decision), if concealed carry is not a right, then open carry must be:”
With Peruta the 9th couldn’t find a “right” to concealed carry. Along comes Hawaii which has been making it impossible to open carry “legally.” What’s left?
Three Judges on the Ninth Circuit have concluded that if their court finds both these prohibitions lawful while you could “keep” arms you could never “bear” them. Because “Second Amendment” you can’t prevent or prohibit both.
If you can’t bear arms in concealment, you must be able to bear them out in the open. But by doing everything it can think of to prevent the latter Hawaii is violating that part of the secondment amendment with the word “bear” in it.
Coming from the Circus that unusual leap of logic sounds all kinds of amazing.
In short, the text of the Amendment, as interpreted by Heller and McDonald, points toward the conclusion that “bear” implies a right to carry firearms publicly for self-defense.
Don’t get too excited. This is the Ninth Circuit we’re talking about. Okay, you can get a little excited.
Thanks to Mike Rogers and a “California Gun Enthusiast” for the link to the Red State Article. It has plenty of other details (including a link to the complete decision) but here are a few of my favorites. The exciting bits, if you like.
“To summarize the history canvassed thus far: the important founding-era treatises, the probative nineteenth century case law, and the post-civil war legislative scene each reveal a single American voice. The right to bear arms must include, at the least, the right to carry a firearm openly for self-defense.”
And,
“Restricting open carry to those whose job entails protecting life or property necessarily restricts open carry to
a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens. Just as the Second Amendment does not protect a right to bear arms only in connection with a militia, it surely does not protect a right to bear arms only as a security guard. The typical, law abiding citizen in the State of Hawaii is therefore entirely foreclosed from exercising the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.”
And,
“for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. We would thus flout the Constitution if we were to hold that, “in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of [the State] has no other limit than its own discretion.”
The early odds are that this will go before the full Circus and get smacked down. But that could result in the case going before the Supreme Court which would be responding to a case that includes this decision, and it references to their own rulings in Heller and McDonald.
Streiff finishes the article with this,
Then the big question becomes does the Supreme Court take it on? They’ve been dodging Second Amendment cases but this one makes it hard. If Peruta says no concealed carry and an en banc Ninth says no open carry either, then the Second Amendment becomes equivalent to your right to have a My Little Pony collection. I’m guessing the case does go to SCOTUS and that this opinion largely carries the day.
A case worthy of our attention moving forward? I think so.
Edit: Quoted paragraph duplicated out of quote has been removed. Naughty paragraph.
