9th Circuit panel rules 2A protects right to carry gun in public

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,091
    113
    Texas
    (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home.

    This is only a panel decision, I am pretty sure the other judges will be open to an en banc decision to overrule the panel, but still interesting.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...sticNews&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter
    The decision did not change the court’s earlier ruling that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to carry concealed firearms in public.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,091
    113
    Texas
    Opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf

    Summary from Opinion:


    This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

    Civil Rights

    The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of claims brought against the County of Hawaii, dismissed plaintiff’s appeal as to the State of Hawaii, and remanded, in plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the denial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self-defense.

    The County of Hawaii’s Chief of Police denied plaintiff’s application to carry a handgun because he failed to satisfy Hawaii’s licensing requirements, as set forth in section 134-9 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Section 134-9 acts as a limited exception to the State of Hawaii’s "Place to Keep" statutes, which generally require that gun owners keep their firearms at their "place of business, residence, or sojourn." H.R.S. §§ 134-23, 134-24, 134-25. The exception allows citizens to obtain a license to carry a loaded handgun in public, either concealed or openly, under certain circumstances. Plaintiff alleged that the County violated the Second Amendment by enforcing against him the State’s limitations in section 134-9 on the open carry of firearms to those "engaged in the protection of life and property" and on the concealed carry of firearms to those who can demonstrate an "exceptional case."

    The panel acknowledged that while the concealed carry of firearms categorically falls outside Second Amendment
    protection,
    see Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 939 (2016) (en banc), it was satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense. Analyzing the text of the Second Amendment and reviewing the relevant history, including founding-era treatises and nineteenth century case law, the panel stated that it was unpersuaded by the County’s and the State’s argument that the Second Amendment only has force within the home. The panel stated that once identified as an individual right focused on self-defense, the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public. The panel held that because Hawaii law restricted plaintiff in exercising the right to carry a firearm openly, it burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment.

    In determining the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to section 134-9, the panel first held that the right to carry a firearm openly for self-defense falls within the core of the Second Amendment. The panel stated that 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. The panel reasoned that the typical, law-abiding citizen in the State of Hawaii was entirely foreclosed from exercising the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense. The panel concluded that Hawaii’s limitation on the open carry of firearms to those "engaged in the protection of life and property" violated the core of the Second Amendment and was void under any level of scrutiny.

    Dissenting, Judge Clifton stated the majority opinion disregarded the fact that states and territories in a variety of regions have long allowed for extensive regulations of and limitations on the public carry of firearms. Judge Clifton wrote that such regulations are presumptively lawful
     

    Hatin Since 87

    Bacon Hater
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2018
    11,402
    77
    Mooresville
    Don’t forget the part of the 2nd amendment that mentions “with a proper license issued by the government” :rolleyes:

    Seriously tho, since they now have a ruling from heller, and now this, although just a panel decision for the time being, couldn’t this be used as a strong case for national constitutional carry?
     

    DeadeyeChrista'sdad

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Feb 28, 2009
    10,071
    149
    winchester/farmland
    Hey, hey now. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Imagine the chaos! People running around, exercising their God given rights! Unleashing American creativity upon the world! Unsupervised by a nanny state? Terrifying!
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Don’t forget the part of the 2nd amendment that mentions “with a proper license issued by the government” :rolleyes:

    Seriously tho, since they now have a ruling from heller, and now this, although just a panel decision for the time being, couldn’t this be used as a strong case for national constitutional carry?
    Yes.

    Actually, it would be THE case establishing national constitutional (open) carry. Probably.

    A couple excerpts.

    Footnote 9 kinda rocks.

    The dissent faults our reliance on decisions from the South, implying that the thorough analysis found in such opinions must have been the product of a “culture where slavery, honor, violence, and the public carrying of weapons were intertwined.” Dissent at 6 (citations and quotations omitted). To say the least, we are puzzled. The dissent overlooks the fact that the Southern cases on which we rely only arose because the legislatures in those states had enacted restrictions on the public carry of firearms. Indeed, were it the case that the Southern culture of slavery animated concerns to protect the right to open carry, why would the Georgia legislature have sought to ban open carry in the first place?

    Kinda curious that Indiana's laws and caselaw wasn't referenced. We get no respect.

    Regardless...
    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.

    Much, MUCH, deference to Heller. In fact, there's a not-so-implicit (maybe not even implicit at all) understanding that without Heller, a different result would have been reached.

    This is actually a very readable opinion (IMHO) and I would encourage INGOers to read it!

    ETA
    I don't think I've ever seen so many exclamation marks in an appellate opinion. Seriously! It actually makes it seem less credible!
     
    Last edited:

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    National Review article.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/open-carry-ruling-ninth-circuit-protects-gun-rights/?utm_

    Judge O’Scannlain dissects the dissent’s argument that the Founders would have permitted governments to impose preemptive limitations on carry rights

    The dissent erroneously characterizes surety laws as imposing a severe restriction on the public carry of weapons absent good cause to fear injury. And its analysis of the actual historical evidence is, in a word, cursory. While the dissent focuses on the exception to the surety requirement for carriers with a specialized need for self-defense, it ignores the clearly limited scope of the requirement in the first place: only upon a well-founded complaint that the carrier threatened “injury or a breach of the peace” did the good cause exception come into play, “by exempting even the accused” from the burden of paying sureties. . . . Thus, “[a] showing of special need did not expand carrying for the responsible; it shrank burdens on carrying by the (allegedly) reckless.”

    The dissent might wish to set aside the requirements to complain under surety laws, but we suspect those who actually did complain under such laws would hesitate before treating the requirements so lightly. Were a complainant to bring an “unfounded, frivolous or malicious” claim that an arms carrier threatened the public peace, the magistrate would not only dismiss the complaint, but also hold the complainant “answerable to the magistrate and the officer for their fees.”

    From the author's analysis,

    when dealing with weapons in common use for lawful purposes, the form of gun control that is best designed to preserve public safety — while also respecting constitutional rights — is gun control that is individualized and evidence-based, based on the user, not general, based on the weapon.
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,726
    113
    Indianapolis
    I'll drop this here, since it's pretty small.

    In a 2-1 decision, 9th Cir. rejects Second Amendment challenge to California laws requiring that all new model handguns sold have anti-accidental discharge and tracer features; holds there is no constitutional right to any particular subset of handguns.

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/03/15-15449.pdf

    DjsfzW8WwAEVCMT.jpg:large
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Heller allows for quality-oriented regulations.

    Kinda comforting, though, to see the 9th revert back to its old self.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,863
    113
    Merrillville
    I'll drop this here, since it's pretty small.

    In a 2-1 decision, 9th Cir. rejects Second Amendment challenge to California laws requiring that all new model handguns sold have anti-accidental discharge and tracer features; holds there is no constitutional right to any particular subset of handguns.

    http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/03/15-15449.pdf

    DjsfzW8WwAEVCMT.jpg:large

    Maybe they should reject it, due to it being a defacto ban.

    How would they react to a law that requires all printer ink, pen ink, and pencil "lead" to be DNA traceable to the person writing?
     

    JJFII

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 1, 2018
    203
    18
    Anderson
    Maybe they should reject it, due to it being a defacto ban.

    How would they react to a law that requires all printer ink, pen ink, and pencil "lead" to be DNA traceable to the person writing?

    They actually dont have an issue with any of that. California isnt a free state. Not just about firearms, but all freedoms are privileges granted to its citizens unless they decide otherwise. The entire State penal code revolves are what the AG and 58 DAs say as well as what the CLEOs in each of the 58 DA counties wants. California Government doesnt follow its own laws unless ordered to do so my USSC.

    A few sessions ago it was determined that the new Anti-AW law would not pass due to budget restrains...so how do you think they got around that aspect of the law... simple. They asked the State Treasury Controller to wait out side while they asked his empty chair if there was anything about the Bill the State should note... Not kidding ... its on video. Since he wasnt there to testify that the Bill would violate the States budget crisis policy... it passed.
     

    2A_Tom

    Crotchety old member!
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Sep 27, 2010
    25,979
    113
    NWI
    I expected this lets hope Kavanaugh gets seated before this reaches the Supreme Court.
     

    DRob

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Aug 2, 2008
    5,869
    83
    Southside of Indy
    I'm trying to imagine the mechanism which would stamp a gun's make, model and serial number on each fired case. They made this ruling despite acknowledging such technology doesn't exist. That's a panel of imbeciles!
     

    IndyTom

    Expert
    Rating - 87.5%
    7   1   0
    Oct 3, 2013
    1,336
    63
    Fishers
    I'm trying to imagine the mechanism which would stamp a gun's make, model and serial number on each fired case. They made this ruling despite acknowledging such technology doesn't exist. That's a panel of imbeciles!

    If I read correctly, 'Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist,' was the basic justification.
     

    gglass

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Dec 2, 2008
    2,313
    63
    ELKHART
    If I read correctly, 'Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist,' was the basic justification.

    That's correct. The next CA law to be passed will now state that only Star Trek style phasers can be sold in California, but only if the maximum "disintegrate" setting has been disabled. So it looks like Californians will have to wait a while to buy their new gun, er... Phaser.
     
    Top Bottom