Young v. Hawaii (CA9); Dismissed with predjudice 12-16-22

[Paladin]

I don't believe so, the Court was quite clear that states can regulate the manner in which weapons are carried, but could not eliminate the public carrying of arms altogether. Hawaii, and California, can pick conceal-carry or open-carry, they cannot ban both. A denial of conceal carry would naturally infer a right to open carry, or the 9th risks incurring the Court's wrath. The only way Young is mooted is if Young is granted some form of the right to carry in public, whatever form that takes.

Best not to rely upon inferences that the historical record could trump.

J. Thomas:

In fact, however, the history reveals a consensus that States could not ban public carry altogether. Respondents’ cited opinions agreed that concealed-carry prohibitions were constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit open carry . . . All told, these antebellum state-court decisions evince a consensus view that States could not altogether prohibit the public carry of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment or state analogues . . .

Were there “cited opinions” that OC could be banned if CC were available? Or is that an assumption?

Charles Nichols does NOT want to carry in any manner. He wants to OC period. If he loses at the 3-judge because of Bruen I fully expect him to request review or en banc appeal and to appeal to SCOTUS if necessary.

[guntrust]

I don't believe so, the Court was quite clear that states can regulate the manner in which weapons are carried, but could not eliminate the public carrying of arms altogether. Hawaii, and California, can pick conceal-carry or open-carry, they cannot ban both. A denial of conceal carry would naturally infer a right to open carry, or the 9th risks incurring the Court's wrath. The only way Young is mooted is if Young is granted some form of the right to carry in public, whatever form that takes.

Agreed. Bruen has some very nice, persuasive dicta about Open Carry and it definitely seems the Court views it as superior, less susceptible to regulation. But i don't go as far as Charles does, saying that's a holding. Relevant and persuasive but not controlling, yet. Eventually demand for regulating unseen horrors by creating victim disarmament zones will run head on into Bruen, and the wonderful dicta will at that point become holding. States must eventually accept the fact that if they want to regulate CC, they will need to allow freer, relatively unregulated OC.

There is a Soviet tradition, but no American tradition, of allowing CC but banning OC. For good reason.

My analysis of Bruen:

https://lawnews.tv/nysrpa-v-bruen-exceeds-expectations-dicta-strongly-favors-open-carry/

My response to Bonta's GMC nonsense:

https://lawnews.tv/california-ag-ditches-good-cause-pitches-moral-character-for-ccw-denial-what-is-bonta-smoking/

[abinsinia]

Bruen I fully expect him to request review or en banc appeal and to appeal to SCOTUS if necessary.

I think "Respondents" is New York State. So Thomas is saying they gave cases which would allow them to ban concealed carry, which makes sense they would provide that.

[Paladin]

I think "Respondents" is New York State. So Thomas is saying they gave cases which would allow them to ban concealed carry, which makes sense they would provide that.

Thats my point: These parties researched history to support their positions. Charles Nichols researched history to support his slightly different position. Hopefully he’s found strong evidence that OC (LOC in CA), is “THE Right” that “shall not be infringed.”

Can you imagine if voters were required to pass psychological exams before being allowed to vote??? California would flip to the deepest, darkest Red there is!

[TruOil]

True, but Young may be satisfied with concealed and not want to pursue open carry if HI forthwith says here is your concealed permit before the 9th takes any action.

At present, Hawaii does not have two permits. It has one carry permit that allows the holder to carry openly or concealed. Hawaii has to know that its no issue policy is dead, and it may have to come up with a valid permitting system from whole cloth if it wants to try to restrict carrying of non-LEO, non-security personnel. Or it can just throw up its hands, admit defeat, and let everyone have a permit to carry openly or concealed as they please. (Snort!)

[rplaw]

At present, Hawaii does not have two permits. It has one carry permit that allows the holder to carry openly or concealed. Hawaii has to know that its no issue policy is dead, and it may have to come up with a valid permitting system from whole cloth if it wants to try to restrict carrying of non-LEO, non-security personnel. Or it can just throw up its hands, admit defeat, and let everyone have a permit to carry openly or concealed as they please. (Snort!)

Or no permit at all. (hah, MY snort is bigger than yours. )


Frankly, I cannot see how the legislature in Hi or Ca gets around the fact that Thomas held that we have a Right to bear arms in public. He didn't say bear arms concealed, he said arms in public. Period. How that meshes with a permit system doesn't seem viable to me. It might to others, but to me, requiring a permit to exercise a Right, or else face criminal prosecution, means the Right is still being treated as a privilege.

I understand that there's language in the decision about the State being able to regulate concealed carry, but that's for concealed carry, not open carry. Since Hi only has 1 permit system for both modes of carry, it infringes on OC by requiring a permit to exercise the Right. Under Bruen, that's disallowed.

[curtisfong]

Time, place, manner - with regards to GFSZ

The bill would also remove the exception for an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed that is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle, thereby expanding the scope of an existing crime and imposing a state-mandated local program.

with regards to airports (etc)

This bill would expand that prohibition to include any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal or a public transit facility, as specified. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

CA is going to make it impossible to transport arms.

https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/SB918/

[kuug]

Or no permit at all. (hah, MY snort is bigger than yours. )


Frankly, I cannot see how the legislature in Hi or Ca gets around the fact that Thomas held that we have a Right to bear arms in public. He didn't say bear arms concealed, he said arms in public. Period. How that meshes with a permit system doesn't seem viable to me. It might to others, but to me, requiring a permit to exercise a Right, or else face criminal prosecution, means the Right is still being treated as a privilege.

I understand that there's language in the decision about the State being able to regulate concealed carry, but that's for concealed carry, not open carry. Since Hi only has 1 permit system for both modes of carry, it infringes on OC by requiring a permit to exercise the Right. Under Bruen, that's disallowed.

Give Bruen another read, Thomas said mode of carry can be regulated, but public carry cannot be completely barred. Meaning, states can ban open or concealed, but not both.

[Calbix]

Give Bruen another read, Thomas said mode of carry can be regulated, but public carry cannot be completely barred. Meaning, states can ban open or concealed, but not both.

[dawgcasa]

Time, place, manner - with regards to GFSZ


with regards to airports (etc)


CA is going to make it impossible to transport arms.

https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/SB918/

So it will technically still be legal to check in your baggage at the airline counter with a declared unloaded firearm in a locked container within it … but it will be illegal to get that firearm TO the check in counter.

Lunacy ensues as California’s liberal legislatures try to figure out new ways to make lawful “keep and bear” in public an arcane quilt of overlapping illegal areas of carrying, even with a CCW permit.

[guntrust]

Give Bruen another read, Thomas said mode of carry can be regulated, but public carry cannot be completely barred. Meaning, states can ban open or concealed, but not both.

A tiny number of states regulated manner of carrying openly (type, size of handgun), but that is not a tradition. There is no American tradition, during the relevant period, of regulating manner of open carry.

[Jared1981]

Or no permit at all. (hah, MY snort is bigger than yours. )


Frankly, I cannot see how the legislature in Hi or Ca gets around the fact that Thomas held that we have a Right to bear arms in public. He didn't say bear arms concealed, he said arms in public. Period. How that meshes with a permit system doesn't seem viable to me. It might to others, but to me, requiring a permit to exercise a Right, or else face criminal prosecution, means the Right is still being treated as a privilege.

I understand that there's language in the decision about the State being able to regulate concealed carry, but that's for concealed carry, not open carry. Since Hi only has 1 permit system for both modes of carry, it infringes on OC by requiring a permit to exercise the Right. Under Bruen, that's disallowed.

[BPK]

No, the removal of that exemption is only for school zones.

Otherwise, nobody could buy firearms at all (you couldn't get them out of the gun store)

curtisfong took that out of context.

[curtisfong]

curtisfong took that out of context.

I did not. See for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

There are at least a dozen removals. Airports and GFSZs are two of the most egregious since they cover even unloaded/locked.

[cleonard]

I did not. See for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

There are at least a dozen removals. Airports and GFSZs are two of the most egregious since they cover even unloaded/locked.

All this will accomplish is a faster unravelling of California's unconstitutional gun regulation scheme. They are in denial big time.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G using Tapatalk