TexasCHLforum.com

Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.

ELB wrote:So this brings us to the conclusion that if the 2A is judged to protect the right to carry arms in public, but concealed carry is not, then open carry must be constitutionally protected.

I'll bet the majority of the en banc would not like that outcome.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ELB wrote:So this brings us to the conclusion that if the 2A is judged to protect the right to carry arms in public, but concealed carry is not, then open carry must be constitutionally protected.

I'll bet the majority of the en banc would not like that outcome.

That was not the outcome of case. The Peruta court expressly stated that it was not reaching the issue of open-carry in public. It's clear that court (9th Cir.) would not hold that there is a right outside one's home.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.

Chas.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.

Chas.

Charles, this is the defendant's appeal of the earlier 9th circuit's 3 judge panel decision which protected concealed carry?

In any case, don't Heller and McDonald supersede any 9th circuit decision?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, this is the defendant's appeal of the earlier 9th circuit's 3 judge panel decision which protected concealed carry?

In any case, don't Heller and McDonald supersede any 9th circuit decision?

Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.Chas.