Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

3
From the decision:
“There may or may not be a
Second Amendment right for a member of the general public
to carry a firearm openly in public
. The Supreme Court has
not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.”
I think California will be a special case, as we have the Mulford Act which specifically prohibits open carry. A person who is denied a concealed carry permit is disarmed in public because open carry is prohibited. The case must be that specific, and it must over turn the Mulford Act while allowing counties to regulate with "may" issue concealed permits. My take only.

I certainly am glad the Court is looking, at any rate.

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
Broken heart don't feel so bad, you ain't got half of what you thought you had.
Rock you baby to and fro--not too fast and not too slow.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

4
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:37 pm...it will take some interesting gymnastics to square striking this ruling, Peruta and Heller.
The judges of the full 9th will have no problem reversing this ruling, regardless of what kind of convoluted logic they have to write into the majority opinions. The goal is known; the judges simply will have to write opinions getting there.

This mess from the 4th Circuit on Maryland's AWB and mag ban (Kolbe v. Hogan) is an example:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/upl ... pinion.pdf

Was discussed here: Federal Appeals Court: assault weapons have No 2A protection

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

5
CDFingers wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:59 pm From the decision:
“There may or may not be a
Second Amendment right for a member of the general public
to carry a firearm openly in public
. The Supreme Court has
not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.”
I think California will be a special case, as we have the Mulford Act which specifically prohibits open carry. A person who is denied a concealed carry permit is disarmed in public because open carry is prohibited. The case must be that specific, and it must over turn the Mulford Act while allowing counties to regulate with "may" issue concealed permits. My take only.

I certainly am glad the Court is looking, at any rate.

CDFingers
For clarity, CDFinger's quote is from 2016's Peruta, not 2018's Young. Young is pretty specific that some form of carry must be allowed and that laws that prohibit such are unconstitutional. If could be argued that California's system is the exact opposite, but equally restrictive in many counties, of the law Young challenged. Open carry is illegal everywhere by California law. Many counties issue virtually no concealed carry licenses (only to special classes--rich, judges, etc.) with appropriate good cause (very similar to that for open carry license in Young), effectively the same program Hawaii was employing. Time will tell.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

6
DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:52 pm
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:37 pm...it will take some interesting gymnastics to square striking this ruling, Peruta and Heller.
The judges of the full 9th will have no problem reversing this ruling, regardless of what kind of convoluted logic they have to write into the majority opinions. The goal is known; the judges simply will have to write opinions getting there.

This mess from the 4th Circuit on Maryland's AWB and mag ban (Kolbe v. Hogan) is an example:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/upl ... pinion.pdf

Was discussed here: Federal Appeals Court: assault weapons have No 2A protection
Oh, I'm sure they'll find a way, just like they did with Peruta (where the State didn't even have standing to intervene). The only good to that is, the more outrageous and intellectually dishonest their logic, the more potential there is that the Supreme Court will take it on appeal. At some point (we just saw it in Young and in the original magazine injunction ruling), the courts will incorporate an honest reading of Heller and McDonald.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

7
Right. This is also where the supreme court may well take on the appeal this time, as there is substantial dissent in the lower courts and this is a very narrow case which seems to be what the supremes seem to prefer, allowing for one or the other as an acceptable answer, but banning both effectively not being acceptable. Will be some time before it shakes out though- probably another year for the en banc to come back and counter it, then the final appeal to the supreme court, and then whether or not they take the case.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

9
CDFingers wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:21 pm The Court must over turn Mulford, or it must require Shall Issue for California.

CDFingers
Correct. The question in my mind is whether or not that will require another 10+ year legal battle or will sheriffs begin to change policy to shall issue to save on County legal fees. Most sheriffs don't want openly armed people roaming the streets--open carry. Shall issue is the easier path and has been shown to be OK in the majority of CA counties (streets aren't running in blood yet, anyway). But that would require logic and reason, arguably in short supply in politics.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

11
shinzen wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:57 pm Yup. Sadly I believe it will be the former rather than the latter for most of the rest- but if the case is won, perhaps even the threat of an initial suit will get it done. I'll be interested to see how the new Chief of Police in my town decides to roll.
We've got a new sheriff in Sonoma County beginning of 2019, so same situation as you. The old sheriff issued only to those of the special class, and rarely at that.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

16
As a start California needs to be a Shall issue state and put theCHL in the hands of testate and not the local high sheriff. Do it like Texas and put it in the same area as DPS or in California I believe it is CHP. Then go for open carry for those with a CHL as stage two. But get all gun control away from the local governments.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer-Kissinger
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.-Swift

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

18
TrueTexan wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:41 am As a start California needs to be a Shall issue state and put theCHL in the hands of testate and not the local high sheriff. Do it like Texas and put it in the same area as DPS or in California I believe it is CHP. Then go for open carry for those with a CHL as stage two. But get all gun control away from the local governments.
I have no issue with ccw being done by local LEO, provided it is an administrative process without the good cause subjectivity (I think background checks and training are a good idea for a license, being politically connected, not so much). The majority of CA counties are now shall issue and it seems to work fine. I'm not a fan of open carry, so am hopeful this ruling will provoke more sheriffs (mine, especially) to go shall issue to reduce the roving hoards of openly armed citizens that might frighten away out tourists. ;)

CA doesn't have an open carry licensing program (as yet).

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

21
TrueTexan wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:41 am As a start California needs to be a Shall issue state and put theCHL in the hands of testate and not the local high sheriff. Do it like Texas and put it in the same area as DPS or in California I believe it is CHP. Then go for open carry for those with a CHL as stage two. But get all gun control away from the local governments.
Yes. The Texas CCW approach looks like it’s been an effective way to recognize responsible gun owners as public safety stakeholders. I especially like your idea of matching a citizen’s level of carry-permitting to her degree of public safety training and skill. It’s hard to picture that approach working at anything lower than the state level.

If California could maturely resolve its schizoid love-hate of firearms, I wouldn’t be surprised if it even improved on the Texas system.

For comparison, Community Emergency Response Team, National Emergency Technology Guard, Fire Corps, Medical Reserve and other programs have been very successful at equipping specially trained volunteers (one might say well-regulated volunteers) to work effectively alongside professional responders in the event of natural or humanmade disasters. It would be consistent with the Second Amendment to match one’s level of public-carry permission to her volunteer commitment to public safety and protection. The Constitution describes the RKBA as a civil right paired with civic duty.

In other words, more Kennedy and less Nugent — the folks who insist that the RKBA was intended to empower gun owners for tantrums against their own government and fellow Americans have it so assbackwards. The First Amendment is how citizens participate responsibly in democratic society; the Second Amendment is about citizens protecting that society from those who don’t.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

22
BlueHunsaker wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:31 pm For comparison, Community Emergency Response Team, National Emergency Technology Guard, Fire Corps, Medical Reserve and other programs have been very successful at equipping specially trained volunteers (one might say well-regulated volunteers) to work effectively alongside professional responders in the event of natural or humanmade disasters. It would be consistent with the Second Amendment to match one’s level of public-carry permission to her volunteer commitment to public safety and protection. The Constitution describes the RKBA as a civil right paired with civic duty.
While I like part of this approach and fully endorse the programs you list, it's important to note that the US Supreme Court has found the Second Amendment to be an individual right, not a collective right, and that self-defense is the core of that right (see Heller and McDonald). We must be consistent with the law of the land if we hope to advance/preserve that right--thus the decision that the 2A secures an open carry right (or some other form of "bear").

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

23
So that’s a really good point. I don’t mean to suggest that the RKBA is not an individual right, or one that can’t be expressed publicly. Rather that — like the right to free speech — the time, place and manner in which it’s expressed is subject to some collective accountability. There are so many ways to “bear arms,” and individuals should be able to earn greater rights to carry in public, rather than restricting them for everyone, all-or-nothing, as we do now. That accountability should be subject to intermediate (or even strict) scrutiny insofar as it relates to the individual’s demonstrated commitment to public safety.

Could that square with Heller?

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

24
BlueHunsaker wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:56 pm So that’s a really good point. I don’t mean to suggest that the RKBA is not an individual right, or one that can’t be expressed publicly. Rather that — like the right to free speech — the time, place and manner in which it’s expressed is subject to some collective accountability. There are so many ways to “bear arms,” and individuals should be able to earn greater rights to carry in public, rather than restricting them for everyone, all-or-nothing, as we do now. That accountability should be subject to intermediate (or even strict) scrutiny insofar as it relates to the individual’s demonstrated commitment to public safety.

Could that square with Heller?
I was mostly busting your chops on the collective vs. individual thing. It's important to present the meaning of the 2A correctly, however. I suspect that lots of people read these forums, so the information we put out there should be as factually accurate as possible.

I like your idea and have, in fact, thought of using emergency preparedness as part of my good cause statement for a CCW (sheriff doesn't issue in my county, so haven't made a final decision to apply or not--serious uphill battle!). It's interesting that FEMA, LEOs, Calfire and other emergency responders (correctly) push the self preparedness agenda in so many things but defense is not even a part of the message.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron