JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

Saw it originally while scrolling from this:

Cannot find many other sources currently beyond LAtimes. I am sure shortly more will report.

More reporting:
States may restrict people from openly carrying guns in public, U.S. appeals court rules | KTLA
Fortunately we have one court that is higher than the 9th Circus. And I do use 'higher' literally when referencing the 9th. Unfortunately, that higher court is also ruled by John Roberts.
 
If I were to guess....I would say the 9th is deliberately posturing to force a trip to the SCOTUS. In view of recent events, no better time than now to test the Heller waters.

I know that the Supremes rarely back step their own previous rulings, but think of the fecal storm in which we find ourselves.......... both sides of the capitol in control by the dark side and the WH occupied by Darth Bite-me.

Add to that, "Saint Scalia the Just" is long gone and I find little solace with his recently appointed intern.
 
Last Edited:
I read all the posts in this thread before commenting now.

The Young v. Hawaii en banc panel majority opinion is limited to "small and concealable arms." According to the seven judges in the majority, all "small and concealable arms" including Tasers are what Heller referred to as "dangerous and unusual weapons" which are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

It is my three-judge panel who will decide if there is a right to openly carry a firearm outside the doors to our homes. My three-judge panel includes the judge who wrote the majority en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii.

Yesterday, May 11, 2021, the cert petition was filed in Young v. Hawaii.

A link to the cert petition can be found at my website -> https://californiaopencarry.com/you...7808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/
 
I find it sad that the victims may be lawfully disarmed, while we all know just what impediment the law presents to the criminals in our society--none & yet wasn't the Constitution & Bill of Rights written in order that the common citizen be protected (or at least be allowed to protect themselves)?
 
I find it sad that the victims may be lawfully disarmed, while we all know just what impediment the law presents to the criminals in our society--none & yet wasn't the Constitution & Bill of Rights written in order that the common citizen be protected (or at least be allowed to protect themselves)?
All of society hangs by a few threads.

1) The food supply chain. We're always 9 meals away from total anarchy.

2) The extreme vast majority of the populace following the law. Something like Between 2-10% of the population are responsible for all the crime in the nation. If people in mass just started ignoring the law and doing as they pleased, the whole system would fall apart as well.

3) People believing and experiencing that they actually will benefit from working hard and following the rules. Because if they learn time and time again that they don't, following the rules isn't desirable anymore because it doesn't achieve desirable results.

The tremendous growth and success we experience as Americans has stemmed from a state of "order," where the best of society has been allowed to safely (generally speaking) thrive. The worst of society thrives on states of "chaos" and all the best parts of society wither and die during it.

Small examples of this are sites of BLM riots where buildings are torched and neighborhoods are destroyed.

Large examples of this can be found by looking around the world at places that exist in states of chaos over long periods of time.
 
I read all the posts in this thread before commenting now.

The Young v. Hawaii en banc panel majority opinion is limited to "small and concealable arms." According to the seven judges in the majority, all "small and concealable arms" including Tasers are what Heller referred to as "dangerous and unusual weapons" which are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

It is my three-judge panel who will decide if there is a right to openly carry a firearm outside the doors to our homes. My three-judge panel includes the judge who wrote the majority en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii.

Yesterday, May 11, 2021, the cert petition was filed in Young v. Hawaii.

A link to the cert petition can be found at my website -> https://californiaopencarry.com/you...7808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/
I have been waiting patiently for resolution on this case. Hopefully it comes soon and is good news for Mr Young.
 
There are some great statements in that cert. :)

From page 20...

U.S. Const. amend. II. App.337. Dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Rogers v. Grewal, 140 S. Ct. 1865, 1869 (2020), Justice Thomas stated that "it would take serious linguistic gymnastics—and a repudiation of this Court's decisionin Heller—to claim that the phrase 'bear Arms' does not extend the Second Amendment beyond the home." In a move that surprised no one, the Ninth Circuit accepted that challenge and proclaimed the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home. See Mai v. United States, 974 F.3d 1082, 1105 (9th Cir. 2020) (Vandyke, J., dissenting) ("Even when our panels have struck down laws that violate the Second Amendment, our court rushes in en banc to reverse course.")
 
I'm guessing allowing armed citizens outside the home makes it too difficult for criminals to ply their trade :eek:
Ya see, the right that the founders were trying to enshrine in 2a was the right to carry a gun from your bedroom to the kitchen. They totally didn't mean for us to be able to carry guns outside. I mean, they couldn't have the militia running around with guns outside because, like, that would be dangerous Yo!
 

Saw it originally while scrolling from this:

Cannot find many other sources currently beyond LAtimes. I am sure shortly more will report.

More reporting:
States may restrict people from openly carrying guns in public, U.S. appeals court rules | KTLA
If and when it ever gets to the USSC, it will be overturned. The 9th Circus is the most overturned Court in the land.
 
If and when it ever gets to the USSC, it will be overturned. The 9th Circus is the most overturned Court in the land.
The Times requires a subscription and so I don't know what the article said but the Young v. Hawaii en banc opinion limited itself to "small and concealable" arms. The opinion held that small and concealable arms are not protected by the Second Amendment, and therefore there is no right to carry them, openly or concealed.

The threshold question in Young v. Hawaii was whether or not the Second Amendment extends outside of one's home. The Young v. Hawaii opinion never answered that question.

That is the question my three-judge panel must now answer.
 
Small concealable handguns predate the Constitution & Bill of Rights, so of course they are covered

That isn't how the Constitution works.

If it were not for the Heller and McDonald opinions then one could easily make the case that "small and concealable" arms are not protected by the Second Amendment based on the history and tradition of the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms under state analogs to the Second Amendment.

The Heller and McDonald opinions were a gift. A gift that the so-called gun-rights groups have squandered.
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top