Other State Have Courts decided that concealed carry is protected by 2A?

[arakboss]

I was watching a court session on Youtube in the Young vs Hawaii case. I believe it was the 9th Circuit they were in. The three judges seemed to indicate that the 2A does not protect the right to conceal carry. Is anybody aware of a court decision that affirmed the right of concealed carry being protected by the 2A.

It seems like a no brainer to me since the 2A doesn't specify the right to bear arms in the open only.

Read More

 

[The Heretic]

Two problems with courts:

1) They give too much credibility to precedent, no matter how far it strays from the law, especially the Bill of Rights.

2) They do not give enough effort to objective logic and first principles, and give too much credence to subjectivity.

 

[arakboss]

Two problems with courts:

1) They give too much credibility to precedent, no matter how far it strays from the law, especially the Bill of Rights.

2) They do not give enough effort to objective logic and first principles, and give too much credence to subjectivity.

Edit: My understanding is that a government can ban one or the other as long as one carry option is available which seems ridiculous. Now I am wondering if there was a court decision that indicated the 2A protects both the right to open carry and conceal carry in the same jurisdiction?

 

[arakboss]

I was watching a court session on Youtube in the Young vs Hawaii case. I believe it was the 9th Circuit they were in. The three judges seemed to indicate that the 2A does not protect the right to conceal carry. Is anybody aware of a court decision that affirmed the right of concealed carry being protected by the 2A.

It seems like a no brainer to me since the 2A doesn't specify the right to bear arms in the open only.

Edit: never mind I determined that concealed carry is protected by the 2A if open carry is not available.

 

[arakboss]

My confusion is this. If open carry and concealed carry are protected by the 2A why can they ban one or the other? If handguns and long guns are both protected by the 2A can a State ban one or the other?

 

[Ura-Ki]

You are applying logic, rarely do the courts afford the same! Unfortunately, courts are made up of former lawyers who don't operate to the same standards of the law, they only interpret what ever they want to meet the needs of the people in charge in each state, it's why we see such a push to appoint liberal judges, who then become beholden to those who appointed them, and in whom they align politically! Gone are the days when a Judge was above all politics, and answered to no politicians or other authority but the LAW! These days, judges only read what they want to read of our Constitution and apply only that which aligns with their ideals! The notion of a "Living Document" is completely false, those documents were very specific to how they were interpreted and how they could be changed to meet the needs of the times and for change! As we all know, the mechanics of making changes are designed to be as difficult as possible, the Judges and by extension, politicians liberally apply the laws as they see fit, effectively side stepping the process required to make changes! Further more, we choose not to hold these judges up to review for these rulings, so we are stuck with bad precedent each time they stray from the actual law! The can claim they are following the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law, but unless and until they are held in review against the actual law, we find ourselves behind the 8 ball each and every time! Just look at the Heller vs D.C. ruling, and how states are ignoring it, or claiming it is too narrow, or some how voided by the 10th and powers reserved to the state! WRONG, but our system isn't holding the states feet to the fire to comply, so SCOTUS rulings are effectively nullified! If the highest court in the land can be over ridden by the state, then why have it at all? Why even have courts if the states can choose what to follow and what to ignore? And lets not even get started on Gov'ners and State Attorney Generals who are the biggest violators of the laws!

 

[03A3Sporter]

My confusion is this. If open carry and concealed carry are protected by the 2A why can they ban one or the other? If handguns and long guns are both protected by the 2A can a State ban one or the other?

Herein lies the rub , even though it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that you have a right to keep and bear arms. The supreme court and lower circuit courts have over and over again have maintained that government has a right to regulate as long as it doesn't outwardly or totally ban the right to own and use firearms.

The problem with that logic is that with enough regulation it might as well be a defacto total ban if the regulation becomes onerous enough that to exercise your rights you experience extreme difficulty with complying .


Furthermore one is deluded if you ever think the government will proclaim that it doesn't have a right to regulate whatever it chooses to

 

[arakboss]

Herein lies the rub , even though it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that you have a right to keep and bear arms. The supreme court and lower circuit courts have over and over again have maintained that government has a right to regulate as long as it doesn't outwardly or totally ban the right to own and use firearms.

The problem with that logic is that with enough regulation it might as well be a defacto total ban if the regulation becomes onerous enough that to exercise your rights you experience extreme difficulty with complying .

I think that is exactly what Young is trying to resolve in his case. Hawaii has a path on paper for somebody to get a permit to open carry but they have not issued a permit, ever. That sounds like a defacto ban to me. My worry is that Hawaii may decide to issue a few permits to favored applicants in an attempt to have the case become moot. Basically they might try to pull a New York. The case seems stalled at the moment but I have hopes that some of Trumps picks will provide a positive outcome when the case resumes.

 

[sobo]

I believe it was the 9th Circuit they were in.

Seems like lot of the problem lies right there...

 

[arakboss]

Seems like lot of the problem lies right there...

It's the path that has to be taken. If the 9th screws Young then he can appeal to the top dogs. Trump has made improvements in the 9th so we'll have to see.

 

[sobo]

I get that. Not arguing, just disgusted with the liberal politics of our appeals court...

 

[arakboss]

I get that. Not arguing, just disgusted with the liberal politics of our appeals court...

Me too

 

[Stomper]

Two problems with courts:

1) They give too much credibility to precedent, no matter how far it strays from the law, especially the Bill of Rights.

2) They do not give enough effort to objective logic and first principles, and give too much credence to subjectivity.

You forgot the third and MOST important problem.... they're just a bunch FRAKIN' lawyers wearing black robes....

 

[TTSX]

I suppose it depends on the 1700s definition of "bearing" arms? Don't know, man. Doesn't seem to matter what rights are when "feelings" are involved.

 

[Nibbs]

I suppose it depends on the 1700s definition of "bearing" arms? Don't know, man. Doesn't seem to matter what rights are when "feelings" are involved.

YUP!!
Feelings morph into/ Are Emotions, and
EMOTIONS TEND TO BLIND THE INTELLECT!!!


"PARITY ARMAMENT!!".

PRIMARY REASON:
"TO DEFEND AGAINST
TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT!!"..


Also, GVMNT AT ANY LEVEL ABSOLUTELY HAS NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO MESS WITH ANY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS....

THEY ARE THERE ENUMERATING CERTAIN CONCEPTS WHERE
"WE THE PEOPLE" CAN DRAW THE PROVERBIAL LINE IN THE SAND!

PERIOD...

 

[Nibbs]

Two problems with courts:

1) They give too much credibility to precedent, no matter how far it strays from the law, especially the Bill of Rights.

2) They do not give enough effort to objective logic and first principles, and give too much credence to subjectivity.

YUP!!!

That is because THEY ARE NOT
"COURTS OF LAW" = "AT LAW" UPHOLDING THE
CONSTITUTION FOR THE STATES UNITED UNDER IT!

 

[CedarGlen]

Edit: My understanding is that a government can ban one or the other as long as one carry option is available which seems ridiculous. Now I am wondering if there was a court decision that indicated the 2A protects both the right to open carry and conceal carry in the same jurisdiction?

That's one theory. It's one that Alan Gura postualted in one of the CA carry cases. The first question is the 'bear' one. Does the Second Amendment a home-bound right, or is there some right to carry an arm outside of the home. If there is, it's probably reasonable to expect that the government can place limited time, place, and manner restrictions on the public carrying of firearms. e.g. prohibit concealed carry as long as open carry is allowed, or the other way around.

Edit: never mind I determined that concealed carry is protected by the 2A if open carry is not available.

It's good that you came to that conclusion. However, the Supreme Court has not (yet). At this time, the Second Amendment is a home-bound right. That may change. The Supreme Court has ten Second Amendment petitions under consideration. Most are carry cases. We may have a better idea on Monday (but probably not) on where this is going to go.

 

[Nibbs]

AT LAW,
meaning Subject to the US Constitution,
No Government Entity has
ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY,
HENCE LAWFUL POWER,
TO MESS WITH ANY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AT ALL...
PERIOD!!

Read the Complete Preamble to that Organic Document..

THEY LACK THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY TO EVEN TELL US WHAT IT MEANS
[DEFINE IT]
LET ALONE CHANGE IT..


THAT IS THE LAW...

It does beg the question w certain things
like Can we own a Nuke????

Nuther topic...

Gvmnt simply does whatever it feels like doing, and THEY HET AWAY WITH IT...