9th Circuit OPEN CARRY Ruling OVERTURNED?

[nortatoga]

This is not about OPEN CARRY v CONCEALED CARRY!

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I must be living under a rock. I though the 9th already heard a case like this, upheld the right to open carry, or more so told the state of California, they could ban one form of carry but not both. They must allow for at least one type of carry. Then it was heard enbanc and overturned.

 

[nortatoga]

It has not been heard en Banc yet.

And it is not about either or! It is about open carry only.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Peruta Vs. San Diego County is the case I'm thnking of. Peruta v. San Diego County - Wikipedia

 

[Marine Cpl]

Old video.

 

[nortatoga]

Old video.

Yes 7 months old, now going before the full Court en Banc but stayed waiting for results of the NYSRPA case.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes 7 months old, now going before the full Court en Banc but stayed waiting for results of the NYSRPA case.

You posted this in the other thread.

 

[nortatoga]

Yes I did!

 

[MadScientist]

It has not been heard enbanc yet.

And it is not about either or! It is about open carry only.

I believe the majority decision did in fact involve concealed carry. It stated we have a right to bear arms specifically, and as a result one or the other must be permitted. Since there was already a lower court ruling denying concealed carry, the majority felt compelled to uphold open, since one of these options must exist to satisfy the bearing of arms.

At least that was my understanding of it

 

[Shadow2]

Irrelevant because NY doesn't give a fuck what anyone says ... they are ignoring SCOTUS in regards to a knife case do you think they give a shit about guns.

 

[nortatoga]

Irrelevant because NY doesn't give a fuck what anyone says ... they are ignoring SCOTUS in regards to a knife case do you think they give a shit about guns.

A just what are they ignoring?

 

[Marine Cpl]

A just what are they ignoring?

The right to keep a handgun in the home. You know.... Just cause and all that. A concealed carry license that not everyone can get just to touch a handgun. It's May Issue instead of Shall Issue even though you can pass a NICS.

A DWI, open container, too many parking tickets and depending on your county, you aren't getting a handgun.

 

[nortatoga]

Irrelevant because NY doesn't give a fuck what anyone says ... they are ignoring SCOTUS in regards to a knife case do you think they give a shit about guns.

The right to keep a handgun in the home. You know.... Just cause and all that. A concealed carry license that not everyone can get just to touch a handgun. It's May Issue instead of Shall Issue even though you can pass a NICS.

A DWI, open container, too many parking tickets and depending on your county, you aren't getting a handgun.

@Willjr75 Just what does your post have to do with my asking @Shadow2 what NY is ignoring with the knife case ? The SCOTUS gave them till March 26 to respond, after that he may be right.

 

[Shadow2]

@Willjr75 Just what does your post have to do with my asking @Shadow2 what NY is ignoring with the knife case ? The SCOTUS gave them till March 26 to respond, after that he may be right.

They admittedly ignored the court and the case by saying the case didn't have merit. They still aren't required to respond because its just a request not a demand. I don't think they will respond to the case with anything less then they feel the case has no merit. Once again Ignoring the court.

 

[nortatoga]

They admittedly ignored the court and the case by saying the case didn't have merit. They still aren't required to respond because its just a request not a demand. I don't think they will respond to the case with anything less then they feel the case has no merit. Once again Ignoring the court.

Okay but until the 29th you don't know for sure if they are ignoring the Court, Do you? And for one thing the SCOTUS decides what has merit not NYC.

Correction it is the 29th.

 

[nortatoga]

I believe the majority decision did in fact involve concealed carry. It stated we have a right to bear arms specifically, and as a result one or the other must be permitted. Since there was already a lower court ruling denying concealed carry, the majority felt compelled to uphold open, since one of these options must exist to satisfy the bearing of arms.

At least that was my understanding of it

9th Circuit panel finds a constitutional right to openly carry a gun, distinguishes en banc decision

 

[Shadow2]

They already refused response once, I don't need a second time to confirm.

Okay but until the 29th you don't know for sure if they are ignoring the Court, Do you? And for one thing the SCOTUS decides what has merit not NYC.

Correction it is the 29th.

Okay but until the 29th you don't know for sure if they are ignoring the Court, Do you? And for one thing the SCOTUS decides what has merit not NYC.

Correction it is the 29th.

 

[nortatoga]

They already refused response once, I don't need a second time to confirm.

From the other thread, And it really doesn't matter what you need to confirm now does it? I hope they don't respond then the Court might take the case!

 

[nortatoga]

The right to keep a handgun in the home. You know.... Just cause and all that. A concealed carry license that not everyone can get just to touch a handgun. It's May Issue instead of Shall Issue even though you can pass a NICS.

A DWI, open container, too many parking tickets and depending on your county, you aren't getting a handgun.

Have they ignore the Court in the past about any of this NO, It has never been before the SCOTUS before has it?

Now some if not most of this may now be addressed in the NYSRPA v NYC case that is coming up.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Have they ignore the Court in the past about any of this NO, It has never been before the SCOTUS before has it?

Now some if not most of this may now be addressed in the NYSRPA v NYC case that is coming up.

It doesn't have to go before the court to be ignored. That's not how it works.

 

[nortatoga]

These laws are pre 2010 correct?

 

[Marine Cpl]

These laws are pre 2010 correct?

Correct. Once a ruling is issued, states have to follow.

For example. The ruling below is immediate. The police cannot continue to access phone records without a warrant in spite of the ruling afterwards. Rulings aren't supposed to be ignored by states until someone challenges an illegal law. That's not how it works. It works no differently for the 2A.

Carpenter v United States

In a 5-4 ruling in Carpenter v United States, Roberts joined the court’s liberal bloc to rule that police needed a search warrant to access phone records, including the detailed caller location history that can be gleaned from cell tower data. The ruling was hailed as a landmark victory for privacy rights in the digital age.

 

[nortatoga]

Correct. Once a ruling is issued, states have to follow.

For example. The ruling below is immediate. The police cannot continue to access phone records without a warrant in spite of the ruling afterwards. Rulings aren't supposed to be ignored by states until someone challenges an illegal law. That's not how it works. It works no differently for the 2A.

Carpenter v United States

In a 5-4 ruling in Carpenter v United States, Roberts joined the court’s liberal bloc to rule that police needed a search warrant to access phone records, including the detailed caller location history that can be gleaned from cell tower data. The ruling was hailed as a landmark victory for privacy rights in the digital age.

Before I reply what is the ruling afterwards?

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't understand your question.

 

[nortatoga]

My mistake I just reread it! This threw me for a sec "in spite of the ruling afterwards."

 

[nortatoga]

Correct. Once a ruling is issued, states have to follow.

For example. The ruling below is immediate. The police cannot continue to access phone records without a warrant in spite of the ruling afterwards. Rulings aren't supposed to be ignored by states until someone challenges an illegal law. That's not how it works. It works no differently for the 2A.

Carpenter v United States

In a 5-4 ruling in Carpenter v United States, Roberts joined the court’s liberal bloc to rule that police needed a search warrant to access phone records, including the detailed caller location history that can be gleaned from cell tower data. The ruling was hailed as a landmark victory for privacy rights in the digital age.

Okay now this is a ruling on a particular case! But in this case it does work differently for the 2A because these are State Constitutions now that are the focal point, particularly Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

 

[Marine Cpl]

Okay now this is a ruling on a particular case! But in this case it does work differently for the 2A because these are State Constitutions now that are the focal point, particularly Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Weak sauce. Read your own court cases that you post all time.

 

[nortatoga]

Weak sauce. Read your own court cases that you post all time.

You could not have read what I just posted!

 

[Marine Cpl]

My point was that SCOTUS applied the Constitution to the states themselves. It was the one after Heller. There was nothing relevant to read from the link you posted.

 

[nortatoga]

My point was that SCOTUS applied the Constitution to the states themselves. It was the one after Heller. There was nothing relevant to read from the link you posted.

Wrong the red highlighted part makes it relevant to this post!