Ninth Circuit Appeals Court: If Hawaii Restricts Citizens' Ability to Carry Concealed, Then There Must Be An Absolute Right to Open Carry Huge ruling. Hawaii sharply limits who can carry concealed -- basically, only people who have jobs in security and law enforcement can carry concealed. Hawaii sharply limits who can carry concealed -- basically, only people who have jobs in security and law enforcement can carry concealed. The Ninth Circuit -- not the whole Ninth Circuit, which is a leftwing clownshow, but two of the three judges selected randomly to review the lower court's ruling here -- rules that people have the right to carry firearms (quoting the Supreme Court's MacDonald decision), and if the right to carry concealed is restricted by a state, that must mean that the other method of carrying, open carry, is absolute. The Ninth Circuit -- not the whole Ninth Circuit, which is a leftwing clownshow, but two of the three judges selected randomly to review the lower court's ruling here -- rules that people have the right to carry firearms (quoting the Supreme Court's MacDonald decision), and if the right to carry concealed is restricted by a state, that must mean that the other method of carrying, open carry, is absolute. The court rules that the "right to keep and bear arms" is actually two rights: to "keep" arms is about storing arms on physical property, but to bear arms is to carry arms on one's person. The court rules that the "right to keep and bear arms" is actually two rights: to "keep" arms is about storing arms on physical property, but toarms is to carry arms on one's person. And it rules that Hawaii may not leave citizens with no way of exercising this latter right. And it rules that Hawaii may not leave citizens with no way of exercising this latter right. 4/ Here is the crux of the panel's majority opinion: the right to "keep" arms applies in the home, but "bear" arms suggests a separate right outside the home. pic.twitter.com/F0T8gNdSRR — Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) July 24, 2018



Hawaii screwed itself here by, like so many other gun-grabbing states and local governments, creating a #FakeNews application process for getting a concealed carry license, but literally never granting such an application: Hawaii screwed itself here by, like so many other gun-grabbing states and local governments, creating a #FakeNews application process for getting a concealed carry license, but literallygranting such an application: 5/ The panel also finds that the Hawaii law flunks intermediate scrutiny because "no concealed carry license has ever been granted by the County" under the "good cause" standard. pic.twitter.com/qi8oQY85o8 — Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) July 24, 2018



The majority opinion gets salty with the dissent: The majority opinion gets salty with the dissent: 6/ The panel faults the dissent for failing to "engage" with the evidence under strict scrutiny. It is not enough merely to "cite" evidence supporting gun control laws. Courts must do more "than cite-check the government�s brief." pic.twitter.com/dFMRe6nBao — Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) July 24, 2018

7/ J. O'Scannlain mic drop: "While many respectable scholars and activists might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the right to a privileged few, 'the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.'" pic.twitter.com/3z8Q1CsBBz — Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) July 24, 2018



Hawaii will certainly request en banc review, which is where every judge on the Ninth Circuit rehears the case and issues a group ruling. Obviously Hawaii will probably win that -- but then it's on to the Supreme Court. Hawaii will certainly requestreview, which is where every judge on the Ninth Circuit rehears the case and issues a group ruling. Obviously Hawaii will probably win that -- but then it's on to the Supreme Court. Wrong? Anon Y. Mous says that the Ninth Circuit's en banc review is not performed by all judges, but just a lot more judges than the usual 3-judge panel. Anon Y. Mous says that the Ninth Circuit's en banc review is not performed byjudges, but just a lot more judges than the usual 3-judge panel. Like, 11 judges? I don't know, "11 judges" sticks in my mind for some reason. Like, 11 judges? I don't know, "11 judges" sticks in my mind for some reason. I'm not sure either way. I'm not sure either way. Update: Anon Y. Mous was right, and I was right about 11 judges, once Anon Y. Mous corrected me. From Wikipedia on "En banc:" Anon Y. Mous was right, and I was right about 11 judges, once Anon Y. Mous corrected me. From Wikipedia on "En banc:" Federal law provides that for courts with more than 15 judges, an en banc hearing may consist of "such number of members of its en banc courts as may be prescribed by rule of the court of appeals."[4] The Ninth Circuit, with 29 judges, uses this procedure, and its en banc court consists of 11 judges. Theoretically, the Ninth Circuit can hear the case with all judges participating.

Posted by: Ace of Spades at 03:13 PM











MuNuvians MeeNuvians Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs News/Chat