pdsmith505
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 736
The 9th Circuit has issued it's opinion in Young v Hawaii. Young challenged Hawaii's "may issue" permitting scheme for public carry. Opinion can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
I'm currently on page 84 (215 total) of the document.
The summary of the opinion (from the link above)....
I believe this creates a circuit split with the DC Circuit in Wrenn and the 7th Circuit in Moore.
Edit:
Having finished reading the majority opinion, the court seems to have found historical precedence ranging from English law in the 1300's to present US law to support the proposition that State governments may restrict the public carrying of "concealable" arms, whether concealed or not. The majority did not consider other arms, because they determined that Young did not raise that question.
I had to take a break till tomorrow (at least) in reading the dissenting opinions fully.
Granted, my interpretation of the opinion is from a layman's perspective on the law.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
I'm currently on page 84 (215 total) of the document.
The summary of the opinion (from the link above)....
The en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawai‘i’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.
I believe this creates a circuit split with the DC Circuit in Wrenn and the 7th Circuit in Moore.
Edit:
Having finished reading the majority opinion, the court seems to have found historical precedence ranging from English law in the 1300's to present US law to support the proposition that State governments may restrict the public carrying of "concealable" arms, whether concealed or not. The majority did not consider other arms, because they determined that Young did not raise that question.
I had to take a break till tomorrow (at least) in reading the dissenting opinions fully.
Granted, my interpretation of the opinion is from a layman's perspective on the law.
Last edited: