Ninth Circuit Rules Openly Carrying Firearm in Public Is Constitutional

breitbart.com ^ | 7/24/2018 | AWR Hawkins

[madison10]

Yes, I know Michigan is open carry. I mentioned weed because the ruling is so unusual for the Ninth Circuit, which covers much of California. In other regions the ruling would not have been strange. Ohio is open carry,too.

[unixfox]

Open carry in Cali would be as bad as smoking in public.

The Snowflake State.

[SkyDancer]

But it’s okay to poop on the streets there ...

[Does so]

Years ago, lawyers had decided that there were too many phrases in Latin, so they reduced that number.

They didn't say anything about phrases in French. :-/

[trisham]

“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. In practice, however, such a hearing has only been requested rarely; the requests have all been denied.”

Apparently, all 29 have not been used. I confess that I was not previously aware of this procedure.

[klsparrow]

From the 9th no less. No pigs and hell did not freeze over

[mlo]

"This is the second pro-Second-Amendment ruling from the 9th."

Not the first time something like this happened. In an earlier case a 3 judge panel of the 9th overturned California's "may issue" law, which would have forced California to become a "shall issue" state. But that decision was reversed after review by a full panel.

That's actually relevant to the issue here, because in that earlier case the larger panel decided that even if there was a constitutional right to carry outside the home, there wasn't a right to carry concealed. They very conveniently ignored the fact that open carry is also illegal because it wasn't the specific issue in that case.

But now, if the full panel reverses this they will go on record as holding there is no right to either concealed or open carry, and that would seem to fly in the face of the Supreme Court.

[archy]

It’s not the first time in recent memory. I wonder if they’re afraid of impeachment at this point. I hope they are.

I understand it wasn't an en banc ruling, but only a decision by three of the 9th's judges. Two for, one against- and I don't yet know if the recent Trump appointee to the 9th was one of the three. I understand he's more likely to have been a *no* vote.

[archy]

Unless Don has made some appointments there already.

Why yes, in fact, he has. I don't think you'll like him much.

[Bonemaker]

Thanks a rot...I missed that one. Trump shot his wad with Sessions and now this guy?