Apparently, Hawaii lawmakers are going nuts over this. They are demanding an en banc appeal. I hope they do exactly that.
The 9th circuit would then be faced with a major dilemma. They already said there is no constitutional right to concealed carry. The ruling of the 3 judge panel was that that therefore must mean there is a right to open carry. So what does the 9th do? Either say there is no right to open carry - meaning there is no right to actually bear arms since you can’t do it openly or concealed. That then triggers an appeal to the Supreme Court which with Kavanaugh seated, likely overrules them and sets precedent requiring open carry nationwide....yes you New York and you Maryland and you New Jersey....you all have to eat it.
OR, the 9th has to agree with the 3 judge panel in which case Hawaii and California have to eat it and allow open carry.
HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
Of course we need Kavanaugh to be confirmed so we can get Supreme Court rulings striking down much of the gun grabber agenda.
The 9th already stated in banc in Peruta that there is no specific open carry right. That’s what makes this case kind of bizarre. I think the difference is, Peruta was arguing for shall issue CCW permits and claimed that the state scheme banning open carry and allowing concealed carry by permission only was a defacto ban. The 9th (as I wrote in the post above) argued in return that Heller did not say open carry was lawful so the state could choose to ban it.
This case is similar to Peruta but argues the other side - from HI where CCW is even harder to get than CA. And instead of asking for CCW this case (Young) says “I asked twice for a CCW and the state wouldn’t give me, so I want to open carry”
In other words Peruta tried to change CCW laws, and Young is trying to change open carry bans. Otherwise the arguments are pretty much the same - if you ban open carry and make CCW impossible, it is unconstitutional defacto ban that Heller and the 2A prohibit. The funny part is that the same judge who wrote the decision to force shall issue CCW - and was overturned by his peers en banc - has been given another chance and he is making his peers eat their briefs. You gotta love it!
The 9th made a mistake in Peruta - they tried to be too clever in finding a way to flaunt the 2A and Heller - and it’s come back to haunt them.