Login    
   
   
    Register FAQ  •  Search    

· Home ·   Forums ·  Who Are We? ·  What is Open Carry? ·  CCDW Process ·  FAQ ·  Contact ·  Terms ·

It is currently Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:40 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Carry outside of home is protected...
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 525
Some form, and given they won't say concealed, that leave OC.

Article and a video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 2d4edbe152

Video of the a2a attorney is awesome. The judges hand him his backside on a plate.

The judges hit him so hard, you can't even tell which dissented in the ruling.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3yOFtg ... e=youtu.be


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Carry outside of home is protected...
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:59 am
Posts: 1246
Location: Bear
This is great news! :applause:

The second amendment 100% covers carrying firearms outside the home. How in the heck can you be well regulated (trained) if you can't go outside with a firearm? More to the point, how do you defend yourself outside the home without a firearm?

I love these chinks in the a2a armor! OC outside the home is a right! :pbjtime:

I'd argue carry in any form outside the home is a right, but I'll take OC as a start.

_________________
ā€œI prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.ā€ -Thomas Paine


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Carry outside of home is protected...
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:49 am
Posts: 557
Location: NOT Bear - Christiana Area
Image

_________________
"The purpose of the pistol is to stop a fight that somebody else has started, almost always at very short range." -- Jeff Cooper

Image


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Carry outside of home is protected...
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:59 am
Posts: 1246
Location: Bear
I agree NCC - he got "spanked". :lol:

_________________
ā€œI prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.ā€ -Thomas Paine


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Carry outside of home is protected...
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:03 am
Posts: 137
I watched the video. The State's lawyer must have been out of law school for all of 27 minutes ! What a sh**ty lawyer ! He didn't know his facts, didn't know the law, and hemmed and hawed to every question the judges asked. THANK GOODNESS !!
And this decision came from the 9th Circuit, the most liberal in the country !
Hopefully, it stands if taken to Supreme Court. It certainly should !


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Carry outside of home is protected...
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 525
as i watched this, i was thinking almost the opposite, as regards to the lawyer. at least in regard to knowing the law.

specifically, i think he knew the law, and he knew he was defending a losing position. an unconstitutional situation.

neither CC OR OC is permitted in hawaii, generally speaking. he did all he could to avoid saying that outright. so he just stammered. that was ok, the judges said it for him.

when he says "it's possible" to get an oc permit, and then says that none have been issued to anyone other than security guards, for on duty carry only, that's about a hair shy of lying to the court.

technically, it's true, "it's possible" the sheriff could issue, but everyone knows it ain't gonna happen.

i find it odd that one of the judges dissented. as noted, the nutty 9th is going to go down swinging on this.

here is the HI cc issue policy. for 2016, nary a single cc permit issued. oc is the point of this case due to the cc policy, and the 9th's decision that cc is not protected.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/hawaii-st ... rmit-2016/

josephjanes wrote:
I watched the video. The State's lawyer must have been out of law school for all of 27 minutes ! What a sh**ty lawyer ! He didn't know his facts, didn't know the law, and hemmed and hawed to every question the judges asked. THANK GOODNESS !!
And this decision came from the 9th Circuit, the most liberal in the country !
Hopefully, it stands if taken to Supreme Court. It certainly should !


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Carry outside of home is protected...
PostPosted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:24 am
Posts: 525
Just read on another site that the Hawaii folks are asking for an extension of time to file for a higher hearing.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is they are looking for a full hearing, en banc, in the 9th district. Remember the nutty ninth is the ones that said cc is not protect, may but won't issue.

Could they try to pull that for oc too?


 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Carry outside of home is protected...
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 9:49 am
Posts: 113
pick_six wrote:
Just read on another site that the Hawaii folks are asking for an extension of time to file for a higher hearing.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is they are looking for a full hearing, en banc, in the 9th district. Remember the nutty ninth is the ones that said cc is not protect, may but won't issue.

Could they try to pull that for oc too?


Yes, absolutely. This is a repeating pattern at the Ninth Circuit. Judge O'Scannlain has written at least three other landmark pro-gun decisions for 3-judge panels that the circuit court en banc then vacated. One was Nordyke v. King in 2009 (Alameda County, CA, home of Oakland, banned possession of any firearms or ammo on county property, which meant that gun shows could no longer be held at the county fairgrounds), wherein Judge O'Scannlain decided that the Second Amendment is incorporated against state and local governments. (This was the year before the Supremes reached the same conclusion in McDonald v. Chicago.)

The second was Peruta v. San Diego County in 2014, wherein the panel ruled that the Second Amendment does indeed include a right to "bear" arms as well as "keep" them, and that San Diego County's policy of basically never issuing CCW licenses in a state that prohibits open carry was unconstitutional. Full circuit reversed and the Supreme Court declined to hear it.

The third was Teixeira v. Alameda County in 2016, wherein the panel concluded that the county couldn't use zoning laws to make the entire county a zone completely free of gun stores. Also reversed by the circuit en banc and the Supreme Court declined to hear it.

There may be more that I'm just not thinking of; O'Scannlain's pretty solid on guns. The subtext of Hawaii's petition for rehearing en banc will be, "This is O'Scannlain going crazy about guns again." And the subtext of our side's petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court will be, "This is the Ninth Circuit going crazy about guns again."


 Profile  


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


phpBB skin developed by: John Olson
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group