Appeals Court Rules Open Carry Legal

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
8,704
Likes
1,503
Location
Central Ma.
"
LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Hawaii officials had violated George Young's rights when he was denied a permit to openly carry a loaded gun in public to protect himself.

The decision reversed a lower court ruling that sided with officials who said the amendment only applied to guns kept in homes.

"We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, which the State of Hawaii 'has understandably sought to fight,'" Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote. "But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense."

If the ruling stands, it could lead to more guns in public in the few western states under 9th Circuit jurisdiction where they are currently restricted.

"States like Hawaii and California will have to allow far more guns on the streets than they do today," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "States would be able to ban concealed carry but only if they allow people to carry their guns openly displayed."

Winkler, however, expects the decision to be appealed to a full panel of the San Francisco-based court."
Appeals court says 2nd Amendment allows open carry of guns
 

Mr.E

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
3,707
Likes
2,692
Maybe Hawaii and California should stick with surfing and sun bathing and keep their agendas to themselves...Good decision from the appeals court.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
306
Location
I'm here. That's all you need to know...
Rob, I get that OC is not technically illegal, but wasn't Simkin a NR and the question whether suitability applied to NR LTCs? Besides, my overall point is that if you OC in MA, at the very least there will be a 911 call for "a man with a gun", the inevitable visit from an LEO, and how far that hassle goes my be entirely out of your hands. Does it really matter your in the right if you take the ride anyway? Even if you eventually beat the wrap-
 

FiremanBob

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
5,576
Likes
15,478
I hope the Hawaii .gov appeals this to SCOTUS quickly. A national ruling that open carry is constitutionally protected everywhere is exactly what we need.
 

inkdesigner

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 2, 2015
Messages
524
Likes
337
Location
MA/NH Border
I hope the Hawaii .gov appeals this to SCOTUS quickly. A national ruling that open carry is constitutionally protected everywhere is exactly what we need.

I suspect what will happen 1st is that Hawaii will request, and be granted, an en banc hearing, where the full 9th Circuit will overturn the 3 judge ruling and find in the states favor. After that, it is up to the George Young and his lawyers to appeal to SCOTUS, where there is no guarantee that they will take up the case.
 

Cap'n Mike

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
865
Likes
1,346
Location
Mass
I suspect what will happen 1st is that Hawaii will request, and be granted, an en banc hearing, where the full 9th Circuit will overturn the 3 judge ruling and find in the states favor. After that, it is up to the George Young and his lawyers to appeal to SCOTUS, where there is no guarantee that they will take up the case.

This ^^^
Exactly what happened in Peruta v San Diego
Same Judge even.
 

JAD

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 7, 2015
Messages
655
Likes
91
Simkin v. FRB

Rob, I get that OC is not technically illegal, but wasn't Simkin a NR and the question whether suitability applied to NR LTCs? Besides, my overall point is that if you OC in MA, at the very least there will be a 911 call for "a man with a gun", the inevitable visit from an LEO, and how far that hassle goes my be entirely out of your hands. Does it really matter your in the right if you take the ride anyway? Even if you eventually beat the wrap-

When FRB revoked Simkin's non-resident LTC, they used a three-part reason to explain why he was not a suitable person. Those reasons included (1) that he was carrying outside of the reason which he obtained his LTC (Simkin has a license valid for ALP but had used explanation/rationale related to his FFL business activity when applying for the license), (2) he caused staff at the medical office to experience fear and alarm, and (3) had used a fake name when obtaining medical services (at some point it was explained that he used the fake name to protect his medical privacy, the emergency contact he listed on his medical record put the local police in contact with Simkin).

As we all know, the SJC ultimately ruled in favor of Simkin. However when taken in whole, circumstances are very important. Though he used a particular explanation to obtain an NR-LTC-A, his carrying was permissible because his license was issued for ALP. There was significant discussion related to the allegations of him causing fear/alarm, which I am going to discuss more in the paragraph that follows- though suffice it to say, the SJC, did not accept the explanation in context of Simkin's specific circumstances Similarly, they also ruled against the issuing authority because of the circumstances related to why/how he used the false name. The court bought his medical privacy claim and noted that he did not attempt to use the false name for unlawful activity. They specifically referenced that he had not attempted to mislead the issuing authority. Additionally the SJC pointed out the EOPPS did not promulgate regulations regarding carrying while using a false name (the SJC ruling indicated that a different ruling would have been possible had such regulations existed).

One point where I strongly disagree with Rob is with respect to Simkin in effect blessing open carry. My understanding of the Simkin ruling was that the office staff were fearful simply because they learned that he had the firearm. Simkin was carrying concealed. Simkin disclosed that he was carrying before securing his weapons to reduce the likelihood of causing alarm. The SJC's discussion of fear and alarm relating to Simkin carrying his weapons was all framed in context of his carrying a concealed weapon and Simkin's efforts to maintain concealment and minimize the likely alarm. This is exemplified by the following excerpt from pages 182/183:
Next, we suspect that the average Massachusetts resident may become "alarmed" on learning that someone other than a law enforcement officer is carrying concealed weapons in his or her presence. However, Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying of concealed weapons pursuant to a license permitting him to do exactly that. Although the bureau claims that Simkin "went out of his way to show and inform certain staff members that he was . . . armed," the record indicates otherwise. Simkin concealed his weapons until he was in the examination room and was about to disrobe, at

Page 183

which time he notified the medical assistant that he was carrying concealed weapons and was going to secure them, presumably so that she would not be alarmed. Further, he had disclosed the fact that he was armed immediately prior to disrobing during a previous visit to the same medical office, albeit to a different practitioner, and had received no objection to his behavior either during or after the visit.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
40,419
Likes
20,087
True, but it would be illogical to conclude that someone would be responsible for alarm causes to others by the mere open carrying of a cun pursuant to a license permitting him to do exactly that.

But, one never knows when dealing with marsupials.
 

Alex9661

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,405
Likes
611
Location
behind enemy lines
I vaguely remember someone posting here or somewhere else an excerpt from after Simkin police inservice.

It described a hypothetical "man with a gun" call on someone open carrying. The correct action was to check LTC, take no further action if valid, explain to the caller that OC is legal for licensed individuals.
 
Top Bottom