https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1374807108533825544
Of course the 9th Circuit Court, aka the 9th Circus voted against concealed carry.
Here’s the problem, the 7th Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Moore v. Madigan.
We have two Circuit Court decisions in conflict.
I think SCOTUS might have to get involved in this.
Without a doubt Roberts will vote against concealed carry, I just hope that Trump threw the court far enough to make the Court recognize concealed carry as a Constitutional right.
Here is the decision:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf
I have a dog in this fight as I concealed carry.
As do I. As do most of the readers here, I suspect.
The only good news about this is that this decision doesn’t automatically invalidate or repeal existing right-to-carry laws at the state level.
That said, what it does do is give judicial pre-approval if state Legislatures decide to repeal said right-to-carry laws and prohibit all forms of carry, which is bad enough.
I think it covers Idaho, too. Livin’ the dream here in washinistan!!!!!
If SCOTUS gets involved, they may or may not recognize a right to carry concealed. IIRC, that’s not what Moore v. Madigan found.
If the “and bear” in “keep and bear Arms” means anything, they do have to recognize a right to carry, in some form or another. A state may regulate the manner of carrying, may choose to require a license to carry, and may choose to prohibit open OR concealed carry, but it may not prohibit both.
As much as I’d like it, I don’t see SCOTUS going “activist” and declaring that the 2nd Amendment requires states to allow all forms of carry — not even with a “conservative majority” — regardless of what the plain text of 2A says. I think the best we can hope for is they uphold Moore v. Madigan and rule that states can choose not to prohibit either form of carry (read: allow both), may regulate and/or require licenses to carry, but must at least allow open or concealed carry — they may not prohibit both.
Then again, the Roberts court may decide that Young doesn’t have sufficient standing to press his case any further. [/sarcasm]
Or, as others have pointed out, all SCOTUS has to do for this to stand in the Nutty Ninth Circus is … nothing.
“I think SCOTUS might have to get involved in this.”
Well, Constitutionally speaking they don’t have to.
But Constitutionally speaking they absolutely must hear a case when a state sues another state, and they denied that so 🤷♂️
Yes, Constitutionally speaking they DO have to. That’s because their oath of office commits them to “protect and defend the Constitution”. When lower courts blatantly violate that same duty they too are sworn to uphold, it becomes the duty of every justice to take corrective action.
Constitutionally and morally speaking, certiorari is not discretional where a blatant infringement on the Constitution has taken place. Unfortunately, practically speaking it’s an entirely different situation, especially in the lawless world of Justice Roberts.
Meh, not like the 9th is the most overturned circuit
I thought Trump unscrewed the 9th circus. I kept hearing about these wonderful judges he got appointed out there.
Sure doesn’t sound like it.
The 9th is less screwed than it was. En blanc means the entire court, except when it is the 9th.
The 9th is so big that only a small number of judges sit en blanc. So a random set of judges sit to hear the case.
Trump put enough judges on the 9th that there is supposed to be a balance. Amazing that every time there is a gun case the en blanc panel is so left leaning.
The Founders certainly expected the Militia to openly carry their handguns and/or long guns from their homes to the Village Green on monthly Militia Muster Day.