Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok seriously, I didn't post the OP in order to discuss police shootings. Apples and oranges.
My question is, does that decision mean that people in the 9th Circuit area (California, Nevada, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington among others) now can "open carry" with no restrictions?
Not if Kamala Harris gets her grubby little hands on this and forces an en banc hearing, with no jurisdiction, just like she did in the Peruta ruling. Then the full panel will reverse the decision.
So - literally - any gun owner can legally walk around (in public places of course) in CA with a non-concealed weapon tomorrow?
Without looking closer, my answer would be 'no'. We had a similar legal finding in NY, but it only applied to the district where the plaintiff filed the suit. In the NY case, the ruling only applied to a single county. I'll look into this one some more later.
Okay then, "own" or be in "possession of" or "have access to" or "a minor, who is a party of interest in personal property with revocable access privileges" or some other semantical phrase of a substantially similar nature. I don't have a problem with changing that phraseology because it will result in the same point.
Which is there are definitely some sick fringe people on here who don't think there should be age restrictions at all concerning firearm access. See Post 74 for one example:
That's one example of a gun advocate saying anything goes, and a cursory review of gun related threads on this forum will reveal similar fringe viewpoints.
21 or 18 is not a toddler. And yes, there is a cut-off age for adulthood. Once you're an adult, you should be able to own a gun. But the cut-off age should be uniform. At 18, you're your own man/woman, should be able to vote, drink, make your own decisions and yes, own a gun.
Without looking closer, my answer would be 'no'. We had a similar legal finding in NY, but it only applied to the district where the plaintiff filed the suit. In the NY case, the ruling only applied to a single county. I'll look into this one some more later.
But this is the 9th Circuit Court. It applies to California, Nevada, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington etc.
Without looking closer, my answer would be 'no'. We had a similar legal finding in NY, but it only applied to the district where the plaintiff filed the suit. In the NY case, the ruling only applied to a single county. I'll look into this one some more later.
This ruling applies to every state that is covered by the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit (CA, OR, AZ, WA, AK, and possibly one or two others I think), which is opposed to the impact of the ruling if it came from a district court. Now, I'm not exactly sure what the ruling entails as far as specific details go, so I don't know exactly what these states would be required to authorized. Of course, this only holds true if the ruling isn't overturned.
(Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment protects a right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense, rejecting a claim by Hawaii officials that the right only applies to guns kept at home.
It should. I don’t understand the big deal.
If someone is stupid enough to walk around with a weapon openly why not. That fool will be just another moving target.
Consider this:
Four hoodlums see someone with a weapon. Only one of the hoodlums has a weapon. That’s enough to jump the “good” (but stupid) guy with a weapon. They’ll beat him up and take his gun. Now you have four hoodlums with 2 guns.
If someone is stupid enough to walk around with a weapon openly why not. That fool will be just another moving target.
Consider this:
Four hoodlums see someone with a weapon. Only one of the hoodlums has a weapon. That’s enough to jump the “good” (but stupid) guy with a weapon. They’ll beat him up and take his gun. Now you have four hoodlums with 2 guns.
Whatever.
Whatever. You can "what if" any kind of fantasy you want. How often do you see that happening to police? They walk around openly carrying every day.
Rarely does the Supreme Court take a case unless there is a counter ruling. Will another court rule otherwise? The ruling stays in place unless the Supreme Court puts a hold on it.
What part of "US.appeals Court ruled". Says it has not been heard in litigation already?
If someone is stupid enough to walk around with a weapon openly why not. That fool will be just another moving target.
Consider this:
Four hoodlums see someone with a weapon. Only one of the hoodlums has a weapon. That’s enough to jump the “good” (but stupid) guy with a weapon. They’ll beat him up and take his gun. Now you have four hoodlums with 2 guns.
Whatever.
Everyone that carries is a threat to you!
As it should be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
