Two things to keep in mind.
- In Peruta, the district judge relied upon the CA law that allowed unloaded open carry (UOC) in order to find that there was no ban.
- In Richards, the district judge relied upon the Peruta decision as the basis of his decision.
- In Baker, there is no carry allowed without a permit.
- While a permitting system exists, it is on record that no permits have ever been issued.
With that in mind, there have been changes made in the underlying decisions in both
Peruta and
Richards.
CA has since made UOC unlawful. There is now no meaningful way to carry without a CC permit. That alone changes the way the courts must view those cases.
The CA9 cannot now go the route that the
Kachalsky panel did, because of the specific facts of the Hawaii case. While it may have used the reasoning of
Kachalsky for a decision in
Peruta and
Richards, that would put it at odds with
Baker. The CA9 will have to squarely address the issue of carry in public places and how a government can regulate that carry.
Meanwhile, we still await for a decision in
Moore/Sheppard (CA7). That decision, if Judge Posner is honest, will have an effect on the outcome of these cases.