[vicGT]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Who is liable and or picking up the check for that persons hospital bill or family income ? It seems to me you can't have all three . Right to carry for self defense , gun free zones and the company , government or who ever that implements the gun free zone not reasonably responsible for everyone's safety in those zones

Heller seemed to say such laws were constitutional:

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions...forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,

but I don't know if that tells us anything about liability. Laws allowing us to build new homes are probably not going to run afoul of the constitution, but if the homes are built negligently, there can still be liability, right? So maybe the devil would have to be in the details, and we can't make a sweeping statement about liability in all possible situations?

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

1. The 9th Circuit's decision is binding precedent on all lower courts within the 9th Circuit.

Can I ask you if you know if, once final, and assuming it's not oveturned en banc, it will be binding on other 3-judge panels within the 9th? So not lower, not on en banc panels which I suppose are "higher", but at the same level?

I may have been led to the answer over on CalGuns, which might be:

Originally Posted by USA V. HOBERT PARKER, JR.

Only the en banc court can overturn a prior panel precedent. See Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181, 1186 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“[W]here a panel confronts an issue germane to the eventual resolution of the case, and resolves it after reasoned consideration in a published opinion, that ruling becomes the law of the circuit, regardless of whether doing so is necessary in some strict logical sense.”) (internal quotations omitted); Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once a panel resolves an issue in a precedential opinion, the matter is deemed resolved, unless overruled by the court itself sitting en banc, or by the Supreme Court . . . . [A] later three-judge panel considering a case that is controlled by the rule announced in an earlier panel’s opinion has no choice but to apply the earlier adopted rule; it may not any more disregard the earlier panel’s opinion than it may disregard a ruling of the Supreme Court.”).

[6] The law of the circuit rule, of course, has an important exception: a panel may disagree with the circuit precedent when intervening Supreme Court decisions have undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

of course, that is itself an opinion in a case, so I'm not sure if it holds any real weight.