View Single Post
Old January 22, 2017, 06:38 PM   #38
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
The difference with Peruta is that it seeks to present to straight up question, unresolved in Heller, as to whether there is a right to bear arms outside the home. Although the Ninth en banc panel ruled on the narrow grounds that there is no right to carry a concealed firearm, thus upholding the "may issue" system, it implied but expressly declined to rule whether that means that there is a right, protected by the Second Amendment, to carry firearms openly outside the home. This narrow ruling was very political: Plaintiffs contended and the State agreed that there [I]is[I] a right to carry firearms, and the issue that Plaintiffs sought to be decided was whether there was a right to carry in some manner. Critical to the case is the fact that California essentially bans the open carrying of firearms, loaded or unloaded, in all incorporated cities and towns, i.e., the very places where the need to carry is most critical. Plaintiffs argues that the State could chose either open carry or concealed carry )or both), but if the latter was chosen, it had to allow for "shall issue" in order to preclude the State/Counties from limiting the exercise of that right to a special few.
62coltnavy is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03266 seconds with 8 queries