The three-judge panel that decided Young v. Hawaii is bound by the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego which held that there is no right, under the Second Amendment, for a member of the general public to carry a handgun concealed in public. The only courts which can overturn the en banc decision in Peruta is another en banc court of the 9th circuit or the United States Supreme Court. Peruta filed a cert petition which was denied. Therefore, the en banc decision in Peruta remains binding on every three-judge panel as well as every district court judge in the 9th circuit.
Thanks!
But...If the Peruta banc decided that
concealed carry is
not constitutionally protected, and separately some other - Young, or any other - case thread decides that
open carry is also
not constitutionally protected, then effectively the courts (albeit via separate threads) have decided that bearing arms in public in
any fashion is
not constitutionally protected.
Wait... That would mean either 1) the court(s) are wrong (honest mistake) ; or 2) the court(s) deliberately took away one of our rights knowing full well what they are doing; or 3) the court(s)' interpretation(s) are correct and we can only bear arms in private and not in public.
If number three, then wow that sucks, and the 2A is a crappy right.
If number one, then wouldn't further litigation expose and correct that ? Give us back either the open- or concealed-carry?
If number two, isn't that legitimate grounds for open amred insurrection and overthrow (corrective) action of a tyrannical governing system? I mean, my forefathers threw a bunch of tea into the harbor for this kind of crap...