Young v. Hawaii (Read 2825 times)

punaperson

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2021, 07:23:42 AM »
It's not their place to say what's a better option, but to interpret what the Constitution says.

It's very possible they will say that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, and that there is no reasonable assumption that the right only exists in your home.  Most threats would be encountered outside the home.  They may also say that the states may decide on open, concealed or both as a lawful method to carry, but they must allow at least one.

The question is not whether concealed carry is protected.  It's about whether bearing arms is protected outside the home.
Hypothetically, SCOTUS could agree with the Ninth rulings in Peruta (no right to concealed carry) AND Young (no right to open carry of concealable firearms) and rule that the only "keep and bear" right protected by the constitution outside the home is the open carry of long guns.

From what we've seen from the court recently in a variety of cases, I think the chance of that happening, even if they believed it to be the most true to the Constitution, is virtually zero (due to political correctness being their apparent mandate).

Otherwise, we'd see this (even this photo is banned on Instagram as "inciting violence"! You can't make this shit up!):

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #61 on: April 03, 2021, 09:41:58 AM »
I could be wrong, I just don't get the feeling they are going to want to put out some ruling that says everyone gets to open carry. I understand that a SCOTUS ruling isn't simply a yes or a no, that they can uphold part while striking another part but who knows. I think we would have a better chance with a concealed carry case. I think it would be bad if the SCOTUS gave us open carry but not concealed carry.
I agree that they dont want to make it law of the land. So ill bet it wont get a hearing.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

6716J

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2021, 12:13:32 PM »
It's not their place to say what's a better option, but to interpret what the Constitution says.

It's very possible they will say that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, and that there is no reasonable assumption that the right only exists in your home.  Most threats would be encountered outside the home.  They may also say that the states may decide on open, concealed or both as a lawful method to carry, but they must allow at least one.

The question is not whether concealed carry is protected.  It's about whether bearing arms is protected outside the home.

Hawaii does allow both. We just don't meet their arbitrary criteria to do it. Until SCOTUS says all states SHALL be SHALL ISSUE, it's not going to change. And even then, the states will implement arbitrary and burdensome regulations in the name of safety to get the SHALL ISUUE permit.

The biggest arrow in the quiver right now is how laws, fees and regulations burden the poor and minorities the most and are racist and bigoted. Make the WOKE go WOKER I say
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #63 on: April 08, 2021, 09:17:25 PM »
It's not their place to say what's a better option, but to interpret what the Constitution says.

It's very possible they will say that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, and that there is no reasonable assumption that the right only exists in your home.  Most threats would be encountered outside the home.  They may also say that the states may decide on open, concealed or both as a lawful method to carry, but they must allow at least one.

The question is not whether concealed carry is protected.  It's about whether bearing arms is protected outside the home.

Agreed, I just hope that the fact it is an open carry case doesn't make them avoid hearing it.

6716J

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.