When Young is won, his case becomes (mostly) irelevant and as such he doesn’t get what he wants (his name in lights). This the constant picking at what is going on in young.
The only useful thing about folks like you is that you are walking, talking billboards as to why concealed carry should be banned. Do tell us more about what I want. FYI, California's Open Carry bans remain in place even if the Young v. Hawaii decision survives unless and until someone files a lawsuit challenging California's Open Carry bans. The California Loaded Open Carry ban was enacted in July of 1967. I am the first and only person who has challenged that ban in court, state or Federal. Likewise with the more recent bans on Unloaded Open Carry. I am also the first and only person who has challenged the restrictions on issuing handgun Open Carry licenses to counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people.
What I want is what I said in my lawsuit in the district court and repeated on appeal, to vindicate my Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense and for other lawful purposes.
What I don't want is some lawyer screwing the Second Amendment by making the same failed argument the NRA, SAF, CalGuns.nuts lawyers made in their concealed carry lawsuits, that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry, in the hopes that they might let him sit at their table.
Nichole’s is asserting that Alan saying that the state may forfill the right to bear arms (openly) outside of the home could be forfilled with a CCW permit (which as far as I know was never said in court) would cause him to lose this case. What I’m saying so that’s not true as the original young case actually asked for both open ad concealed. That being said is open carry is found to be a right, the state/city could argue that it can/will forfill that right by issuing CCW permits instead of open.
Lawyers are bound by the concessions they make in oral argument, regardless of what is said in the Complaint. You would have known this even if the Young v. Hawaii decision had been the only decision you have ever read. But since you did not know this then it is safe to assume that you haven't even read the Young decision. And, of course, you did not watch Mr. Beck's oral argument which is precluded by the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego. Concealed carry is not a right under the binding precedent in this circuit (as well as the binding precedents in Heller and McDonald).
Mr. Beck had only one line regarding the right to carry outside of the home and he blew it. "Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and concealed carry is not a right."
Any argument that the state might make about the Second Amendment right being satisfied with concealed carry permits is likewise precluded by the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego as well as the US Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald.
The chances of SCOTUS taking up an open carry case is increased because if Lost at the 9th will creat a split circuit. With regards to this allowing CCW see above
The Young v. Hawaii decision did not create a split with regards to concealed carry. Judge O'Scannlain opined that he was bound by the Peruta en banc decision (which he is) and therefore limited his holding to Open Carry. The Young v. Hawaii decision as it stands today does not create a split with any Federal circuit. But feel free to demonstrate your legal acumen by listing all of the splits and why they are splits. You can't? So sad.