I'm hopeful and scared at the same time.  Looks like we might get our rights back.  But the democrats might use this as an excuse to pack the courts.

Que Sera Sera

Until the courts make a ruling, it is OK to deny the 2a right outside the home. Because you know, not proven in court that states violate the 2nd amendment.

I'm hopeful and scared at the same time.  Looks like we might get our rights back.  But the democrats might use this as an excuse to pack the courts.

Seems to me the Dems were threatening to pack the courts before the election, because "Trump already did that, so we (Dems) have to fix the court!"

This case is unrelated to packing the court.

Hope they hear this case in Oct and issue a decision before the end of this year and not wait till next June and issue a decision a year later.

Please notice how narrowly the court defined the question (my emphasis):

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Since all nine justices in Heller concurred that there is no right to concealed carry, unless they are intending to re-write Heller, I'd expect they'll confirm that there is no right to concealed carry.

Certainly Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will rule that way, and they just need two justices, including of the ones who claim to be "originalists" (like the writer of the Heller decisions, justice Scalia) who know that concealed carry was considered a crime at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, and for 100 years following that.

Not likely that they will expand a decision outside the narrow scope as they framed it and decide anything about open carry and licensing thereof for self-defense outside the home. That's gonna have to be another case in another year. Unfortunately.

Also note that lead counsel for the concealed carry licensing team is Paul Clement, who defended concealed carry in Peruta and lost handily before the Ninth Circuit, and SCOTUS did not grant cert when Peruta was appealed to them.

When I saw it was about concealed carry my first thought was what about open carry? Looks like they are about to punt yet again.

Please notice how narrowly the court defined the question (my emphasis):

Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.

Since all nine justices in Heller concurred that there is no right to concealed carry, unless they are intending to re-write Heller, I'd expect they'll confirm that there is no right to concealed carry.

Certainly Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor will rule that way, and they just need two justices, including of the ones who claim to be "originalists" (like the writer of the Heller decisions, justice Scalia) who know that concealed carry was considered a crime at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, and for 100 years following that.

Not likely that they will expand a decision outside the narrow scope as they framed it and decide anything about open carry and licensing thereof for self-defense outside the home. That's gonna have to be another case in another year. Unfortunately.

Also note that lead counsel for the concealed carry licensing team is Paul Clement, who defended concealed carry in Peruta and lost handily before the Ninth Circuit, and SCOTUS did not grant cert when Peruta was appealed to them.

Do you have a link that shows all nine justices concluded there is no right to concealed carry? I’ve looked and I can’t find any reference to that statement. The only reference I can find to anything regarding carrying firearms outside the home is Scalia saying that some “sensitive” places can ban the possession of firearms, like airports, schools, government buildings etc.

Considering that New York has been lobbying very hard for SCOTUS to not take this case, If what you say is true I would think New York would be chomping at the bit for SCOTUS to take this case and rule in their favor.

Do you have a link that shows all nine justices concluded there is no right to concealed carry? I’ve looked and I can’t find any reference to that statement. The only reference I can find to anything regarding carrying firearms outside the home is Scalia saying that some “sensitive” places can ban the possession of firearms, like airports, schools, government buildings etc.

Considering that New York has been lobbying very hard for SCOTUS to not take this case, If what you say is true I would think New York would be chomping at the bit for SCOTUS to take this case and rule in their favor.

Same I recall them intentionally leaving it blank/no comment so another case could decide. Not sure if they had enough votes to be more general on the 2nd Amendment.

No matter. Hawaii will find a way to make it extremely expensive and difficult to get a CC lic so that it takes another 20 years of litigation.

This may be a way of forcing either kind of carry. They could rule (I'm not saying anything to their discussions) that a state MUST ISSUE a permit to carry of either open or concealed, but they cannot deny the right to carry in it's entirety through arbitrary and subjective rules. Currently 44 States and/or Territories are Shall Issue with 20 being "Constitutional Carry". Only 9 states are May Issue. Those 9 are heavy Democrat states.

From https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/concealed-carry-states
May Issue States
Other states have may-issue laws. This is when a permit is required, and local authorities help determine whether permits are given. These states are:

California (residents only)
Connecticut
Delaware (residents only)
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island

In some states, there are no-issue laws. This means that most private citizens are not allowed to carry a concealed handgun. In California, this is the case in 12 counties. In other areas, while these laws are not technically on the books, they are in practice. The states that have these laws in practice are:

Hawaii (Lucky we live Hawaii)
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York

Do you have a link that shows all nine justices concluded there is no right to concealed carry? I’ve looked and I can’t find any reference to that statement. The only reference I can find to anything regarding carrying firearms outside the home is Scalia saying that some “sensitive” places can ban the possession of firearms, like airports, schools, government buildings etc.

Considering that New York has been lobbying very hard for SCOTUS to not take this case, If what you say is true I would think New York would be chomping at the bit for SCOTUS to take this case and rule in their favor.

Sure, here's the link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

You apparently forgot to read the sentence prior to the one you reference re the "sensitive places" prohibitions.

(My emphasis):

III

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Also:

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128S.Ct. 2809 (2008)


SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

Neither of Scalia's statements above re prohibiting concealed carry being constitutional, nor re open carry being the right guaranteed by the Constitution, were even mentioned, much less challenged by the the four opposing court justices who signed on to both the dissents. Obviously not opposed by the four other justices signing on to Scalia's opinion.

I'm hopeful and scared at the same time.  Looks like we might get our rights back.  But the democrats might use this as an excuse to pack the courts.

Same here. But if they did try to pack the courts they would have to do it before this case gets heard. I wonder if dems could get it done that fast?