Supreme Court 6-3 Carry Decision Changes Second Amendment Fight Forever! State Defiance Challenged!

Summary

The Ninth Circuit Court has issued a mixed decision on California's concealed carry ban, upholding restrictions in certain locations like bars and parks while striking down bans in hospitals and private property, citing Second Amendment violations. This has prompted multiple plaintiffs to seek en banc review in the Ninth Circuit. The decision's implications for permit holders are significant, and the potential for California to modify laws to mirror Hawaii's approach, which was deemed constitutional, raises concerns. The video also discusses the May v. Bonta case, part of the consolidated lawsuits, and the push for a favorable en banc panel decision to halt the enforcement of California's controversial SB2 law.

Takeaways

• 🚫 The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that California's ban on concealed carry in certain locations, such as bars, restaurants serving alcohol, parks, and casinos, does not violate the Second Amendment.
• ✅ However, the court found that bans on concealed carry in places like hospitals, churches, medical facilities, public transportation, and private property do violate the Second Amendment.
• 🔄 The decision is mixed, leading to appeals for en banc panel review in the Ninth Circuit, including in the May v. Bonta case, which is one of the consolidated lawsuits.
• 🔄 The court used a looser version of the Bruen analysis, which considers historical regulations and their relevance to modern places, to uphold some location bans but not others.
• 🏛️ For places of worship, the court could not find historical justification for an outright ban on concealed carry, indicating the strength of the Bruen analysis even in a looser form.
• 📘 The court's decision on the 'catchall' or 'vampire rule' differed between California and Hawaii, with the latter's law being upheld due to its allowance for businesses to permit carry through signs or oral consent.
• 🚨 There are concerns that California could modify its laws to mirror Hawaii's and have its 'vampire rule' upheld, setting a precedent that other states might follow.
• 🔄 The decision has implications for concealed carry permit holders in California, as some aspects of the ban are upheld while others are struck down.
• 📚 The cases are still in an interlocutory process, with reviews of preliminary injunctions, and there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would grant review due to the nature of preliminary injunctions.
• 🔄 Plaintiffs are seeking en banc panel review and possibly stays from the Ninth Circuit to keep all of SB2 halted while appeals are pending, aiming for a consistent approach to enforcement.

Q & A

What is the recent update regarding California's concealed carry ban?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed decision on California's concealed carry ban, striking down some parts as unconstitutional while upholding others.

Which parts of California's concealed carry ban were deemed unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit?

The ban on concealed carry in places like hospitals, churches, medical facilities, public transportation, and private property was deemed unconstitutional.

What locations did the Ninth Circuit uphold the concealed carry ban for?

The ban was upheld for locations such as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, playgrounds, parks, state parks, casinos, stadiums, libraries, zoos, museums, and all parking areas attached to those locations.

What is the significance of the Ninth Circuit using a looser version of the Bruen analysis?

Using a looser version of the Bruen analysis allowed the court to uphold some location bans by finding historical regulations that were analogous to those cited by the Supreme Court, even if they were not a close match.

How did the Ninth Circuit differentiate between Hawaii's law and California's law regarding the 'catchall' or 'vampire rule'?

Hawaii's law was upheld because it allowed businesses to allow concealed carry either by posting a sign or through writing or oral consent, whereas California's law only allowed permission through posting a sign, which was deemed too restrictive.

What is the next step for the plaintiffs in the California concealed carry ban cases?

The plaintiffs are seeking en banc review in the Ninth Circuit, appealing the mixed decision to a larger panel of judges within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Why is it important for the plaintiffs to appeal the decision to an en banc panel?

Appealing to an en banc panel is important to potentially overturn the parts of the decision that upheld certain concealed carry bans and to prevent the establishment of precedent that could be used by other states to restrict Second Amendment rights.

What is the potential impact of the Ninth Circuit's decision on concealed carry permit holders in California?

The decision could lead to confusion and inconsistency in the enforcement of concealed carry laws, depending on the outcome of the en banc review and any subsequent appeals.

Why might California or other states consider modifying their concealed carry laws in response to the Ninth Circuit's decision?

States might modify their laws to mirror the aspects of Hawaii's law that were upheld, in an attempt to comply with the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the Second Amendment while maintaining restrictions on concealed carry.

What is the role of the preliminary injunction in these concealed carry ban cases?

The preliminary injunctions are used to halt the enforcement of certain aspects of California's concealed carry ban until the cases can be decided on their merits, and they are part of the interlocutory appeals process.

Outlines

00:00

🔫 California's Concealed Carry Ban Challenge Updates

The video discusses the recent developments in the legal battle against California's concealed carry ban. The Ninth Circuit Court has made a mixed ruling, invalidating certain restrictions such as bans in hospitals, churches, and public transportation, while upholding bans in places like bars, restaurants serving alcohol, parks, and casinos. The decision has prompted multiple plaintiffs to seek en banc review within the Ninth Circuit. The video also mentions the involvement of the channel's sponsor, Brownells, a pro-Second Amendment company, and provides a discount code for viewers. The speaker, Reno May, is part of the May versus Bonta case, which is one of the cases seeking en banc review.

05:01

🏛️ Analysis of the Ninth Circuit's Ruling on Concealed Carry

This paragraph delves deeper into the Ninth Circuit's decision, highlighting the court's use of a looser version of the Bruen analysis to uphold restrictions in certain sensitive locations. The court found that historical regulations do not support an outright ban on concealed carry in places of worship and private businesses. However, the court did uphold California's restrictions based on a signposting requirement, which was deemed more restrictive than Hawaii's law that allows both signposting and oral consent. The video raises concerns about the potential for California to modify its laws to mirror Hawaii's and avoid future legal challenges. The speaker anticipates that requests for stays will be filed to halt the enforcement of California's Senate Bill 2 (SB2) while appeals are pending and expresses hope for a favorable outcome from the en banc panel review.

Keywords

💡Concealed Carry

Concealed carry refers to the practice of carrying a concealed firearm on one's person in public. In the context of the video, it is central to the discussion of California's new ban on concealed carry and the legal challenges against it. The video discusses how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the validity of certain restrictions on concealed carry, which is a significant issue for gun rights advocates.

💡Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is a fundamental right that is central to the video's discussion of concealed carry restrictions. The court's decisions on whether certain restrictions violate the Second Amendment are crucial for determining the legality of California's concealed carry ban.

💡Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit is a United States Court of Appeals that covers several western states, including California. In the video, the Ninth Circuit is mentioned as the court that issued a decision on the legality of California's concealed carry ban. The court's decisions have significant implications for gun rights in the region.

💡Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is a court order that temporarily halts an action or requires an action to be taken, usually until a full trial can be heard. In the video, the Ninth Circuit's decision on a preliminary injunction against California's concealed carry ban is discussed, highlighting the legal process and its impact on the enforcement of the law.

💡Brownells

Brownells is a firearms accessories and gunsmithing tools company mentioned as a sponsor in the video. The company's support for the channel and its pro-Second Amendment stance is highlighted, showing the alignment of the channel's content with the interests of companies and individuals who support gun rights.

💡Scholar

In the video, 'scholar' is used as a term of endearment for supporters of the Second Amendment and gun rights. The video ends with a call to action for 'scholars' to maintain and protect the nation's gun rights, emphasizing the importance of education and advocacy in this area.

💡En Banc Review

En Banc review refers to a full-panel review by a court, where all or most judges of a court hear a case, rather than a smaller panel. In the video, the plaintiffs are seeking en banc review in the Ninth Circuit to challenge the court's decision on California's concealed carry ban, indicating a significant legal step in the case.

💡Catchall Provision

A catchall provision is a legal term used to include any additional items or situations not specifically mentioned elsewhere in a law. The video discusses how the Ninth Circuit struck down California's catchall provision in its concealed carry ban, arguing it was too restrictive and lacked historical support.

💡Hawaii Wolford Case

The Hawaii Wolford Case is one of the consolidated lawsuits mentioned in the video that challenges the concealed carry ban. It is significant because it was appealed to the Ninth Circuit and is now seeking en banc review, indicating the breadth of legal challenges to concealed carry restrictions.

💡May v. Bonta

May v. Bonta is a specific case mentioned in the video where plaintiffs, including Reno May and the channel's host, are suing the state of California over its concealed carry law. This case is part of the broader legal challenge to California's concealed carry restrictions and is seeking en banc review in the Ninth Circuit.

Highlights

Update on California concealed carry ban challenges seeking to overturn the state's new restrictions.

Introduction of sponsor Brownells, a Pro-2A company supporting the Second Amendment fight.

Ninth Circuit's decision on California's concealed carry ban, striking down some aspects while upholding others.

Invalidation of carry bans in hospitals, churches, medical facilities, public transportation, and private property as per the Ninth Circuit.

Upholding of California's ban in places like bars, restaurants serving alcohol, playgrounds, parks, state parks, casinos, stadiums, libraries, zoos, museums, and their parking areas.

Mixed decision from the Ninth Circuit leading to multiple plaintiffs seeking en banc review.

Appeal of the Ninth Circuit decision to the en banc panel in the Hawaii case and California challenges.

May versus Bonta case, one of the cases seeking en banc review, with plaintiffs including Reno May and the CRPA.

Federal district court judge's preliminary injunction against California's new CCW restrictions, which was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

Ninth Circuit's use of a looser version of the Bruen analysis to uphold some location bans but not others.

Hawaii's law allowing businesses to allow carry through posting a sign or oral consent, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

California's law only allowing permission through posting a sign, which was struck down as too restrictive.

Concerns that California could modify its laws to mirror Hawaii's and have its 'vampire rule' upheld.

Discussion on the implications of the Ninth Circuit's decision for concealed carry permit holders in California.

Anticipation of requests for stays from the Ninth Circuit en banc to halt the decision's enforcement until appeals are resolved.

Hope for a favorable draw from the Ninth Circuit en banc panel to find California's SB2 unconstitutional.

Call to action for viewers to like, comment, and subscribe to support the channel and stay updated on 2A news.

Transcripts

so I have an update for you in the

California concealed carry band

challenges which seek to strike down and

overturn the state of California's new

ban on conil carry so let's talk about

what is happening now really quick

before we jump into this video I want to

thank one of the new sponsors of the

channel which is brown LS I love Brown

L's I got to meet a lot of them over at

a recent event when we went out to Iowa

uh we did an event there some speaking

engagements and all that and I got to

know the guys better and I've known a

lot of them for a long time but just got

to tour their facility see what they do

they're an amazing company they're Pro

2A they believe in the 2A fight and so

if you guys are interested check out

brown L's I can't give you any links or

anything like that but check them out

and if you use a code scholar 10 you can

get 10% off of your order now as I

mentioned in the intro in this video I

have an important update for everyone in

California who are currently facing the

state of California's attempt to ban

conal carry Statewide the N circuit

recently issued their decision on

whether they will in fact overturn the

preliminary injunction with which is

currently in place against all of s SP2

the N circuit decided that the carry

bands that are currently in place in

places like hospitals churches medical

facilities public transportation and

then also the catchall private property

banss all of those are in fact invalid

that they violate the Second Amendment

but the nine circuit panel also found

that the state of California and their

carry ban in places like bars and

restaurants that serve alcohol

playgrounds Parks state parks casinos

stadiums libraries zoos museums and all

parking areas attached to those

locations were in fact okay that they

did not violate the Second Amendment and

therefore they upheld those aspects of

sb2 so this was a very mixed decision

from the ninth circuit which is now led

multiple plaintiffs in these

Consolidated lawsuits to now seek onbon

panel review in the ninth circuit so

they appealed that 9th circuit decision

up to the next level of the ninth

circuit both in the Hawaii case and now

one of the Cali challenges there have

been appeals up to the N circuit on bong

panel and one of those cases in fact is

one of the cases that I'm apptive in

along with Reno May in that case we're

going to be talking about is the May

versus bonta case now if you're not

aware in that case Reno May myself and

other plaintiffs joined along with crpa

and also gun owners of California to sue

the state of California because of their

new s SP2 law on review of this case the

federal district court judge judge

Cormac Carney granted a preliminary

injunction against various aspects of

California's new CCW restrictions that

preliminary injunction against sb2 was

appealed then up to the nth circuit and

was then Consolidated with other cases

one the FBC lawsuits and then also the

Hawaii Wolford case which has now also

been appealed up to the N circuit on Bon

panel in our case we received a

preliminary injunction halting the

enforcement of California's carry ban at

least until the case was decided on the

merits by judge Cormac Carney but as we

all knew the state of California was not

going to go quiet so they appealed up to

the 99th circuit they also filed for an

emergency state of that preliminary

injunction the Motions panel on the nth

circuit originally did Grant an

administrative stay but then the merits

panel that reviewed this case did remove

that stay that meant as we sat before

the N circuit decision all of SP2 was

blocked and the concealed carry laws

remained the same as if they were uh the

same before SP2 was even passed but now

we have that new decision from the ninth

circuit which upheld some aspects of sb2

and reversed some of the language from

the LW Court this of course has huge

ramifications for concealed carry permit

holders in California and that's why

it's now being appealed like I mentioned

the ninth circuit in their decision

struck down some parts of the carry ban

but upheld some others now in coming to

their conclusion the ninth circuit

actually used a looser version of the

Bruin analysis the ninth circuit stated

that we conclude that the proper

approach for determining whether a place

is sensitive is as follows for places

that have existed since the founding it

suffices for defendant to identify

historical regulations similar in number

and time frame to the regulations that

the Supreme Court cited as justification

for designating other places as

sensitive for places that are newer

defendant must point to regulations that

are analogous to the regulations cited

by the court taking into account that it

is illogical to expect a government to

regulate a place place before it existed

in its modern form for both types of

places historical regulations need not

be a close match to the challenge law

they need only evidence a principal

underpinning our nation's historical

tradition of regulating firearms in

places relevantly similar to those

covered by The Challenge law the nin

circuit used this looser historical

approach this looser Brewing analysis to

uphold some of these sens of location

bands but even the loose approach still

did not find enough historical

justification to completely ban

concealed carry in places like churches

and then every single private business

now when it came to the catchall vampire

rule the N circuit found that Hawaii's

law which was also part of some of these

cases that were challenged uh they found

that the Hawaii law varied enough from

the California law and therefore they

upheld the Hawaii law the catchall

phrase the vampire rule in Hawaii but

they said California's was different and

they struck down California the court

found that since Hawaii's law allowed

businesses to allow by posting a sign uh

but also through writing an oral consent

it was not a violation of the Second

Amendment but in contrast since

California's law only allows permission

through posting a sign they found that

that was too restrictive and did not

have historical support now this of

course opens up some possibilities and

also some concerns that I expressed in

my original video that California could

now simply have a Playbook to modify

their laws to try to mirror what Hawaii

did and what the ninth circuit found

would not violate the Second Amendment

so all californ californ had to do was

change some of their laws and then their

vampire rule would be upheld by the uned

circuit which is concerning to say the

least now when it came to specific bands

like places on worship the nth circuit

found that those locations clearly

existed at the time of our founding and

they could not find a single historical

law or analog that would support a state

outright Banning carry at those

locations that shows that even though

the court is using a looser approach

when it comes to bruan in that analysis

the bruan analysis is still so strong

that even a looser Bruin approach still

cannot find enough justification for

these types of outright banss at places

of worship and then also the catchall

provisions now after that decision there

were some questions about what would

some of these plaintiffs in these

Consolidated cases do uh since this was

a mixed bag decision in some of these

Consolidated cases there were some wins

and some losses there were questions on

whether or not they would in fact try to

seek onong panel review in my last video

I mentioned that there was probably no

doubt in my mind that the Hawaii Wolford

case would in fact go on Bon for review

because that is one of the biggest

losses unfortunately everybody in Hawaii

got the biggest loss because the N

circuit upheld the catchall vampire rule

in Hawaii and then also a lot of the

other Provisions so that one was a

little bit of a no-brainer to go to the

onong panel and now that case has been

filed for onong panel review but also

the California mayy bonta case is

seeking onong panel review now keep in

mind all of these cases are still in an

interlocutory process they're still

interlocutory appeals the reviews of

preliminary injunctions and even if

these cases eventually make their way

out of the N circuit onong panel and

eventually maybe seek Supreme Court

review there is no guarantee the Supreme

Court would Grant review because the

Supreme Court does not like preliminary

injunctions however I do understand that

there is a strong need to appeal right

now especially when you look at

plaintiffs like those out of Hawaii who

are facing a complete carry ban you

cannot have that language sit in effect

the Hawaiian laws and then also allowing

that language to stand opens up risk for

States like California and others to

Simply modify and mirror what Hawaii did

tried to pass those change their laws

and then that would sit as president and

the N circuit and other courts even

lower courts that want to rule Pro 2A

would have that language sitting there

as president that they would have to

follow so now onong panel appeals have

been filed and we will see ultimately

what happens I also anticipate there

will be requests for stays from the N

circuit on Bon panel uh to stay the N

circuit's decision to keep all of SP2

halted because you want a hodge podge

mix and match approach when it comes to

sb2 being enforced because that would be

super confusing for States like

California and Hawai so I anticipate

that that will be sought for the onbon

panel to Grant and then hopefully the

nin circuit onbon panel grants this day

and all of sb2 remains halt while these

appeals are taking place and also we are

going to be hoping for a favorable draw

from the nin circuit because if you're

not aware the N circuit on bong panel

operates through a randomly selected uh

10 judges that are selected and then the

11th judge is the chief judge so

hopefully we get a favorable pro toway

panel that will find that SP SP2 is is

in fact unconstitutional so that's

what's happening in California and

Hawaii with the concealed carry bands as

we get more information I will let you

guys know also if you like this video

and you would like support the channel

one of the best ways to do that is to

like comment and subscribe all those

things help to fuel the algorithm and it

signals to YouTube that you guys see

value in these videos and in this type

of 2A news but as always thank you all

for watching don't forget to like and

subscribe and never forget this nation

was built B Scholars and this nation

will be maintained B Scholars

[Music]