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.