U.S. appeals court upholds right to carry gun in public

[GunsnFreedom 245]

5 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

Ill take open carry

[Zeke 5,504]

18 minutes ago, GunsnFreedom said:

Unrelated, and previously discussed, there is no law in NJ against open carry of a rifle or shotgun.  Although I wouldn't do it personally.

You’ll get hung up on transport. Mode of transport irrelevant 

[BobA 1,235]

1 hour ago, GunsnFreedom said:

It's a great ruling, but my concern here is that if that line of arguments occurred with NJ, NJ can say they have actually issued handgun carry licences.  A few private citizens likely have licences - which happen because they sue and the AG doesn't want to bring the case to a higher court - and there's a big difference between some and none.  None means there's a de facto ban.  If there's a hundred or so, with very few applications being submitted because we know they will be rejected, it may be considered reasonable to a panel of judges.

I believe,however, Cheesemans suit also covers the 14th with regards to disparagement in treatment when it comes to constitutional rights. They may have issued a hundred but the quantity denied and for what reasons should factor in. 

[raz-0 1,259]

15 hours ago, myhatinthering said:

I think in part, this has to do with SCOTUS as no court likes their rulings overturned

9th is the most overturned court in the land. They don't care. As others have said Peruta part deux. We got a solidly conservative panel of three and a 2-1 ruling. They'll request en-banc, and the lefty 9th will give it. Then it will be overturned. 

Even if it didn't happen that way CA will appeal to SCOTUS. But they'll ask for en banc because it's better to have a ruling in your favor, that way if SCOTUS ignores it, you get what you want instead of the other guy. 

[Zeke 5,504]

7 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

9th is the most overturned court in the land. They don't care. As others have said Peruta part deux. We got a solidly conservative panel of three and a 2-1 ruling. They'll request en-banc, and the lefty 9th will give it. Then it will be overturned. 

Even if it didn't happen that way CA will appeal to SCOTUS. But they'll ask for en banc because it's better to have a ruling in your favor, that way if SCOTUS ignores it, you get what you want instead of the other guy. 

Yep.. it’s the scotus gamble.. but the dnc is weighing in on that gamble..

regardless.. interesting times 

[myhatinthering 462]

what is this 'en banc' some are discussing?

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I've never really understand the inherent advantage of "open carry" anyway. Why on earth would you want everyone around you to know that you're armed? Don't you make yourself one of the "first targets" if some bad guy wants to hold up the bank or store (where you have the bad luck of being at the same time)?  Isn't an element of surprise (concealed carry) infinitely better? I dunno, does the fact that I'm a woman perhaps impact my opinion?... I feel I could be surprised and swiftly overpowered by someone... and now THEY have MY gun. Ugh. So, I really can't see advertising that you're carrying, and that's what "open carry" does IMO. Anyway, I don't pretend to know a lot about this topic... just giving my gut reaction!

And, yes, I agree... the 9th will overturn this en banc... and we're right back to where we were... though, NOT EXACTLY! We'll be a little bit better off. Because we'll have Thomas and Gorsuch who are already chomping at the bit to take on a 2A case AND we'll probably have Kavanaugh in the mix, who seems more reliably conservative than Kennedy. Fingers crossed!! Of course, I'd love to see NJ's case be the one to be heard by SCOTUS! 

4 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

what is this 'en banc' some are discussing?

It means when a case is heard by ALL the judges of a court, not a small panel of its members. And the 9th is a VERY liberal court - so that would swing the decision left.

[ChrisJM981 924]

8 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I've never really understand the inherent advantage of "open carry" anyway. Why on earth would you want everyone around you to know that you're armed? Don't you make yourself one of the "first targets" if some bad guy wants to hold up the bank or store (where you have the bad luck of being at the same time)?  Isn't an element of surprise (concealed carry) infinitely better? I dunno, does the fact that I'm a woman perhaps impact my opinion?... I feel I could be surprised and swiftly overpowered by someone... and now THEY have MY gun. Ugh. So, I really can't see advertising that you're carrying, and that's what "open carry" does IMO. Anyway, I don't pretend to know a lot about this topic... just giving my gut reaction!

And, yes, I agree... the 9th will overturn this en banc... and we're right back to where we were... though, NOT EXACTLY! We'll be a little bit better off. Because we'll have Thomas and Gorsuch who are already chomping at the bit to take on a 2A case AND we'll probably have Kavanaugh in the mix, who seems more reliably conservative than Kennedy. Fingers crossed!! Of course, I'd love to see NJ's case be the one to be heard by SCOTUS! 

It means when a case is heard by ALL the judges of a court, not a small panel of its members. And the 9th is a VERY liberal court - so that would swing the decision left.

People who do open carry generally do so because it's their right. "Why? Because I can." 

Personally I'd rather have concealed carry. YMMV

With that said, NJ laws do not differentiate between open and concealed carry. 

[Zeke 5,504]

14 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

what is this 'en banc' some are discussing?

One good benefit of this forum.. you learn civics. 

[Zeke 5,504]

3 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

People who do open carry generally do so because it's their right. "Why? Because I can." 

Personally I'd rather have concealed carry. YMMV

With that said, NJ laws do not differentiate between open and concealed carry. 

I agree with you and @Mrs. Peel. But some court decisions have said you have to offer 1or the other

New scotus in next few years is gonna be muscle! Unless we go full retard

[WP22 1,558]

15 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

....

It means when a case is heard by ALL the judges of a court, not a small panel of its members. And the 9th is a VERY liberal court - so that would swing the decision left.

Minor quibble, in case of the nutty 9th, a court with 25 active judges and 4 vacancies, an en banc court consists of 11 judges. The court has refused every request to have  cases heard by all the judges. 

 

[vjf915 456]

20 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I've never really understand the inherent advantage of "open carry" anyway. Why on earth would you want everyone around you to know that you're armed? Don't you make yourself one of the "first targets" if some bad guy wants to hold up the bank or store (where you have the bad luck of being at the same time)?  Isn't an element of surprise (concealed carry) infinitely better? I dunno, does the fact that I'm a woman perhaps impact my opinion?... I feel I could be surprised and swiftly overpowered by someone... and now THEY have MY gun. Ugh. So, I really can't see advertising that you're carrying, and that's what "open carry" does IMO. Anyway, I don't pretend to know a lot about this topic... just giving my gut reaction!

If the need arises to use your firearm, open carry normally allows quicker access, depending on what you are wearing.  However I think that the biggest advantage is deterrence.  Ideally, you're not the only one carrying.  Bad guy walks in to hold up the bank, sees two or three armed citizens, decides to turn around and look for trouble somewhere else.

That being said, I will always pick concealed carry.  Not only are you benefited from the element of surprise, but it also allows you to make the judgement call of using it or not.  If open carrying and someone decides to attack you first to take you out of the equation, they have forced your hand.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I'm not going to shoot someone if I feel they will calmly walk away with my wallet, watch, etc....but if I feel like they're about to get violent, or my wife is at risk, all bets are off.

[myhatinthering 462]

thanks mrs peel

[PK90 3,570]

I frequently open carry. From the time I leave my house @ 8am, until the time I jump in my pool @ 4pm. Stopping at Safeway, Chase, Walgreens along the way, or walking the dog around the hood, makes no difference. Also, when it is 115 degrees, I am not wearing an outer garment. I know, temps and job affects my decision like no other. I do "sneaky pete" when I have to.

As stated, open carrying is more of a crime deterrent than an attraction. Also, if you are unaware of your surroundings that you can be overpowered and lose your gun to a bad guy, perhaps you should not be carrying at all.

[siderman 1,137]

7 minutes ago, WP22 said:

Minor quibble, in case of the nutty 9th, a court with 25 active judges and 4 vacancies, an en banc court consists of 11 judges. The court has refused every request to have  cases heard by all the judges. 

 

do you know who or what process determines which 11 judges are chosen?

[PeteF 1,044]

As @vjf915 and @PK90 said OC has a deterent factor.  Why do you think so many more eldely woman are attacked than 20 yo linebackers?  Criminals typically look for easy targets, if they know there is a chance they will be shot, the odds are favorable that they will look for an easier target. 

The best defensive shooting is one you never have.

And no I don't OC when out of NJ, but I understand why someone would.

[WP22 1,558]

The chief justice is always included. The other 10 justices are chosen randomly.

[BobA 1,235]

26 minutes ago, vjf915 said:

  Ideally, you're not the only one carrying. 

I was at a street fair in South Dakota year before last and every hip had a pistol on it. I never felt so safe in civilian life. There is something comforting about seeing the security. 

[capt14k 2,052]

Some states concealed carry can be an issue, because one can be charged criminally if their concealed carry weapon accidentally becoming visible. For example you reach for something on the top shelf and your shirt rises up revealing your handgun. If both open and concealed are allowed then it is a non issue. Personally I find open carry to be easier and a better deterrent. As PK90 said in the summer you don't have to worry about wearing extra clothing to conceal your firearm with open carry. Lastly uniformed police open carry so why shouldn't citizens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[siderman 1,137]

29 minutes ago, WP22 said:

The chief justice is always included. The other 10 justices are chosen randomly.

A quick look up of the Chief Justice, Sydney Thomas. Nominated by Clinton and was also interviewed by Obama for the Supreme position Kagen now has.  Hope he's not a tie breaker.

[capt14k 2,052]

Minor quibble, in case of the nutty 9th, a court with 25 active judges and 4 vacancies, an en banc court consists of 11 judges. The court has refused every request to have  cases heard by all the judges. 
 

Correct. Though the 6th Circuit it is all 16 judges.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Zeke 5,504]

5 minutes ago, siderman said:

A quick look up of the Chief Justice, Sydney Thomas. Nominated by Clinton and was also interviewed by Obama for the Supreme position Kagen now has.  Hope he's not a tie breaker.

Why not? Think long game

[mossburger 406]

1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I've never really understand the inherent advantage of "open carry" anyway. Why on earth would you want everyone around you to know that you're armed? Don't you make yourself one of the "first targets" if some bad guy wants to hold up the bank or store (where you have the bad luck of being at the same time)?  Isn't an element of surprise (concealed carry) infinitely better? I dunno, does the fact that I'm a woman perhaps impact my opinion?... I feel I could be surprised and swiftly overpowered by someone... and now THEY have MY gun. Ugh. So, I really can't see advertising that you're carrying, and that's what "open carry" does IMO. Anyway, I don't pretend to know a lot about this topic... just giving my gut reaction!

You're not wrong. From a practical standpoint, open carry is useless unless you are both physically capable of resisting a hand-to-hand struggle for your gun, and aware of your surroundings at all times. Think of the type of training police officers have. If you are not capable of these things then open carry is not for you and probably going to have a higher chance of getting you killed than saving your life. 

I suppose in a very rural setting or some such, it does become a lot more useful as you can just carry a normal size firearm in a comfortable way. 

That said, open carry is generally done "because I can" and the fact of the matter is, the second amendment does not state why, it just states that you can. So if someone wants to open carry, there is no (constitutional) reason they cannot. 

[myhatinthering 462]

it will go the SC if overturned

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

57 minutes ago, PK90 said:

As stated, open carrying is more of a crime deterrent than an attraction. Also, if you are unaware of your surroundings that you can be overpowered and lose your gun to a bad guy, perhaps you should not be carrying at all.

I go by the theory (admittedly, I may be incorrect) that ANYONE can be surprised, no matter how "aware" they vow to be. Someone can come racing through a doorway next to you, racing up behind you on a crowded street... so, a person can do their very best to be aware, and still have the unexpected happen. As for the second part, if the vulnerability of being overpowered would rule someone out from carrying a firearm... wouldn't that rule out the people who need armed protection the most? (Women and other smaller framed people, the elderly, the disabled, etc.)  I don't know... I don't plan to carry, but if I did... I still think concealed makes a lot more sense (or would make more sense for ME, if I ever chose to).

3 minutes ago, mossburger said:

From a practical standpoint, open carry is useless unless you are both physically capable of resisting a hand-to-hand struggle for your gun, and aware of your surroundings at all times. 

As I was writing my reply, yours came in! Thank you... this is how I tend to see it, too. I know that I could not fend off a younger, male attacker. Impossible! So, I guess much of this depends on one's individual strength as well as comfort level, etc.

 

 

[Zeke 5,504]

8 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I go by the theory (admittedly, I may be incorrect) that ANYONE can be surprised, no matter how "aware" they vow to be. Someone can come racing through a doorway next to you, racing up behind you on a crowded street... so, a person can do their very best to be aware, and still have the unexpected happen. As for the second part, if the vulnerability of being overpowered would rule someone out from carrying a firearm... wouldn't that rule out the people who need armed protection the most? (Women and other smaller framed people, the elderly, the disabled, etc.)  I don't know... I don't plan to carry, but if I did... I still think concealed makes a lot more sense (or would make more sense for ME, if I ever chose to).

As I was writing my reply, yours came in! Thank you... this is how I tend to see it, too. I know that I could not fend off a younger, male attacker. Impossible! So, I guess much of this depends on one's individual strength as well as comfort level, etc.

 

 

I want everyone else to OC

whilst I CC.

why? Nunya bizness.. grey man is smert

[siderman 1,137]

28 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Why not? Think long game

I am. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear the case so if breaks a tie and assume he favors the democrat way-anti- the case is done. But it is just an assumption on my part not knowing his history from the bench but being picked by Clinton and Obama giving him a strong look......

[Zeke 5,504]

11 minutes ago, siderman said:

I am. SCOTUS doesn't have to hear the case so if breaks a tie and assume he favors the democrat way-anti- the case is done. But it is just an assumption on my part not knowing his history from the bench but being picked by Clinton and Obama giving him a strong look......

SCOTUS will hear moving forward.

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

1 hour ago, mossburger said:

You're not wrong. From a practical standpoint, open carry is useless unless you are both physically capable of resisting a hand-to-hand struggle for your gun, and aware of your surroundings at all times. Think of the type of training police officers have. If you are not capable of these things then open carry is not for you and probably going to have a higher chance of getting you killed than saving your life. 

I suppose in a very rural setting or some such, it does become a lot more useful as you can just carry a normal size firearm in a comfortable way. 

That said, open carry is generally done "because I can" and the fact of the matter is, the second amendment does not state why, it just states that you can. So if someone wants to open carry, there is no (constitutional) reason they cannot. 

......ummm retention holsters......yes the police have them

[gleninjersey 2,139]

5 hours ago, GunsnFreedom said:

It's a great ruling, but my concern here is that if that line of arguments occurred with NJ, NJ can say they have actually issued handgun carry licences.  A few private citizens likely have licences - which happen because they sue and the AG doesn't want to bring the case to a higher court - and there's a big difference between some and none.  None means there's a de facto ban.  If there's a hundred or so, with very few applications being submitted because we know they will be rejected, it may be considered reasonable to a panel of judges.

Heller or McDonald (I forget which) I believe said you can't have qualifications, like justifiable need, on rights.  One of the reasons DC permitting process fell.  Surprised Jersey hasn't fallen.  Soon though.  Soon.