Here is Washington State House of Representatives member Jim Walsh's (LD19) thoughts on the 9ths ruling:
Full Text of the Ruling (large pdf)Here's the text of Young v. Hawaii, the 9th Circuit Court opinion that would allow states to prohibit open carry of firearms.
It's long and its logic is...complicated. It includes a debatable reading of the US S Ct's Heller opinion. And a straight-up eccentric "historical" reading of English common law. Also, it was a split decision, 7-4, with one majority opinion and three separate dissenting opinions. The dissenting opinions are shorter, stronger and better-written.
Some quick thoughts:
1) WA is not Hawaii. WA has a longstanding tradition and practice as an "open carry" state.
2) The 9th Circuit majority clearly subscribes to the "living document" theory of the US Constitution.
3) This majority opinion will almost certainly be appealed to the US S Ct, which doesn't hesitate to overturn eccentric 9th Circuit opinions.
4) The US S Ct might take some issues with the 9th Circuit's interpretation of the Heller opinion. And its long, weird lesson in English common law. The dissents definitely do!
Finally, here are a couple of relevant excerpts from the 9th Circuit opinion.
From the majority opinion:
"Our review of more than 700 years of English and American legal history reveals a strong theme: government has the power to regulate arms in the public square. History is messy and, as we anticipated, the record is not uniform, but the overwhelming evidence from the states’ constitutions and statutes, the cases, and the commentaries confirms that we have never assumed that individuals have an unfettered right to carry weapons in public spaces. Indeed, we can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self defense."
From one dissent:
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.' U.S. Const. amend. II. Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self defense in any other place.
"This holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme."
From another dissent:
"It is hornbook constitutional law that 'to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping.' Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America 271 (1880). Indeed, the Supreme Court in Heller was clear about what it means to 'bear'arms: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” That the Constitution delineates a specific right to carry a firearm—as distinguished from the right simply to keep a firearm—strongly implies the right to take one’s firearm outside the home in which it is kept."
And:
"In the face of this damning factual record, both Hawaii and the majority urge that we should simply look the other way.
"No thanks!"