Open Carry:
A Right or a Fashion Statement?

In Young v Hawaii a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals concluded:

"[E]ven though [the Ninth Circuit] has read these cases to exclude concealed carry from the Second Amendment's protections, see Peruta II, … the same cases command that the Second Amendment must encompass a right to open carry. "[emphases in original]

When reconsidered en banc, the Ninth Circuit decided that there really was no right to carry whatsoever. Young has appealed to the Supreme Court. It seems likely that the Court will grant certiorari. This prediction is founded on the observation that Young's prayer for relief is modest: he wants only to be issued a permit to openly carry. Moreover, there is ample precedent from 19th Century cases that open carry – i.e. 'in full open view' which places men upon an equality – "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States … "It would be a small step for the Supremes to go so little a way to begin to discover "the Right" to "bear" "arms".

Young comes in the shadow of NYSRPA v Corlett which SCOTUS has already agreed to hear in its 2021/22 term. There, the Court will decide: "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment." Substitute "concealed" with "open" and you have Young.

The title of this was going to be "Where is Joan Rivers Now That We Really Need Her?" Before her untimely demise, Ms. Rivers presided over her court of "Fashion Police" propounding the fashion faux pas of the day, dictating de rigueur in accessorizing. Should the Supremes dig diligently into the history of concealed carry they might be puzzled and begin to wonder whether the distinction between concealed and open carry is more of a fashion statement than a legitimate distinction of law. .....