NO 2A RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY! 9th Circuit Rules In Young v. Hawaii

West Virginia's HB4106, signed into law on April 1st, expands constitutional carry to include 18, 19, and 20-year-olds. This legislation clarifies that individuals aged 18-20, who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, can now carry a concealed weapon without a permit, aligning with existing open carry laws for this age group. The law emphasizes that this right is for all law-abiding legal adults and aims to enhance self-defense capabilities.

Colion Noir provides a critical analysis of a federal appeals court ruling that found California's ban on open firearm carry unconstitutional. He delves into the legal standards for firearm restrictions, historical context of gun control, and the psychological aspects of carrying firearms. Noir also touches on practical considerations for concealed versus open carry and the historical legislative responses in California.

This video discusses a significant Ninth Circuit ruling that may impact California's open carry ban. A three-judge panel has shown favor towards Second Amendment rights, specifically in the context of open carry. The case, originating from Mark Baird's lawsuit against Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenges the state's restrictions on open carry in populous counties.

This video discusses the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to rehear the 'Baird v. Bonta' case en banc, overturning a previous three-judge panel ruling that found California's open carry ban unconstitutional in populous counties. The speaker expresses frustration with the Ninth Circuit's history of overturning Second Amendment victories and highlights the significance of this case for carrying rights.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, articulates the core tenets of the Second Amendment, emphasizing its role in self-defense against criminals and tyranny. He details Gun Owners of America's legal actions against ATF restrictions and challenges to gun registration schemes, while also clarifying definitions and legality surrounding concealed and open carry during protests.

Colion Noir critically analyzes California AG Rob Bonta's stance on open carry, arguing the 'terrorizes children' narrative is a political tool rather than a genuine safety concern. He contrasts historical open carry of muskets with modern debates, referencing legal challenges like Baird v. Bonta and NYSRPA v. Bruen to highlight the ongoing legal battles over Second Amendment rights and the perceived fear of an armed, self-reliant populace.

This video provides an expert analysis of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari in Torcivia v. Suffolk County. The speaker, an authority on Second Amendment litigation, explains how the Second Circuit's ruling allows for warrantless firearm seizures under the 'special needs exception,' despite the Supreme Court's prior decision in Caniglia v. Strom. The denial means this precedent stands, potentially impacting future firearm rights cases.

This video provides an expert analysis of the Supreme Court's 5-4 emergency order concerning Texas's border dispute with the Biden administration. The speaker, an expert in legal matters, breaks down the implications for Texas's self-defense claims under the US Constitution and the ongoing legal battles involving border security measures like concertina wire. The analysis covers the 5th Circuit's role, the emergency application process, and the potential dismissal of the case.

This video provides an expert analysis of the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision denying a stay for Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA). The speaker, an expert in legal analysis, details how SAPA attempts to shield state agents from enforcing federal gun laws, its comparison to Texas's SB8 abortion law enforcement mechanism, and the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling, particularly concerning the 11th Amendment and Section 1983 lawsuits.

This video discusses the Supreme Court's unanimous 9-0 decision in a case involving the Martins, who were victims of an FBI wrong-house raid. The core issue revolves around the discretionary function exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which the government uses to claim immunity. The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that simply exercising judgment does not automatically grant immunity, and the government must demonstrate that decisions were grounded in actual policy considerations, not mere mistakes. The 11th Circuit is now rehearing arguments in light of this precedent, with judges appearing skeptical of the government's broad claims of immunity for operational failures.