Fifty cents at Starbucks and the 9th's en banc decision will buy the same thing.
How do you figure that?* The 9th Circuit en banc court gave me the most important thing I asked for in my motion to become an Amicus and in my Amicus brief. The en banc court limited its holding to concealed carry.
I had also asked that the Peruta decision be remanded back to the district court in order to give the Peruta plaintiffs an opportunity to challenge the laws which they had argued to uphold - California's Open Carry bans as well as California's Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
The en banc court did me a favor by publishing a decision which ended their case in this circuit. Now the NRA will have to start from the very beginning in the unlikely event that the NRA decides to challenge California's Open Carry bans and California's GFSZ.
Five will get you ten that if the NRA does file such a lawsuit, it will open by saying that Open Carry can be banned and that firearms can be banned in some distance from the grounds of a K-12 public or private school but not 1,000 feet from them, or at least not 1,000 feet from all of them.
The NRA did the same thing with its challenge to the San Francisco magazine and ammunition ban. The NRA said that magazines can be banned, but ten rounds is too small a limit. The 9th Circuit court of appeals took the NRA at its word and said well, you told us that magazines can be banned and so we are upholding the SF ban.
* If you are referring to the concurrence which said it would apply intermediate scrutiny to the concealed carry law if it were protected under the Second Amendment, the concurrence made no mention of Open Carry. But let us infer such an implication. The three Open Carry bans do not have "good cause" exceptions and I wasn't so foolish to exclude that argument in my case not to mention the documented death threat against me which the Sheriffs' CCW policies in Yolo and San Diego counties recognized as "good cause" for being issued a license.
The fourth law I am challenging is California's handgun Open Carry licensing laws which are provisions of two CCW laws. It's prohibition is statutory as well. California has state preemption. Local police chiefs and county sheriffs are prohibited from issuing their own licenses to carry (openly or concealed). The two state licensing statutes which apply to me prohibit every sheriff and every police chief from issuing a handgun open carry license to me and to everyone else similarly situated to me who reside and work in counties with a population of more than 200,000 people. Whereas those who are otherwise similarly situated in every other respect in the counties within which one can apply, can theoretically obtain a handgun Open Carry license.
For me to lose on appeal, it will be necessary for me to: 1) Thoroughly screw up my Appellant Opening Brief to such an extent that the court of appeals cannot even liberally construe a constitutional challenge or an ask for relief which it cannot give (or direct the district court to give) and 2) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals must conclude that there is absolutely no right to carry a firearm beyond the doors of our home and 3) If the court of appeals concludes that there is a right to openly carry a firearm beyond the doors of our home for the purpose of self-defense then its prohibition on the carrying of firearms for the purpose of self-defense applies to all incorporated cities and all unincorporated county territory where the discharge of a firearm is permitted, and 4) If the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies even one inch outside of the doors to my home then there is that pesky 14th Amendment equal protection violation thingy the court will have to get around and under its own binding prior precedents (not to mention those by SCOTUS) it can't get around it.
For those of you who think I can't write a brief to paint the court into a corner, just read judge Otero's final judgment in my case. According to his decision, there is no right to carry a loaded firearm outside the door of one's home, firearms and persons carrying firearms, fall completely outside the scope of the Second and Fourth Amendments, even if those firearms are carried in a place where carrying them is not prohibited.
There were many other conclusions he came to which conflict with SCOTUS and 9th Circuit precedent but my favorite one is that the only way for a minority to challenge these laws is for them to allege in a Complaint that the laws have been enforced against them because of their race. For the benefit of those who are unaware, if someone, including a minority is charged with violating the criminal laws at issue in my complaint (and pretty much every law on the books) he cannot have his criminal case removed to Federal court and hasn't been able to do so since 1971.
That means a person who would allege that the law was enforced against him because of his race must raise that challenge in state court (the same state which passed the racist law to begin with) and if convicted, which he would be, he can only challenge his incarceration through a long, expensive Habeas petition, which must go through the state courts before it can go into the Federal courts. And after that, he must wait until any period of probation or parole has expired before he can bring a 1983 Civil Rights challenge to the law he was convicted of violating.
This is why ALL of the Federal courts and not just the 9th Circuit allow one to bring pre-enforcement challenges to criminal laws. Which means so long as they dot their 'I"s and cross their "T's correctly in their Complaint, anyone can challenge the constitutionality of a law BEFORE it has been enforced against them.
Besides, had judge Otero bothered to read my briefs instead of rubber-stamping the judgement written by the magistrate judge, he would have noticed that I plead that the 1967 ban was racially motivated, that it has been disproportionately enforced and that its enforcement, I alleged has injured me.
Our maybe judge Otero read my briefs and that is why he completely foreclosed any race based pre-enforcement challenge?