[relictele]

It seems a rhetorical question but it’s actually the crux of the issue:

There is unquestionably a right to bear arms. To do so in public would mean open carry or concealed. There is no third option. Is the court saying that a Constituional right must only be exercised in one’s home? Does such a restriction apply to any other freedom?

[Jack Black]

There is no third option. Is the court saying that a Constituional right must only be exercised in one’s home? Does such a restriction apply to any other freedom?

We call them 'tards for a reason. What is it about "and bear" that is so hard for these judges to understand?

I suppose we will not be subjected to some tortured meaning of the term 'bear arms'.

[Thud]

Make that a Constitutional right to bear arms in self-defense, which means in public. The concealed vs. open carry in public issue is exactly what the dissent here zeroed in on.

I agree with the final dissent (by Judge Smith - there were several dissenting opinions) that the case should have been sent back to the trial court for a full trial on the issue. The problem with resolving it now is that the California legislature did not not formally enact a ban on open carry until after the San Diego federal district court in this case had issued its ruling. That means there still isn't a final trial court ruling on the concealed vs. open carry issue, and that is necessary for a final appellate ruling.

I.e., the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals predictably found another way to delay a final US Supreme Court ruling on a Constitutional right to concealed carry.