[zeugma]

The only saving grace is the very well written majority opinion arguing that McDonald and Heller ruled that there is a right to bear outside of the home, and the 9th has already ruled that concealed carry is not constitutionally protected in Peruda II. So the only alternative available is to permit open carry outside of the home to all who are not prohibited persons.

If I recall correctly Peruda II basically said, "you can either deny concealed carry or you can deny open carry, but not both".

The Appeals court in the case, noted that no one has been issued a concealed carry permit in Hawaii for decades, thus the right is essentially completely denied.

[marktwain]

If I recall correctly Peruda II basically said, “you can either deny concealed carry or you can deny open carry, but not both”.

---

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Peruta I did exactly that.

Peruta II simply refused to consider open carry at all.

It was sophistry on the part of the en banc court. Just what you would expect from the Ninth Circuit.

[Yo-Yo]

If I recall correctly Peruda II basically said, "you can either deny concealed carry or you can deny open carry, but not both".

As MarkTwain said, the three judge opinion in Peruta I (written by the same judge who wrote this opinion,) stated that you cannot ban both concealed and open carry simultaneously, but the en banc panel only upheld the may issue concealed carry statute and specifically stated that they were not asked to rule on open carry, therefore they remain silent on that matter in what is now called Peruta II.

They got away with that because when the Peruta case started, California law allowed open carry of an unloaded firearm, but repealed that law after the appeal process in Peruta was well underway. Therefore the original Peruta lawsuit did not address open carry at all.