it would apply to carrying a gun in one's car, on most streets, and the like. The court also leaves open the possibility that the underlying right is just a right to some form of carry, so that a state may choose whether to allow open carry or concealed carry (or both, of course), but may not ban both

Great ruling,and should be affirmed by the SCOTUS..

SOURCE and URL SOURCE:

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/24/ninth-circuit-second-amendment-secures-r

Ninth Circuit: Second Amendment Secures Right to Carry Guns in Public

- - - - - - - - - -

THE COURT OPINION:

https://www.scribd.com/document/384768514/Young-v-Hawaii-12-17808-9th-Cir-24-Jul-2018-Open-Carry

"...but the panel now holds that it secures a right to carry openly (though it reserves the possibility that a state might be able to choose whether to allow open carry or to allow concealed carry)"

The panel has only a portion of this statement correct. The Second Amendment was not intended to be a collective right but rather an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Now the issue becomes as to whether the state elects to acknowledge the federal constitutional amendments per the Second Amendment language and apply that context into its own state constitutions. This is really not even another legal matter concerning states rights at all but one that those states choose to simply ignore.

The panel has only a portion of this statement correct. The Second Amendment was not intended to be a collective right but rather an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps your issue is with Eugene Volokh rather than the panel of the court.

Young, slip op., at 23:

Thus, each of these nineteenth century cases found instructive by Heller when settling the Second Amendment as an individual right to self-defense is just as instructive when evaluating the application of that right outside the home. While nineteenth century legislatures enjoyed latitude to regulate the “manner in which arms shall be borne,” no legislature in these states could, “under the pretence of regulating,” destroy the right to carry firearms in public altogether. See Reid, 1 Ala. at 616–17. Accordingly, even though our court has read these cases to exclude concealed carry from the Second Amendment’s protections, see Peruta II, 824 F.3d at 933–36, the same cases command that the Second Amendment must encompass a right to open carry.⁹

__________

⁹ The dissent faults our reliance on decisions from the South, implying that the thorough analysis found in such opinions must have been the product of a “culture where slavery, honor, violence, and the public carrying of weapons were intertwined.” Dissent at 6 (citations and quotations omitted). To say the least, we are puzzled. The dissent overlooks the fact that the Southern cases on which we rely only arose because the legislatures in those states had enacted restrictions on the public carry of firearms. Indeed, were it the case that the Southern culture of slavery animated concerns to protect the right to open carry, why would the Georgia legislature have sought to ban open carry in the first place?

No my issue is with the Ninth Circuit. They still want to put this issue and turn it into a states law issue. This is where a simple amendment like this becomes painted in a gray area.