Final Episode (5 of 5) of Baird v. Bonta 9th Circuit Republican Panel on Open Carry VanDyke and Lee
Oct 26, 2026 · 48 min · 9 segments
!The Republican Professor The post…
- Speakers
Lucas J. MatherHost
- Show signals
- Audience≈552 followers
Oct 26, 2026 · 48 min · 9 segments
!The Republican Professor The post…
Lucas J. MatherHost
Roman numeral 7 on page... 49 of the pdf the slip opinion it's going to be in the fourth series of the federal reporter ninth circuit um and we're in van dyke's descent we're going to uh hit lee's just really short descent he did a really good job too as well both are trump appointees republicans And this case is of course about concealed carry as you recall.
Van Dyck starts Roman numeral seven, arguing that California's urban open carry ban is facially constitutional, both because carrying a firearm openly throughout California is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment and because the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation supports such a ban.
The dissent erroneously concludes that California's urban open carry ban is facially constitutional.
As explained, the dissent's primary basis for doing so is its misreading of cherry-picked quotations from Bruin, page 50 at the top, to the novel conclusion that the Second Amendment is a disjunctive right.
That supposedly is not even implicated unless both concealed and open carry are banned.
Roman numeral 7 on page... 49 of the pdf the slip opinion it's going to be in the fourth series of the federal reporter ninth circuit um and we're in van dyke's descent we're going to uh hit lee's just really short descent he did a really good job too as well both are trump appointees republicans And this case is of course about concealed carry as you recall.
Van Dyck starts Roman numeral seven, arguing that California's urban open carry ban is facially constitutional, both because carrying a firearm openly throughout California is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment and because the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation supports such a ban.
The dissent erroneously concludes that California's urban open carry ban is facially constitutional.
As explained, the dissent's primary basis for doing so is its misreading of cherry-picked quotations from Bruin, page 50 at the top, to the novel conclusion that the Second Amendment is a disjunctive right.
That supposedly is not even implicated unless both concealed and open carry are banned.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.