Young v. Hawaii (Read 5643 times)

punaperson

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #60 on: April 03, 2021, 07:23:42 AM »
It's not their place to say what's a better option, but to interpret what the Constitution says.

It's very possible they will say that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, and that there is no reasonable assumption that the right only exists in your home.  Most threats would be encountered outside the home.  They may also say that the states may decide on open, concealed or both as a lawful method to carry, but they must allow at least one.

The question is not whether concealed carry is protected.  It's about whether bearing arms is protected outside the home.
Hypothetically, SCOTUS could agree with the Ninth rulings in Peruta (no right to concealed carry) AND Young (no right to open carry of concealable firearms) and rule that the only "keep and bear" right protected by the constitution outside the home is the open carry of long guns.

From what we've seen from the court recently in a variety of cases, I think the chance of that happening, even if they believed it to be the most true to the Constitution, is virtually zero (due to political correctness being their apparent mandate).

Otherwise, we'd see this (even this photo is banned on Instagram as "inciting violence"! You can't make this shit up!):

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #61 on: April 03, 2021, 09:41:58 AM »
I could be wrong, I just don't get the feeling they are going to want to put out some ruling that says everyone gets to open carry. I understand that a SCOTUS ruling isn't simply a yes or a no, that they can uphold part while striking another part but who knows. I think we would have a better chance with a concealed carry case. I think it would be bad if the SCOTUS gave us open carry but not concealed carry.
I agree that they dont want to make it law of the land. So ill bet it wont get a hearing.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

6716J

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2021, 12:13:32 PM »
It's not their place to say what's a better option, but to interpret what the Constitution says.

It's very possible they will say that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, and that there is no reasonable assumption that the right only exists in your home.  Most threats would be encountered outside the home.  They may also say that the states may decide on open, concealed or both as a lawful method to carry, but they must allow at least one.

The question is not whether concealed carry is protected.  It's about whether bearing arms is protected outside the home.

Hawaii does allow both. We just don't meet their arbitrary criteria to do it. Until SCOTUS says all states SHALL be SHALL ISSUE, it's not going to change. And even then, the states will implement arbitrary and burdensome regulations in the name of safety to get the SHALL ISUUE permit.

The biggest arrow in the quiver right now is how laws, fees and regulations burden the poor and minorities the most and are racist and bigoted. Make the WOKE go WOKER I say
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #63 on: April 08, 2021, 09:17:25 PM »
It's not their place to say what's a better option, but to interpret what the Constitution says.

It's very possible they will say that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, and that there is no reasonable assumption that the right only exists in your home.  Most threats would be encountered outside the home.  They may also say that the states may decide on open, concealed or both as a lawful method to carry, but they must allow at least one.

The question is not whether concealed carry is protected.  It's about whether bearing arms is protected outside the home.

Agreed, I just hope that the fact it is an open carry case doesn't make them avoid hearing it.

6716J

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

wolfwood

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2021, 12:51:52 PM »
Amicus brief of HRA filed by Kevin O'Grady Attorney at Law

https://pdfhost.io/v/Kz.C~P2L4_Young_v_Hawaii_HRA_Amicus_Briefpdf.pdf
Please add my business facebook page if you are interested in my litigation
https://www.facebook.com/ABeckLaw/

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #66 on: October 04, 2021, 01:46:33 PM »
Update:

SCOTUS hasn't decided to hear or decline to hear Young. They did deny to hear 5 other cases today.  The other case still up for grabs is the NJ mag case.

DEROS

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #67 on: October 04, 2021, 08:47:35 PM »
Update:

SCOTUS hasn't decided to hear or decline to hear Young. They did deny to hear 5 other cases today.  The other case still up for grabs is the NJ mag case.

There where 5 gun cases in consideration.  3 were denied and 2 were neither confirmed or denied.   
 
1.  Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Grewal.  (1) Whether a blanket, retrospective and confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that was lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.

2.  Young v Hawaii.  Issue: a. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the holdings of the First, Seventh and D.C. Circuits, that the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home at all. b. Whether the denial of petitioner’s application for a handgun carry license for self defense violated the Second Amendment.

Crossing my finger that both will be heard and both gets ruled in favor of the petitioner, especially the magazine ban.  I can see liberal states like Hawaii and California banning magazine all together or making 1 round magazines for all firearms standard.  I might have the bite the bullet as they say and move to Texas or Nevada.

UPDATE:

Looks like SCOTUS is holding the two cases until they rule on the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which is very similar to Young v Hawaii.  i.e. it deals with carry laws.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2021, 08:56:27 PM by DEROS »

RSN172

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #68 on: October 06, 2021, 10:43:52 PM »
If this court doesn’t hear a gun case, then it never will, unless it gets two more Clarence Thomas like judges on it.  What are they afraid of?

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #69 on: October 11, 2021, 08:58:50 AM »
If this court doesn’t hear a gun case, then it never will, unless it gets two more Clarence Thomas like judges on it.  What are they afraid of?

The deck was stacked at the 2nd 9th circuit hearing. More anti 2a judges on the panel than pro 2a or honest judges.  So far, the fact that it wasn't denied is good news. But glass half full analogy.

QUIETShooter

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #70 on: October 11, 2021, 03:09:01 PM »
I'm not too well versed in how the court system works.

I have this question that I feel is stupid so I tried to research information but got a dead end.

Question:  How or even why can a court decide not to hear a case?  WTF?  The way I see it, they are there to interpret laws that are in dispute or an infringement on people and the constitution.

They seem like ostriches that bury their heads in the sand when they don't want to deal with issues.

Can someone enlighten me as to why these seemingly aloof and smug elitists can opt to not hear a case?

And sorry if I stupid.  No can help.  I went publik skool and neva have 3.7

But I smart enough to know joe biden is lose money. :D
Sometimes you gotta know when to save your bullets.

zippz

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #71 on: October 11, 2021, 03:25:22 PM »
I'm not too well versed in how the court system works.

I have this question that I feel is stupid so I tried to research information but got a dead end.

Question:  How or even why can a court decide not to hear a case?  WTF?  The way I see it, they are there to interpret laws that are in dispute or an infringement on people and the constitution.

They seem like ostriches that bury their heads in the sand when they don't want to deal with issues.

Can someone enlighten me as to why these seemingly aloof and smug elitists can opt to not hear a case?

And sorry if I stupid.  No can help.  I went publik skool and neva have 3.7

But I smart enough to know joe biden is lose money. :D

1.  Nothing in the constitution say they have to take every case.
2.  Sometimes it's good when they don't take a case, if they are expected to rule against you.
3.  SCOTUS gets 2000 appeal requests a year and accepts 60 of them.  If SCOTUS was forced to take every case, everyone would appeal and there would be a hundred thousand cases in SCOTUS every year.
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

6716J

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #72 on: October 11, 2021, 03:25:34 PM »
I'm not too well versed in how the court system works.

I have this question that I feel is stupid so I tried to research information but got a dead end.

Question:  How or even why can a court decide not to hear a case?  WTF?  The way I see it, they are there to interpret laws that are in dispute or an infringement on people and the constitution.

They seem like ostriches that bury their heads in the sand when they don't want to deal with issues.

Can someone enlighten me as to why these seemingly aloof and smug elitists can opt to not hear a case?

And sorry if I stupid.  No can help.  I went publik skool and neva have 3.7

But I smart enough to know joe biden is lose money. :D

Pertaining to the supreme court only....

Every year, the Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for certiorari, but only hears about 80 of them. While no one really knows why some cases get heard but others do not, the Supreme Court has several factors that it considers when deciding what cases to hear:

The Court will Hear Cases to Resolve a Conflict of Law: The U.S. judicial system consists of 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts. When a number of these courts reach different conclusions about an issue of federal or constitutional law, the Supreme Court may step in and decide the law so that all areas of the country can then operate under the same law.
The Court will Hear Cases that are Important: Sometimes the Court will consider a highly unusual case such as U.S. v Nixon (concerning the Watergate tapes) or Bush v. Gore (concerning the extremely close election in 2000), or a case with an important social issue, such as abortion in Roe v. Wade.
The Court will Sometimes Hear Cases that Speak to the Justices' Interests: Sometimes Justices give preference to cases that decide an issue in their favorite area of law.
The Court hears Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions: If a lower court blatantly disregards a past Supreme Court decision, the court may hear the case to correct the lower court, or alternatively, simply overrule the case without comment.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

https://www.livingfacts.org/articles/2020/how-the-supreme-court-decides-which-cases-to-hear

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/how-does-the-u-s-supreme-court-decide-whether-to-hear-a-case.html


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #73 on: October 11, 2021, 03:32:11 PM »
Young was denied in our hawaii court to be heard. So he went to the 9th. someone correct if wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #74 on: October 11, 2021, 03:39:28 PM »
I'm not too well versed in how the court system works.

I have this question that I feel is stupid so I tried to research information but got a dead end.

Question:  How or even why can a court decide not to hear a case?  WTF?  The way I see it, they are there to interpret laws that are in dispute or an infringement on people and the constitution.

They seem like ostriches that bury their heads in the sand when they don't want to deal with issues.

Can someone enlighten me as to why these seemingly aloof and smug elitists can opt to not hear a case?

And sorry if I stupid.  No can help.  I went publik skool and neva have 3.7

But I smart enough to know joe biden is lose money. :D

This is mostly my understanding/opinion, so take it with a grain of salt...

Lower courts determine the facts of a case and render a verdict.  The appeals courts consider cases based on things like prosecutorial misconduct, bench rulings that were incorrect (bad interpretation of law), undeclared biases on the part of the judge, jurists or prosecutor, or technicalities such as whether the charges exceeded the statute of limitations, or if a piece of evidence was wrongly allowed or excluded.

After considering what is being appealed, the upper courts then have to decide if revisiting the case in an appeals trial has the possibility of affecting the original outcome.  Example: If one juror was found to be prejudiced based on things he said after the verdict, does that mean the alternate juror would have voted differently -- especially when considering the other 11 jurors voted the same way?  Unlikely.  No sense in wasting the court's time and resources, the prosecutor's time and resources, and all that tax payer money to hear an appeal that would accomplish nothing.  Unless there's testimony that the one bad juror convinced the other 11 to vote with him against their better judgement, there's no chance of getting a new trial in this example.

The Supreme Court is similar.  They pick cases based on the probable impact their decision may have on lower court rulings or upon the existing laws at both state and federal level.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 80 cases per year out of about 7,000-8,000 petitions.  If they decline to hear a case, you will never know why.  The Court never publishes statements on cases they do not choose to hear.

Here's part of an article on how they choose the cases to hear, and why they can't hear all of them:
Quote
One reason is time. The court operates only nine months out of the year and has other
business to attend to beyond reviewing and hearing new cases.

Another reason is merit. Not every petition is appropriate for the Supreme Court to accept.
The U.S. Constitution specifies certain kinds of cases the Supreme Court has the power
to consider and rule on, including cases that relate to treaties, diplomats and disputes
between states.

In most situations, though, petitioners want the court’s nine justices to reconsider a case
that has already been decided in a lower court. The federal government currently has
94 district courts and 13 circuit courts, as well as Bankruptcy Court and the Court of
International Trade. In addition, every state has a network of courts. The petitioners
hope the Supreme Court justices will then invite counsel from both sides to Washington,
D.C., to make their arguments so the court can settle the issue once and for all.

The cases that do appear before the high court typically have some unique features.

The lower courts may have disagreed on an issue. In situations in which one court has
ruled one way and another court has ruled another, the Supreme Court justices may
choose to intervene and clarify the law.

The court also hears cases that answer important constitutional questions, like the
extent of state powers. It also looks for cases that will affect the whole nation, such
as ones dealing with an individual’s right to expression and the freedom of the press
to operate.

https://www.livingfacts.org/articles/2020/how-the-supreme-court-decides-which-cases-to-hear
Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it.

QUIETShooter

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #75 on: October 11, 2021, 10:47:48 PM »
Thank you fellow 2a members zippz, 6716J, and Flapp_Jackson for your input to my question about why SCOTUS sometimes decides not to hear a case.

The information you all presented is presently swooooshing way over my head at the moment but I'll keep reading it over and over until the light bulb goes on in my cob- webbed noggin, LOL!!

Also thanks for being easy on members like myself who are not as in tune with the times as most of you are.  That's why I'm thankful I found this forum.  I learned a lot in the short time I've hung around here. :shaka:

For some reason in my simplistic mind I thought that by the time an issue worked it's way up to SCOTUS, it's important enough to be addressed but obviously it's more complicated and doesn't work that way.

I hope the Hawaii vs. Young case gets heard.

Sometimes you gotta know when to save your bullets.

blastoff747

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #76 on: October 12, 2021, 01:04:54 AM »
Another reason is how the justices think they will rule.  Previously 4 out of 9 justices were solid 2nd amendment supporters.  Those 4 were not confident Roberts would side with them so it was decided not to hear 2nd amendment cases.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #77 on: October 12, 2021, 01:42:39 AM »
Another reason is how the justices think they will rule.  Previously 4 out of 9 justices were solid 2nd amendment supporters.  Those 4 were not confident Roberts would side with them so it was decided not to hear 2nd amendment cases.

I might be wrong, but from what I've read, the reason is close to what you said -- but not quite. 

The reason the Supreme Court didn't hear 2A cases is because the Pro-2A plaintiffs didn't petition the Court to be heard.  Util the court had a balanced bench with more Constitutionalist justices, they didn't want the cases to be decided by activist Leftists. 

When the Supreme Court publishes a ruling, it's almost impossible to get it reversed.  Petitioning a case to be heard when you know it's probably destined to fail would have created a gun control bonanza.

Ruth Ginsberg famously said the following:

Quote
"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia ... Historically, the new government
had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias," she said. "The states required men
to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home
so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose
of the Second Amendment."

Ginsburg said the disappearance of that purpose eliminates the function of the Second Amendment.

"It's function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those
soldiers will own," she said. "I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need
to support a militia. So ... the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."
https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/10/justice_ginsber.php

It would be legal suicide to have someone like her deciding 2A cases.  The smart move was to not petition for a hearing.

If you need a reason to love Trump, this is it:  Trump beat Clinton.  Had Clinton won, she would have filled three supreme Court vacancies.  Instead, Trump filled those vacancies, giving us a Supreme Court make-up that's so frightening to the Liberals, they are talking about increasing the number of justices so Biden can nominate enough justices to shift the political leaning to their advantage again.

 :shaka:
Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it.

zippz

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #78 on: October 12, 2021, 08:23:14 AM »
I might be wrong, but from what I've read, the reason is close to what you said -- but not quite. 

The reason the Supreme Court didn't hear 2A cases is because the Pro-2A plaintiffs didn't petition the Court to be heard.  Util the court had a balanced bench with more Constitutionalist justices, they didn't want the cases to be decided by activist Leftists. 

When the Supreme Court publishes a ruling, it's almost impossible to get it reversed.  Petitioning a case to be heard when you know it's probably destined to fail would have created a gun control bonanza.

To go along with this, it's very expensive to get a lawsuit up to the supreme court level.   $200,000 to $1,000,000. You need to be rich, have a generous attorney, or be backed by a large organization like the NRA.  And they'll only take cases they think will win.  So regular people won't be doing this for losing cases.

Also SCOTUS judges can be particular.  Looking for a good case to set big precedents and dropping cases with problems in them
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu