Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now? (Read 92780 times)

230RN

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1518
  • Total likes: 66
  • Orange man good.
  • Referrals: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2014, 10:44:18 PM »
Oh, like they couldn't download an application for any of almost 50 other states, put "Hawaii" on it, maybe make a few relevant changes, and reproduce it for you.  What, two hours? And they knew it was coming.  Or at least say that application forms will be developed shortly and will be sent to you.

Jeeze.

Or, ideally. here ya go  --3x5 index card:
........................................................................................
State of Hawaii
Application and permit to carry a concealed handgun.
All questions must be answered "Yes" in order for
this permit to be validated:

(1) Are you legally eligible to own and possess firearms
under the laws of the United States and your State,
City, and County?

Yes________________   No________________


Print your name:

_________________________________________

Sign your name:

_________________________________________

Validating Official:

_________________________________________
 (signature)


Title:

__________________________________________
............................................................................................

 ;D :thumbsup: :shaka:

Terry, 230RN


« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 11:38:13 PM by 230RN »
I do believe that the radical and crazy notion that the Founders meant what they said, is gradually soaking through the judicial system.

Funtimes

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2014, 06:41:39 AM »
Back on topic!

City and County requests that the case be reheard by the 9th circuit en banc.

Baker en Banc Motion

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 62
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 16
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2014, 06:52:38 AM »
Reading that request was making me sick with the way that we all know the State treats "good cause."
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

Funtimes

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2014, 06:57:06 AM »
Reading that request was making me sick with the way that we all know the State treats "good cause."

I think my favorite part is where they say heller said that at least "Some place" must be unlawful to carry - yet they cannot see the reverse of their logic.

monster796

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2014, 07:20:45 AM »
What's up guys,

I thought the deadline to file an en banc was 7 days from the 27th of March? What sorcery is this? Thanks again guys for all of your hard work.

new guy

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2014, 07:21:43 AM »
.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2016, 12:35:03 PM by new guy »
Your mindset is your primary weapon. - Jeff Cooper

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 62
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 16
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2014, 07:35:13 AM »
What's up guys,

I thought the deadline to file an en banc was 7 days from the 27th of March? What sorcery is this? Thanks again guys for all of your hard work.

According to the En Banc Procedure Guide provided by Michel and Associates, the filing deadline was supposed to be 14 days from the 27th. That said, this is "legal stuff" and you need actual lawyers to figure this out. Things were going on in the Peruta case that had many armchair lawyers scratching their heads trying to figure out.
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

punaperson

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2014, 10:04:19 AM »
I think my favorite part is where they say heller said that at least "Some place" must be unlawful to carry - yet they cannot see the reverse of their logic.
The County attorneys write:

"Peruta, for example, holds that the Second Amendment confers a “right to carry in case of public confrontation.” 742 F.3d at 1169. But Heller expressly approved bans on carrying within “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 627, meaning that at least some laws prohibiting the carry of firearms in places outside the home must be valid."

I'm going to take a stab at fixing that for them (as Chris indicates above) and pretending that they were both logically consistent and honest:

"Peruta, for example, holds that the Second Amendment confers a “right to carry in case of public confrontation.” 742 F.3d at 1169. But Heller expressly approved bans on carrying within “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 627, meaning that at least some laws prohibiting the carry of firearms in places outside the home must be valid, and thus meaning that any law prohibiting carrying in any location other than those deemed "sensitive" is ipso facto unconstitutional, or at the very lest meaning that any laws banning carrying in all places outside the home are unconstitutional."

They are also completely disingenuous, misleading, or outright lying in their implication that under existing law licenses "may" be issued, when in fact, or course they are NOT issued, but you wouldn't know that from reading the brief. Why do they have to lie? Why couldn't they just write "There is a procedure and standard for issuing licenses to carry concealed, but no one has ever met that standard"? (Okay, one person in the last ten years in the whole state.) Do they think that would hurt their "argument"?  :wtf: I have no respect for these lawyers.

Funtimes

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2014, 11:55:43 AM »
The County attorneys write:

"Peruta, for example, holds that the Second Amendment confers a “right to carry in case of public confrontation.” 742 F.3d at 1169. But Heller expressly approved bans on carrying within “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 627, meaning that at least some laws prohibiting the carry of firearms in places outside the home must be valid."

I'm going to take a stab at fixing that for them (as Chris indicates above) and pretending that they were both logically consistent and honest:

"Peruta, for example, holds that the Second Amendment confers a “right to carry in case of public confrontation.” 742 F.3d at 1169. But Heller expressly approved bans on carrying within “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 627, meaning that at least some laws prohibiting the carry of firearms in places outside the home must be valid, and thus meaning that any law prohibiting carrying in any location other than those deemed "sensitive" is ipso facto unconstitutional, or at the very lest meaning that any laws banning carrying in all places outside the home are unconstitutional."

They are also completely disingenuous, misleading, or outright lying in their implication that under existing law licenses "may" be issued, when in fact, or course they are NOT issued, but you wouldn't know that from reading the brief. Why do they have to lie? Why couldn't they just write "There is a procedure and standard for issuing licenses to carry concealed, but no one has ever met that standard"? (Okay, one person in the last ten years in the whole state.) Do they think that would hurt their "argument"?  :wtf: I have no respect for these lawyers.

They can't say there is a procedure or standard because they admitted there isn't one =p already.

Q

.
« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2014, 01:43:32 PM »
.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 10:48:39 AM by Q »

dustoff003

Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2014, 02:11:43 PM »
Can we just blood eagle all these fckers and call it a day?

Nice Q really nice! I had to search that one.... I will post this to save others from having to search themselves, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_eagle

Q

.
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2014, 02:39:04 PM »
.umbsup:
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 10:48:56 AM by Q »

MisterEd

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2014, 11:48:47 AM »
It would be nice if the 9th Circuit responded with.... "too late, the deadline has passed"

causa mortis

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2014, 12:16:52 PM »
So the state has requested that this case be looked over again. Big surprise. What does that mean in terms of timeline for everyone waiting for ccw to be a "may issue" a fait accompli?

PeaShooter

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2014, 01:20:03 PM »
I don't see what the point is for this case to be reheard en banc. It seemed to me that the prevailing logic for this case's outcome was "see Peruta."

Assuming this case were reheard, would the City procedurally be allowed to re-argue the logic that led to the decision in Peruta? I might think that only the parties involved (or trying to become involved) in Peruta have the right to do that. So Baker's decision should have to stand and there would be no point to a rehearing en banc at this point in time. So I think the 9th Circuit should just reject the petition to rehear Baker en banc, unless they want to also rehear Peruta en banc and consider both cases at the same time.

Q

.
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2014, 01:39:23 PM »
.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 10:57:14 AM by Q »

punaperson

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2014, 09:48:15 AM »
Here is a flow chart showing the process in the Ninth Circuit for a case to be considered for en banc hearing. It doesn't exactly "simplify" things...

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Flowchart.pdf

Laser_Jock_Mauna_Kea

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2014, 04:06:30 PM »
After 25 days, 5 phone calls and 4 emails, I have received a response from Hawaii Island PD on official letterhead and signed by Chief Harry S. Kubojiri:

It reads :

April 25, 2014

Dear Mr. XXXX

This letter is in response to your correspondence dated April 4, 2014, in regards to an application for a concealed weapons permit.

To apply for a license to carry a firearm, please review Hawai'i Revised Statutes 134-9 and send a letter addressed to the Police Chief outlining your need for such a license and your qualifications.

In your request, you mention the recent Baker and Peruta rulings (United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).

My position is to follow the requirements set forth by the applicable sections of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, as amended, which have not been deemed unconstitutional and remain controlling as law in Hawai'i. In that you have cited Baker and Peruta, I am sure you are aware that issuance of the mandate in Peruta v. San Diego has been stayed pending further order of the Court. It is not, therefore, controlling law at this time.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Lieutenant John Briski of our Records and and Identification Section at 808 961 2232  (jbriski@co.hawaii.hi.us) .


Sincerely,

Harry S. Kubojiri
Police Chief


punaperson

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2014, 05:18:25 PM »
After 25 days, 5 phone calls and 4 emails, I have received a response from Hawaii Island PD on official letterhead and signed by Chief Harry S. Kubojiri:

It reads :

April 25, 2014

Dear Mr. XXXX

This letter is in response to your correspondence dated April 4, 2014, in regards to an application for a concealed weapons permit.

To apply for a license to carry a firearm, please review Hawai'i Revised Statutes 134-9 and send a letter addressed to the Police Chief outlining your need for such a license and your qualifications.

In your request, you mention the recent Baker and Peruta rulings (United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).

My position is to follow the requirements set forth by the applicable sections of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, as amended, which have not been deemed unconstitutional and remain controlling as law in Hawai'i. In that you have cited Baker and Peruta, I am sure you are aware that issuance of the mandate in Peruta v. San Diego has been stayed pending further order of the Court. It is not, therefore, controlling law at this time.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Lieutenant John Briski of our Records and and Identification Section at 808 961 2232  (jbriski@co.hawaii.hi.us) .


Sincerely,

Harry S. Kubojiri
Police Chief
I got a nearly identical response to my inquiry several weeks ago. I am drafting another email to clarify the questions I am asking them AGAIN (essentially "what are the objective criteria to be met, how many applicants have met them, please give an example of a statement that you would deem warrants issuance of a license", etc.) because they did not respond to those questions in my first inquiry (only to "whether or not the Chief intends to follow the law as stated in Peruta, as have several California issuing agents (county sheriffs) even though Peruta is stayed"). I had asked for the "concrete and specific criteria" that need to be met for issuance of a license, and they responded, as above: HRS 134-9. Yeah, right. At least New Jersey has a statutory definition of "justifiable need"... almost no one is deemed to meet it, but at least it's something written down. I don't expect a substantive answer, but want to get them on record anyway. I CCed my original email inquiry to all Hawaii County council members, the mayor, County Counsel, and my state senator and representative. Not a peep out of a single one of those folks, though I suspect that when they saw it at least some of them chuckled or sneered while thinking "What a naive idiot! Hard to believe there is someone stupid enough to think that Hawaii would possibly issue someone a CCW just because some three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit claimed that California's "just cause" requirement is unconstitutional. What a buffoon.". Or something like that.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2014, 05:25:44 PM by punaperson »

punaperson

Re: Baker win at the 9th CCA - What now?
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2014, 02:02:32 PM »
New order issued in Peruta by Ninth Circuit on May 1, 2014.

You can read the brief two page order here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/01/10-56971%20-%20Order.pdf

"Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) Appellee William D. Gore is ordered to notify this Court in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order of his position on the pending motions to intervene or that he takes no position. Appellee William D. Gore is further ordered to respond within fourteen days of the date of this order to the suggestion that this case is moot. See Opp’n to Pet. for Reh’g En Banc 16, Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 (“Even were Peruta vacated tomorrow, neither this Court nor the state could do anything to keep Gore from printing permits to all otherwise-qualified comers. The Peruta dispute is moot.”). He shall explain any change in his policy that could affect this Court’s jurisdiction over this case. [9078973] (WL)"

You can read various opinions about what it means, or might mean, or could mean, etc. on this new thread on calguns:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=927641

here is an example:

Person A: If Sheriff Gore responds with a statement that he is now accepting self defense as the only necessary level of 'good cause' as a matter of policy Peruta becomes moot, the 9th no longer has jurisdiction and the decision of the 3 judge panel is vacated.

Person B: Partially correct. It's possible that Peruta could be mooted at this stage if Gore claimed he intended to grant all the relief Peruta is asking for. But Gore saying it doesn't make it so (such a finding would not be automatic). However Gore is not likely to say that, and I'm guessing the panel is aware. So more likely they are looking for ammo to slap Gura with.

In any event, the Peruta decision would not be vacated, but it would effectively be superseded by Richards en banc (or possibly Drake at SCOTUS). As a practical matter it would mean we stay in the limbo we are in now for much longer.