Young v. Hawaii (Read 3152 times)

changemyoil66

Young v. Hawaii
« on: March 24, 2021, 09:10:37 AM »
Lost today 7 to 4.

So SCOTUS hope next.  Majority said there is no right outside the home.  Which is a good thing.

omnigun

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2021, 09:29:27 AM »
Lost today 7 to 4.

So SCOTUS hope next.  Majority said there is no right outside the home.  Which is a good thing.

How is losing a good thing?

RSN172

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2021, 10:04:50 AM »
How is losing a good thing?
Because now it will go to SCOTUS

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2021, 10:13:31 AM »
How is losing a good thing?

Focus, I didn't say "good he lost".

I said "majority said there is no right outside the home. Which is a good thing". Because then this would basically rewrites "the right to bear" out of the constitution.  So if SCOTUS takes it up, that opinion deepens the split.

macsak

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2021, 10:50:28 AM »
Focus, I didn't say "good he lost".

I said "majority said there is no right outside the home. Which is a good thing". Because then this would basically rewrites "the right to bear" out of the constitution.  So if SCOTUS takes it up, that opinion deepens the split.

comprehension is hard...

groveler

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2021, 11:35:11 AM »
Focus, I didn't say "good he lost".

I said "majority said there is no right outside the home. Which is a good thing". Because then this would basically rewrites "the right to bear" out of the constitution.  So if SCOTUS takes it up, that opinion deepens the split.
" So if SCOTUS takes it up",  That is one hell of a BIG if.
Given the present Democrat run Government, I have no
expectations of this being solved without some radical changes in
our present society.
 :popcorn:

RSN172

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2021, 11:38:50 AM »
This Friday SCOTUS is supposed to decide whether to put a gun rights case on the next term calendar.   IIRC, it will be about having the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self defense.

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2021, 12:01:15 PM »
" So if SCOTUS takes it up",  That is one hell of a BIG if.
Given the present Democrat run Government, I have no
expectations of this being solved without some radical changes in
our present society.
 :popcorn:

TBH, I'm not holding my breath. They took up zero election fraud cases.

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2021, 02:06:01 PM »
TBH, I'm not holding my breath. They took up zero election fraud cases.

The issue with election cases was jurisdiction.  The Constitution says states run their elections, so it's up to them to monitor and correct election system failures in their state.

The Constitution governs 2A -- nothing in that amendment says the states have the responsibility to control firearms.
Surely Not Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting.

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2021, 02:07:02 PM »
The issue with election cases was jurisdiction.  The Constitution says states run their elections, so it's up to them to monitor and correct election system failures in their state.

The Constitution governs 2A -- nothing in that amendment says the states have the responsibility to control firearms.

Hope restored. :shaka:

punaperson

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2021, 02:20:26 PM »
Who here still expects to be alive IF 1. an appeal to SCOTUS is accepted, 2. the case is heard, 3. the case is ruled upon, 4. the ruling favors some kind of (open/concealed) carry outside the home and/or business, 5. the following litigation as to exactly what the laws in Hawaii may or may not be regarding "restrictions" or "qualifications" or "criteria" are "constitutional" works through the legal system (another 10 years?), 6. the law is written, passed, signed and implemented, and 6. someone somewhere in Hawaii is granted a license to carry?

If you're still alive, you're gonna be a LOT older than you are now.

omnigun

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2021, 02:42:22 PM »
Focus, I didn't say "good he lost".

I said "majority said there is no right outside the home. Which is a good thing". Because then this would basically rewrites "the right to bear" out of the constitution.  So if SCOTUS takes it up, that opinion deepens the split.


But wouldn't a better outcome be if the courts decided right then and there that there is a right to bear arms outside the home?  This just delays/kicks the issue down the road.  SCOTUS in no way is even a remote guarantee that the case will be heard and until then we can't carry.

jerry_03

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2021, 02:51:07 PM »
Who here still expects to be alive IF 1. an appeal to SCOTUS is accepted, 2. the case is heard, 3. the case is ruled upon, 4. the ruling favors some kind of (open/concealed) carry outside the home and/or business, 5. the following litigation as to exactly what the laws in Hawaii may or may not be regarding "restrictions" or "qualifications" or "criteria" are "constitutional" works through the legal system (another 10 years?), 6. the law is written, passed, signed and implemented, and 6. someone somewhere in Hawaii is granted a license to carry?

If you're still alive, you're gonna be a LOT older than you are now.

Well im 28 so im hopeful that i can constitutionally open carry at the ripe old age of 78  ;D

RSN172

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2021, 03:00:46 PM »
Well im 28 so im hopeful that i can constitutionally open carry at the ripe old age of 78  ;D
At 78 you old enough fo Ainokea Anymo I Do Wat I Lik carry..

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2021, 03:38:32 PM »

But wouldn't a better outcome be if the courts decided right then and there that there is a right to bear arms outside the home?  This just delays/kicks the issue down the road.  SCOTUS in no way is even a remote guarantee that the case will be heard and until then we can't carry.

Nope.  There's a difference between precedence and a Supreme Court ruling.  Precedence means every other state that has a similar Constitutional question has to sue and win using the 9th Circus decision as precedence.  Conversely, a SCOTUS ruling becomes the defacto interpretation of the Constitution for all states and is the "law of the land."

Before Roe v. Wade, states decided on abortion laws.  Some went one direction, others went the opposite.  Once the Supreme Court decided the case, states could no longer restrict access to abortions via state law.

For someone who puts all his faith in the courts to run our lives, you sure aren't very current on how they work.
Surely Not Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting.

aletheuo137

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2021, 03:59:37 PM »

aletheuo137

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2021, 04:02:10 PM »
Who here still expects to be alive IF 1. an appeal to SCOTUS is accepted, 2. the case is heard, 3. the case is ruled upon, 4. the ruling favors some kind of (open/concealed) carry outside the home and/or business, 5. the following litigation as to exactly what the laws in Hawaii may or may not be regarding "restrictions" or "qualifications" or "criteria" are "constitutional" works through the legal system (another 10 years?), 6. the law is written, passed, signed and implemented, and 6. someone somewhere in Hawaii is granted a license to carry?

If you're still alive, you're gonna be a LOT older than you are now.
Welcome back puna!

https://youtu.be/Mmm3KTa601s

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

6716J

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2021, 04:09:35 PM »
Nope.  There's a difference between precedence and a Supreme Court ruling.  Precedence means every other state that has a similar Constitutional question has to sue and win using the 9th Circus decision as precedence.  Conversely, a SCOTUS ruling becomes the defacto interpretation of the Constitution for all states and is the "law of the land."

Before Roe v. Wade, states decided on abortion laws.  Some went one direction, others went the opposite.  Once the Supreme Court decided the case, states could no longer restrict access to abortions via state law.

Au contraire

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-06-27/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state

States will do what they want even when the SCOTUS says otherwise. Then each state has to get taken to court.

I'm waiting for someone to sue the restrictive states based upon Obergefell v. Hodges. All you need to do is replace Marriage License with CCW (or whatever verbiage you like) and it's the same ruling. The SCOTUS made marriage a right by default, shouldn't we have the same rights as the LGBTQXYZ crowd. But I digress as 2A is a 2nd class right. Or more plainly, just a privilege.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

macsak

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2021, 04:20:34 PM »

But wouldn't a better outcome be if the courts decided right then and there that there is a right to bear arms outside the home? This just delays/kicks the issue down the road.  SCOTUS in no way is even a remote guarantee that the case will be heard and until then we can't carry.

please show me where anyone said that wouldn't be a better outcome...

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Young v. Hawaii
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2021, 04:39:35 PM »
Au contraire

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-06-27/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state

States will do what they want even when the SCOTUS says otherwise. Then each state has to get taken to court.

I'm waiting for someone to sue the restrictive states based upon Obergefell v. Hodges. All you need to do is replace Marriage License with CCW (or whatever verbiage you like) and it's the same ruling. The SCOTUS made marriage a right by default, shouldn't we have the same rights as the LGBTQXYZ crowd. But I digress as 2A is a 2nd class right. Or more plainly, just a privilege.

Depends on how you characterize what the state's laws do.  States are allowed to regulate and control the abortion industry as long as they don't violate a patient's right to have an abortion.

Kind of like all the gun laws that don't cross the line of denying that right unconstitutionally.   :popcorn:

Being a bit facetious.  We have a very unique system here with the Feds thinking they rule the nation, and states knowing they rule themselves.  As long as US Constitutional rights are protected, states can do pretty much whatever their laws and officials say. 

It always comes down to whether someone with standing will actually challenge to state's unconstitutional laws or actions.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2021, 04:44:50 PM by Flapp_Jackson »
Surely Not Everybody Was Kung Fu Fighting.