Any news??

Check back in a year.

Glad to see you're still such an optimist, Funtimes.
 

It's been 22 months since Chris posted his "Check back in a year" message. That year wait looks awfully good right now. Young is held up indefinitely (apparently) while Peruta/Richards/Baker continue to be stonewalled and delayed for years be addressed in a timely manner by the judicial system. Too bad, because Young would/could strike some deep blows against Hawaii's unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. At this point I'm tempted to say "Wait two years", but that might be unrealistically overly optimistic.

It's been 22 months since Chris posted his "Check back in a year" message. That year wait looks awfully good right now. Young is held up indefinitely (apparently) while Peruta/Richards/Baker continue to be stonewalled and delayed for years be addressed in a timely manner by the judicial system. Too bad, because Young would/could strike some deep blows against Hawaii's unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. At this point I'm tempted to say "Wait two years", but that might be unrealistically overly optimistic.

Catching up on all of this.  Let me see if I got most of what's going on now SCOTUS essentially did an "I'm not touching that".

SCOTUS let stand the Ninth CCA ruling that "There is no constitutional right to bear arms concealed in public". I.e. Concealed Carry is a "privilege", not a "right", and states may regulate in any manner they choose, including ban it (i.e. what we de facto have in Hawaii...  perfectly legal and constitutional according the the Ninth CCA).

Essentially a number of cases were pending decisions on Peruta.  So some are going to now be moving forward? 

Yes. A number of cases were "stayed", i.e. not allowed to progress in the decision-making process because the issues they raised would (likely) be effected by the eventual outcome of Peruta. First up, and both raising questions of "open carry", are Young and Nichols.

I also assumed that now that Peruta is, or at least seems dead in the water, that many cases would also be of similar fate. 

Peruta is OVER. There are no further options to litigate it. There may be an option akin to "please please please change your mind SCOTUS and reconsider cert", but what, justices are going to change their mind after they just voted? Any case in the Ninth CCA arguing anything based upon a claim there is a constitutional right to bear arms concealed is public would be dead in the water. Though if that was not the exclusive claim, it could still be alive on the other claims.

I assume each case can be pursued based on it's own merits, just that I recall a number of cases being sort of put on pause pending Peruta. 

As I understand it, SCOTUS saying "they're not touching" Peruta basically means things need to get dealt with at lower levels.  On one hand, that's not that promising considering our district/area and seems like cases that could normally get elevated to SCOTUS probably would suffer the same fate.

It's unquestionably clear that the vast majority of the judges sitting on the Ninth CCA oppose bearing arms in public, certainly concealed, so any such cases are pretty doomed to failure in the Ninth. Thomas suggested in his dissent that some members of SCOTUS want a "cleaner" case than Peruta, which raises a single question more clearly, which would render a more precise legal decision. So they might still take a case (Norman, Nichols, Grace, etc.), but no one knows if or which one would meet the criteria of the hesitant justices.

However, maybe some start breaking through as lower courts get filled with hopefully more conservative judges.

The balance of judges changing is going to be a long long process, and likely only get to an "even" level of "conservative"/"liberal" if Republicans controlled the White House for a dozen years or more, AND made consistently "good" appointments, unlike those of the Bushes.

the Court asked if I available the week of Nov 6th for oral argument in Pasadena.

I said yes. County of Hawaii said they were not wiling to fly to the mainland though so it might get delayed.

Can any attorneys, or only government attorneys tell the Ninth Circuit they are "not willing" to appear at the location of a scheduled court proceeding? What is the "solution"? Move the orals to Hilo? Have the court pay airfare for the county attorneys? Just say "Ah, you guys win anyway, no need to show up"?

Not that I'm very familiar with the legal world, but I've never heard of this one before...

They want it moved to Oahu. Let's just say it is a bolder approach than I would take. Normally you have to have a reason for why you can't show up and not wanting to fly typically is not a good enough reason.

They want it moved to Oahu. Let's just say it is a bolder approach than I would take. Normally you have to have a reason for why you can't show up and not wanting to fly typically is not a good enough reason.

They dont have the money, they spent it all fighting trumps travel ban lol