Neal Katyal is being paid 185 thousand to defend young according to this fee schedule obtained through a UIPA request . Note he just came on for the en banc proceedings

https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents

Thanks to Andrew for pursuing that document after the state told me they wanted $930 to fulfill my UIPA request (I also wanted to see all the docs leading up to the decision to hire outside counsel, i.e. "We don't know what the fuck we're doing, we only have a staff of 600, we need to hire someone else.").

$185,000 total compensation is a "steal" considering it covers the costs of going before SCOTUS should the case go that far. My understanding is that previous such cases legal fees were in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000. It's almost enough to make me wonder if 1. They know they aren't going to SCOTUS, at least if they have any say in it, or 2. Katyal is going to do a crappy job by not putting in the hours necessary to mount a serious defense of unconstitutional laws (i.e. he "sees the writing on the wall").

Of course those are just my fantasies. In the real world the state will do everything it can, for as long as it can, no matter how much it costs, to deny Hawaii residents of their fundamental, individual, enumerated, god-given/natural, inalienable constitutionally-protected rights. That's what they do.

$1550 an hour?

minus 50% discount... oh ok.  much more reasonable. 

$1550 an hour?

minus 50% discount... oh ok.  much more reasonable. 

Hey, come on, don't demean the economic value of the skills necessary to weasel-word a way to claim that simultaneously the state "recognizes and allows the people to bear arms as prohibited from infringement by the Constitution" AND "the fact that currently no one may bear arms, and that historically virtually no one has had the lawful ability to bear arms, does not mean that no one MAY bear arms IF they meet the absurd ridiculous obviously-disingenuous bullshit commonsense standard that no one has or will ever meet" and get a court to uphold the obvious contradiction. That's pure gold and worth every penny! 

Hey, come on, don't demean the economic value of the skills necessary to weasel-word a way to claim that simultaneously the state "recognizes and allows the people to bear arms as prohibited from infringement by the Constitution" AND "the fact that currently no one may bear arms, and that historically virtually no one has had the lawful ability to bear arms, does not mean that no one MAY bear arms IF they meet the absurd ridiculous obviously-disingenuous bullshit commonsense standard that no one has or will ever meet" and get a court to uphold the obvious contradiction. That's pure gold and worth every penny! 

How much coffee have you had this morning? 

Not that I like any news media, but is there any perhaps semi-responsible media who should be publishing this as a waste of tax dollars? 

Not that I like any news media, but is there any perhaps semi-responsible media who should be publishing this as a waste of tax dollars?

I'll see if grassroots institute wants to do a story.

How much coffee have you had this morning? 

Dude, if I used caffeine, or any other drugs, well... let's just say that wouldn't be pretty.

Not that I like any news media, but is there any perhaps semi-responsible media who should be publishing this as a waste of tax dollars? 

Good luck with that! If anything appeared from the usual suspects it would likely tout the great value of such an expense to help preserve "public safety" and praise the state AG office for being willing to acknowledge that they are in over their head when it comes to trying to make sense to a court how the laws they enforce aren't infringements of constitutionally-protected rights

I'll see if grassroots institute wants to do a story.

Cool. But what's their readership? A couple hundred or maybe a thousand? Better than nothing I suppose.  .

I did not intend for this to go public just yet. I have a press release and story I’m almost done with that I’m going to submit to news organizations latter today.

Hopefully we can get some coverage.

Dude, if I used caffeine, or any other drugs, well... let's just say that wouldn't be pretty.

Well, let’s just say your cup of sarcasm runneth over this morning! 

I did not intend for this to go public just yet. I have a press release and story I’m almost done with that I’m going to submit to news organizations latter today.

Hopefully we can get some coverage.

Great. Thanks for the efforts. 

Going to Vegas soon.  Gonna open carry an AR with my friend around his block.  Just because I can.  Nevada has no permit required for open carry.

I asked him, aren't his neighbors concerned?  He said there are a few who walk their dogs with an AR slung all the time.  So no biggie.

A slightly sarcastic, biased (but for our side) article summarizing the issues as they currently stand in Young v Hawaii.

Hawaii spends $185,000 on lawyer to blow en banc petition to rehear open carry case

https://firearmsunknown.com/FU2/blog/post/hawaii-spends-185-000-on-lawyer-to-blow-en-banc-petition-to-rehear-open-carry-case

This summer, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled in the case Young v. Hawaii that Hawaii’s unconcealed carry licensing scheme was so stringent that it violated Mr. Young’s Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home, as its provision - that only those who provided a need, an urgency, or was engaged in the protection of life and property would be able to obtain a license - resulted in zero unconcealed carry licenses being issued to anyone other than security guards.

So how long do we have to wait before we know whether or not the 9th is going en banc?  Young should have been issued a permit already and not have to wait another 3-7 years before this thing goes through SCOTUS.  If he loses at SCOTUS, then his permit can be revoked, not the other way around as he won his appeal.

So how long do we have to wait before we know whether or not the 9th is going en banc?  Young should have been issued a permit already and not have to wait another 3-7 years before this thing goes through SCOTUS.  If he loses at SCOTUS, then his permit can be revoked, not the other way around as he won his appeal.

Courtesy of Mr. Charles Nichols, here are the court documents that detail the en banc prodecures: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/general_orders/General%20Orders.pdf and http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/frap.pdf

Here is his coverage and all the court documents links at his website: http://californiaopencarry.com/young-v-state-of-hawaii-appeal-12-17808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/

There he states: "The short version is that we have no way of knowing when there will be a decision on the en banc petition."

Since it's possible that Young could go en banc...

I was looking at some info about the en banc procedures in general, and at the Ninth Circuit in particular. Here is a brief one page summary from the court about the general en banc procedures: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/10/En_Banc_Summary2.pdf

An en banc panel in the Ninth Circuit (all the other circuits have all the judges sit en banc) consists of the chief judge and 10 randomly drawn judges from the pool of the remaining 28 judges (but there are currently 6 vacancies, which makes Flake's blocking of the confirmation of sefveral Trump appointees to the Ninth Circuit even more , uh, maddening), and including any senior status judges who may have sat on the original three judge panel of the case going en banc. For Young, that would include both O'Scannlain (who wrote the affirmative opinion in Young), and Clifton (who wrote the dissent), if they choose to be included in the random draw.

That means the pool for the random drawing, of the 28 active judges (currently 23 filled seats) (chief judge Thomas is a Clinton appointee) is 16 Democrat appointed judges (9 Clinton, and 7 Obama appointees) and 7 Republican appointed judges (5 G.W. Bush, and 2 Trump). so the Dems have more than a 2 to 1 chance of being selected to the en banc panel (should there be one). Sure would be at least potentially helpful if a couple or more Trump appointees could get seated before the Young en banc panel is seated.

I know that SCOTUS chief justice Roberts has declared in response to Trump that there are no "Obama judges or Bush judges" etc., but let's get real. Of course there are, and certainly the decisions re Second Amendment rights split very closely along those lines (though in Young the dissent was filed by a G.W. Bush appointee).

I'm quite frustrated that it may take years to even get the en banc stage completed. (Note that in the New Jersey Large Capacity Magazine ban case, oral arguments were heard November 20 and the decision was filed December 5! Compare that to the over a year for Peruta to get a published decision. I wonder if I'll still be around when the whole carry issue gets finalized in Hawaii? The time in Peruta from the original 3 judge panel decision to the en banc panel decision was 2 years and 4 months (same timeline with Young would put that decision at November 2020! Just in time to see the election of Kamala Harris as president!). Cert at SCOTUS was later denied, but if accepted that would likely take at least another year... and even if Young were to win at SCOTUS it would like still be at least a couple more years before the legislature could fashion and pass legislation attempting to skirt the ruling to the best of it's ability (onerous training requirements and fees, annual renewals, etc., resulting in likely more years of litigation to get them to actually adhere to the intent of the SCOTUS decision.) But maybe I'm totally wrong and overly pessimistic and the legislature will introduce a bill in a month to establish permitless carry throughout Hawaii. But I don't think so.

I tell you, it is time to move to Arizona.

Meanwhile... in the United States of America...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/14/oklahoma-on-verge-of-ending-permit-requirement-for-concealed-carry/

Oklahoma lawmakers are on the verge of ending the permit requirement for concealed carry in their state.

State legislators passed a bill to eliminate the requirement early this year, only to have Gov. Mary Fallin (R) veto it.

But Ammoland reports that Governor-elect Kevin Stitt (R) has already made clear he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. In early September News 9 quoted Stitt saying, “I would sign it. I am a constitutional conservative. I support the first amendment, the second amendment and I think the best defense for a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

State Sen. Nathan Dahm (R) introduced the legislation that Fallin vetoed and plans to reintroduce it under Stitt.

On November 27, 2018, Breitbart News reported a similar situation in South Dakota, where outgoing Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) vetoed legislation to end a concealed carry permit requirement but Governor-elect Kristi Noem (R) is expected to sign it.

There are currently 12 states where the Second Amendment is the only concealed carry permit a resident needs: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Vermont. Adding Oklahoma and South Dakota to that list will be considerable expansion on the exercise of freedom.

I filed a couple studies in Young to rebut the study the State is relying on

https://www.scribd.com/document/395975064/Young-Filed-28j-About-Concealed-Carry-Study

I filed a couple studies in Young to rebut the study the State is relying on

https://www.scribd.com/document/395975064/Young-Filed-28j-About-Concealed-Carry-Study

Thanks. If only the liars and ignorant were amenable to facts and reason...

Since it's possible that Young could go en banc...
... resulting in likely more years of litigation to get them to actually adhere to the intent of the SCOTUS decision.) But maybe I'm totally wrong and overly pessimistic and the legislature will introduce a bill in a month to establish permitless carry throughout Hawaii. But I don't think so.

I've been away from this thread fr months (a year?), but decided to come back specifically because I was in the yard the other day and thought, "wth ever did happen with that Young case?!"
Now I see.... Stonewalling in the 9th Demokrat Circuit, buy time for the next Socialist in Chief to appoint a few more Commissars to that circuit... Thanks.