http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-11-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

brief filed

Remember when the Young v. Hawaii decision was binding on every Federal judge in this circuit and the Nancy Boys from a couple of the so-called gun-rights group attacked my idea for someone to seek a TRO/Preliminary Injunction against California's Open Carry bans?

Well, now that the Young v. Hawaii decision has been vacated and cannot even be cited in any Federal court in this circuit, three lawyers from the self-proclaimed NRA law firm Michel & Associates have filed for a Preliminary Injunction against the de facto Hawaii carry ban.

Putting aside the fact that they cite the vacated Young v. Hawaii decision and the vacated Peruta v. San Diego 3-judge panel decisions, there has not been any recent 9th circuit court of appeals or US Supreme Court decision which they can argue constitutes a change in the law and therefore entitles them to a preliminary injunction.

I wish some reporter would ask these ***** why it was a good idea to wait until after the Young v. Hawaii decision was vacated for them to file for their preliminary injunction and why is now, when it is too late, a good time to file but it was pointless to file back when the Young v. Hawaii decision was valid and binding on the district court judge they just asked for a preliminary injunction?

And here's the NRA's ILA take on it (emphasis added):

Effort Underway to Halt Hawaii's Restrictive Firearm Permitting Requirements

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190411/effort-underway-to-halt-hawaiis-restrictive-firearm-permitting-requirements

“The law in Hawaii is so restrictive that not a single person has been issued a permit since 2013. It amounts to a prohibition on carrying a firearm, and that’s unconstitutional,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA.)

 The injunction asks the court to lift the extreme standard while the case is being litigated.

 “Americans have a fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  Under the current system, Hawaii is denying its citizens their ability to exercise that right. This must change,” Cox concluded.

* * * * *
My comments: Hey Chris W., where the fuck were you for all those years when people were asking you to help Mr. Young when he was filing and litigating in pro per (acting as his own attorney)? Where the fuck were you when the "current system" was in effect between 2002 and 2005, or between 2007 and 2012, when NO licenses were issued? Is it just a coincidence that you are in the game now that Mr. Young and Mr. Beck have gotten a favorable decision from a three judge panel? Too little too late dude. Pathetic.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-11-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

brief filed

Thank you so much for your efforts to ensure liberty and safety of our State.   

Question. Can this be openly shared?

Thank you so much for your efforts to ensure liberty and safety of our State.   

Question. Can this be openly shared?

yes go ahead

* * * * *
My comments: Hey Chris W., where the fuck were you for all those years when people were asking you to help Mr. Young when he was filing and litigating in pro per (acting as his own attorney)? Where the fuck were you when the "current system" was in effect between 2002 and 2005, or between 2007 and 2012, when NO licenses were issued? Is it just a coincidence that you are in the game now that Mr. Young and Mr. Beck have gotten a favorable decision from a three judge panel? Too little too late dude. Pathetic.

The NRA has joined the CalGuns.nuts secret plan to win by losing.

I was going to post a link to the CRPA News alert condemning any effort to take advantage of the 3-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii back when it was binding but "Surprise! Surprise!" Chuck Michel and his minions have taken it offline no doubt thinking that means they never released it in the first place.  Here is a snippet from the CRPANews alert:

"Since it is essentially guaranteed that Young will be taken en banc, it is both impractical and a waste of resources to pursue provisional remedies against California’s carry laws based on Young’s 3-judge panel opinion. Seeking a temporary injunction, for example, against California’s carry restrictions would cost significant resources that could be better spent on the fight that is sure to come. What’s more, it is also highly unlikely to succeed because a temporary injunction is an extreme remedy. Because the basis for such an injunction (the Young opinion) is still pending further review, a lower court would refuse to issue any injunction until the Ninth Circuit is definitively finished with that case. Just because Young is currently binding precedent on lower courts does not change that fact."

These are the creatures some folks are staking the future of the Second Amendment.

And here's the NRA's ILA take on it (emphasis added):

Effort Underway to Halt Hawaii's Restrictive Firearm Permitting Requirements

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190411/effort-underway-to-halt-hawaiis-restrictive-firearm-permitting-requirements

“The law in Hawaii is so restrictive that not a single person has been issued a permit since 2013. It amounts to a prohibition on carrying a firearm, and that’s unconstitutional,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA.)

 The injunction asks the court to lift the extreme standard while the case is being litigated.

 “Americans have a fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.  Under the current system, Hawaii is denying its citizens their ability to exercise that right. This must change,” Cox concluded.

* * * * *
My comments: Hey Chris W., where the fuck were you for all those years when people were asking you to help Mr. Young when he was filing and litigating in pro per (acting as his own attorney)? Where the fuck were you when the "current system" was in effect between 2002 and 2005, or between 2007 and 2012, when NO licenses were issued? Is it just a coincidence that you are in the game now that Mr. Young and Mr. Beck have gotten a favorable decision from a three judge panel? Too little too late dude. Pathetic.

Puna,
It is all pretty simple,  how many people are in the state of Hawaii?  not many. How many of us are NRA members?
The NRA has over 5 million members, we don't even have 1.5 million full-time residents of this state.
Most of America don't give a Eff about the few little guys being beat up by  the state and counties of Hawaii,
we "stupidly stay in". 
If you want gun rights, go to Idaho, Alaska, Texas, et al.  People here don't seem to want to do
civil disobedience for their rights so why should they,  the NRA, or GOA waste their time?
We can't even elect one Republican to the state Senate.
Most Oahu guys have their heads so far up HPD behinds they can't even figure out how
or want to defeat them.   What is a right if you have to ask a cop if you can practice it?
Read up on 4GW.   We are at war and we are losing.  Socialist Democrats are winning.



 

Thats the problem, the anti 2a also take small victories knowing many years later, they can lead to bigger ones. NRA is looking for big victories or states that they control. They no care about small hawaii. Or small districts. But i understand they cant fight every law, but that excuse is getting old.


Bump stock as an example. Liberals were jumping for joy. "Take an inch". Look at every gun law since the 80s. Little here, little there and now here we are today.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Thats the problem, the anti 2a also take small victories knowing many years later, they can lead to bigger ones. NRA is looking for big victories or states that they control. They no care about small hawaii. Or small districts. But i understand they cant fight every law, but that excuse is getting old.


Bump stock as an example. Liberals were jumping for joy. "Take an inch". Look at every gun law since the 80s. Little here, little there and now here we are today.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

NRA is not coming. The only reason that they filed the carry case is because of Young. They are hoping to sweep in get credit for a win and to go back to the mainland.

NRA is not coming. The only reason that they filed the carry case is because of Young. They are hoping to sweep in get credit for a win and to go back to the mainland.

I'm just repeating that in case someone didn't get it... or get that it's coming from Mr. Young's attorney who has been on this case for years...

So i was going over some of the old stuff on Young and remembered that Charles Nicholes had bought up a point about filling for an injunction in HI or CA whilst Young was still being fought. I remembered the NRA did an article  and i believe a video in conjunction with CRPA saying that it was would be a waste of time and money and would not be likely to succeed

Well i found the page the article was on here https://crpa.org/crpa-news/crpanews-alert-fighting-for-your-right-to-carry-in-ca/

BUT ALAS its been deleted/removed.  That being said the internet is a wonderful thing and nothings ever really gone. So here is the cached version.

"Since it is essentially guaranteed that Young will be taken en banc, it is both impractical and a waste of resources to pursue provisional remedies against California’s carry laws based on Young’s 3-judge panel opinion. Seeking a temporary injunction, for example, against California’s carry restrictions would cost significant resources that could be better spent on the fight that is sure to come. What’s more, it is also highly unlikely to succeed because a temporary injunction is an extreme remedy. Because the basis for such an injunction (the Young opinion) is still pending further review, a lower court would refuse to issue any injunction until the Ninth Circuit is definitively finished with that case. Just because Young is currently binding precedent on lower courts does not change that fact.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AF3_OHlb30cJ:https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/crpanews-alert-fighting-for-your-right-to-carry-in-ca/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0

Found an un- cached version thats still live on their site

https://crpa.org/news/crpa/crpanews-alert-fighting-for-your-right-to-carry-in-ca/

I posted that snippet on one of the Hawaii websites reporting on the lawsuit.  My post was deleted.

But that has been my experience with the mainstream press (and so-called conservative press) this past decade.  The NRA/CRPA/SAF/CalGuns.nuts, etc., take some anti-gun position and the reporters simply do not want to hear it.

FYI, here is a timeline:

I published this article on August 15, 2018, just three weeks after the 3-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii -> https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/why-are-the-gun-rights-lawyers-hiding-from-the-9th-circuit-open-carry-decision_136631/

(Just under a week later, I get an email from Mr. Baird saying he is going to find a lawyer and file for a TRO/Preliminary Injunction based on Young v. Hawaii).

"Chuck" Michel, the NRA/CRPA/FPC drew some fire from folks asking why they haven't filed for a TRO/Preliminary Injunction.  Their response is they can't because it isn't binding, it would be futile, it would be a waste of resources, etc..

I then publish this article quoting two UCLA professors of law saying that the Young v. Hawaii decision is binding on every Federal judge in this circuit.  https://newsblaze.com/usnews/politics/professors-of-law-say-9th-circuit-open-carry-decision-is-now-the-law-young-v-hawaii-lawyer-says-it-isnt_138979/

Having been shown to be the incompetent lawyers and liars we all know them to be, the NRA/CRPA publishes this -> https://crpa.org/news/crpa/crpanews-alert-fighting-for-your-right-to-carry-in-ca/

Barry Bahrami, of "Veto Gunmageddon" fame posted a link to an article on December 11, 2018 about the Mark Baird lawsuit (which had not yet been filed) in which he said, "If successful [Mark Baird's lawsuit], it will prevent CA from enforcing its unconstitutional ban on open carry."  Which is quite true.  CRPA President and left-coast NRA lawyer, Chuck Michel, posted this response to Mr. Bahrami:

"Ugg. Thanks for nothing. There are already plenty of lawsuits in California and elsewhere on this issue. NRA and CRPA have this well-covered and will file additional suits if appropriate. And $25k for a federal constitutional challenge!? That amount of funding will get you precisely no where in federal court -- even with clueless cheap lawyers at the helm. Please don't "help.""

Notwithstanding that the only 2A case that Michel & Associates has ever won in this circuit was Duncan v. Becerra (and the fat lady hasn't sung yet), the only lawsuit which challenges California's Loaded and Unloaded Open Carry bans is mine, Nichols v. Newsom.  The fake NRA lawsuit, Flanagan v. Becerra, does not have standing to challenge California's Open Carry bans even if they were actually challenging the Open Carry bans which they aren't and even if the district court judge had issued a ruling on Open Carry, which he didn't (see my Amicus brief in Flanagan).  If I get hit by a bus or drop dead of a heart attack then there was no Second Amendment Open Carry lawsuit.*  All we had was Flanagan v. Becerra which makes the same losing argument that the NRA made in Peruta v. San Diego (states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry, California has banned concealed carry, so gimme my concealed carry permit).  By the way, it would take another en banc panel to reverse Peruta v. San Diego, or SCOTUS (and SCOTUS denied the Peruta cert petition).  My Amicus brief in Flanagan v. Becerra is here -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Flanagan-2018-10-09-Amicus-Brief-of-Charles-Nichols-ISO-Neither-Party.pdf

Mr. Baird filed his lawsuit (limited to handguns, and handguns easily and ordinarily carried concealed, which I told him was a mistake to limit to handguns) on April 9, 2019.  He said he was going to send me a copy of the Complaint before it was filed so that I could add my 2 cents worth.  Obviously, that did not happen.  Also, the case was filed in the wrong division (since transferred to the Sacramento division with the same judge who presiding who presided over Pena v. Lindley).

And now the NRA files Livingston v. Ballard AND it files for a preliminary injunction now that there is no legal basis for a preliminary injunction.  And they too, of course, limit their lawsuit to handguns and not just handguns but handguns which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed.**

* There is a First Amendment challenge to California's Unloaded Open Carry bans, Zeleny v Brown et al.
** Some states did not consider handguns which were easily and ordinarily carried concealed as arms protected by the Second Amendment or that carrying them fell within the definition of "borne."

Yesterday, the defendants' motion to reassign the case was denied and the plaintiffs' motion to expedite the preliminary injunction hearing was denied as moot in light of the denial to reassign the case.  Today, the Hawaii AG filed a motion to stay the case pending the en banc decision in Young v. Hawaii.

The motion for a Preliminary Injunction is being held in abeyance until a decision on the motion to stay (#28 attached).  Also, the State filed a conditional joinder to the motion to stay (#29 attached).

Puna,
It is all pretty simple,  how many people are in the state of Hawaii?  not many. How many of us are NRA members?
The NRA has over 5 million members, we don't even have 1.5 million full-time residents of this state.
Most of America don't give a Eff about the few little guys being beat up by  the state and counties of Hawaii,
we "stupidly stay in". 
If you want gun rights, go to Idaho, Alaska, Texas, et al.  People here don't seem to want to do
civil disobedience for their rights so why should they,  the NRA, or GOA waste their time?
We can't even elect one Republican to the state Senate.
Most Oahu guys have their heads so far up HPD behinds they can't even figure out how
or want to defeat them.   What is a right if you have to ask a cop if you can practice it?
Read up on 4GW.   We are at war and we are losing.  Socialist Democrats are winning.

I don't disagree with much of what you've written, however I have to point out something about gun owners. While we may only have 1.5 million people in Hawaii and the NRA has nearly 6 million members now, the very sad fact is that there are over 100 million gun owners in the U.S.  So, why are there barely 6 million members in the NRA? Six measly percent! Gun owners need to put their money where their mouth is! How many gun owners in Hawaii are NRA members, or even HRA members? Whether we like it or not, the NRA is the largest gun advocacy group in the U.S.  I know there are lots of others like GOA and Second Amendment Foundation, etc. which are probably offshoots because they feel NRA isn't doing a good job, or they're more focused on local issues where they're located. Whatever the reason, we should have at least 50 million NRA members nationwide IF gun owners really cared about their gun rights. Hell, by percentage, the ARRL (which is a ham radio organization) has more members than the NRA. I guess ham radio operators are more concerned about protecting their frequency spectrum than gun owners are about their Constitutional rights to gun ownership. Something to think about. Do we gun owners in Hawaii have a current active membership in the NRA and HRA?

I don't disagree with much of what you've written, however I have to point out something about gun owners. While we may only have 1.5 million people in Hawaii and the NRA has nearly 6 million members now, the very sad fact is that there are over 100 million gun owners in the U.S.  So, why are there barely 6 million members in the NRA? Six measly percent! Gun owners need to put their money where their mouth is! How many gun owners in Hawaii are NRA members, or even HRA members? Whether we like it or not, the NRA is the largest gun advocacy group in the U.S.  I know there are lots of others like GOA and Second Amendment Foundation, etc. which are probably offshoots because they feel NRA isn't doing a good job, or they're more focused on local issues where they're located. Whatever the reason, we should have at least 50 million NRA members nationwide IF gun owners really cared about their gun rights. Hell, by percentage, the ARRL (which is a ham radio organization) has more members than the NRA. I guess ham radio operators are more concerned about protecting their frequency spectrum than gun owners are about their Constitutional rights to gun ownership. Something to think about. Do we gun owners in Hawaii have a current active membership in the NRA and HRA?

I'm a life NRA member.  I'm a year to year GOA member.
I will not join HRA, I do follow their goings on.  I'm on
the Big Island and I could care less about Oahu
and HPD but kissers.  I agree that the NRA needs more
members, but being an organization solely focused on gun safety,
and shooting skills, it misses the mark by relying on the ILA for its
politics and legal challenges.
The NRA needs to be more anti-Democrat.
Democrats are our enemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll stop at that so I don't get banned.

There is a pending motion to stay the case which has been fully briefed (37). The scheduling conference has been pushed back six weeks (36). 

37        respm Reply to Response to Motion Wed 2:47 PM
REPLY to Response to Motion re27 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Clare E. Connors. (Wadsworth, Clyde)

36      minutes 2 - Set Hearings Tue 4:45 PM
EO: Pursuant to Robert Kohn's request, and by agreement of the parties, the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference set for 6/3/19 @ 9:00 AM is continued to 7/17/2019 @ 9:00 AM before MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER. Rule 16 Scheduling Conference statements to be filed by 7/10/19. (MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROM TRADER)(tbf, )
Last checked - 5/10/2019