Young v. State of Hawaii (Read 123126 times)

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #320 on: October 12, 2018, 12:06:13 PM »
This article is pretty good, explains why the copy past lawyer is wrong on a few of their legal opinions

https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/crpanews-alert-fighting-for-your-right-to-carry-in-ca/
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #321 on: October 12, 2018, 01:46:12 PM »
Thanks that cleared up the questions I had.

Also didn't trump appoint another judge to the 9th circuit?  So more odds in our favor?

Hanabata

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #322 on: October 12, 2018, 01:59:44 PM »
Nice article.  Clarified some things for me.  All this legal stuff gets to be confusing!
Thanks!!  :shaka:

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #323 on: October 12, 2018, 02:17:24 PM »
This article is pretty good, explains why the copy past lawyer is wrong on a few of their legal opinions

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

This is a wonderful example of why stupid people, evil people, and stupidly evil people should not be allowed anywhere near a weapon.  If you believe what the NRA tells the public is more important than what the NRA tells Federal judges then that makes you stupid.  If you know that the only thing that matters is what the NRA lawyers tell the judges but nonetheless propagate NRA lies then that makes you evil.  If you don't know and don't care then that makes you both stupid and evil.

At the same time the NRA told the public in this video that it supports Open Carry, its NRA lawyers were in the 9th circuit court of appeals telling the court that it is constitutional to ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry. ->

NRA lawyer (Paul Clement) says that states can ban Open Carry (en banc oral argument, Peruta v. San Diego) ->

Transcript of Flanagan v. Harris (now Becerra) hearing on motion to dismiss:
(The NRA argues that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry)

NRA lawyer Sean Brady:
"IF THE SHERIFF WERE TO ISSUE CONCEALED-WEAPON PERMITS, AS HE'S ALLOWED TO DO, THEN PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE MADE WHOLE, CORRECT. THEY WOULD -- IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY HAD PERMITS, THEY WERE COMING TO YOUR HONOR SAYING, "NO, WE WANT TO OPEN-CARRY," YOUR HONOR WOULD, I BELIEVE, BE ABLE TO SAY, "NO, YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE INTACT. YOU HAVE A CONCEALED-WEAPON PERMIT."

Judge Kronstadt:
"I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T THINK I AGREE WITH YOU."

Now lawyers are not limited to the exact argument they made in the district court but they are prevented from raising new claims on appeal.

Is there a claim filed in the plaintiffs' operative complaint in which any of the plaintiffs seeks to openly carry a firearm?  No.  Okay then, defects in a Complaint can be corrected via a Declaration.  Is there any Declaration filed in the Flanagan case in which any of the plaintiffs articulates a concrete plan to violate any California Open Carry ban, anywhere?  No.  Okay, is there any Declaration filed in the Flanagan case in which any of the plaintiffs articulates any plan to violate any California Open Carry ban.  No. 

Do any of the plaintiffs seek a license to openly carry a handgun?  No.  Do any of the plaintiffs challenge the population prohibitions and residency limitations on California Handgun Open Carry permits?  No.

But they did seek an injunction against the section of California law which allows for the issuance of licenses to openly carry firearms.  Fortunately, instead of filing a motion for partial summary judgment, the Flanagan plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment which did not seek to enjoin that section of the law.

A person can argue day and night that a law is unconstitutional without there being a flaw in the argument but if the plaintiffs have not articulated a concrete plan to violate the law then they do not have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to that law.  The NRA has not challenged California's Open Carry bans in the district court in Flanagan, and the NRA did not in Peruta.

And, of course, 9th circuit procedural law says that claims not raised again on appeal and not distinctly argued in the "body" (the argument section) of the opening brief are forfeited on appeal.

Here is a link to the opening brief in Flanagan v. Becerra -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Flanagan-v.-Becerra_Appellants-Opening-Brief_16.pdf

Notwithstanding that 9th circuit procedural law says that argument made in footnotes is to be excluded from consideration, the Flanagan Appellants had this to say in a footnote:

"To be clear, Appellants would be satisfied with a remedy that compels the State or the Sheriff to give Appellants and other otherwise-qualified citizens Carry Licenses, but leaves the State or the Sheriff free to choose between open
or concealed carry. See, e.g., Moore, 702 F.3d at 942. Appellants have challenged California’s open carry laws, its concealed carry laws, and the Sheriff’s good cause policy not because they insist that every one of these provisions must be invalidated, but to ensure that there is no confusion about the scope of their constitutional challenge, and that the courts have available to them every possible avenue for remedying the injury Appellants have suffered. "

The Argument Section of the brief begins on page 17 and ends on page page 46.

Feel free to copy and paste those paragraphs from the opening brief where the plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of, and seek prospective injunctive and/or declaratory relief against: California Penal Code sections 25850 (ban on carrying loaded firearms in public), 26350 (ban on carrying unloaded handguns in public), 26400 (ban on openly carrying unloaded long guns in public), 26150/26155(b)(2) (ban on issuing handgun Open Carry licenses in counties with 200,000 or more people and restricting those licenses to the county of issuance).

The only thing the Flanagan plaintiffs can point to is that they were denied concealed carry permits.  While it is true that under 9th circuit procedural law, the denial of a state license confers standing, it is also true under Peruta v. San Diego en banc there is no Article III standing to challenge the denial of the concealed carry permit under the Second Amendment.



Given that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge any California Open Carry ban, even if they wanted to, which they don't, and given they have foreclosed any possibility for a remand back to the district court to amend their complaint to challenge California's Open Carry bans, all that is left is yet another failed concealed carry appeal to be denied cert by SCOTUS.



changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #324 on: October 12, 2018, 02:42:14 PM »
Can anyone confirm if I got the following right:

1) If 9 panel doesn't want to hear it, then original 3 panel ruling stands
2) If 9 panel rules either way, it goes SCOTUS.  (Young loses, we will challenge/ Young wins, state might challenge)
        a) With #2 being said, if SCOTUS rules in our favor, then open carry is allowed in all 50 states instead of just the west coast (9th circuit) 

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #325 on: October 12, 2018, 03:29:07 PM »


What being said is, States have the right to regulate the way people carry outside of the home as long as they give some method of doing so. If the right to openly carry is affirmed then it may be possible for states to for fill that same right in another way under the premises of legal fiction.

If standing was an issue why hasn't the judge/judges said so ? Why hasn't the state bought it up ? Im sure you e-mailed both of them to tell them about it.
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #326 on: October 12, 2018, 03:30:11 PM »
1) If 9 panel doesn't want to hear it, then original 3 panel ruling stands : YES
2) If 9 panel rules either way, it goes SCOTUS.  (Young loses, we will challenge/ Young wins, state might challenge)
        a) With #2 being said, if SCOTUS rules in our favor, then open carry is allowed in all 50 states instead of just the west coast (9th circuit) : YES
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

aieahound

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #327 on: October 12, 2018, 03:41:38 PM »
If I'm not mistaken, SCOTUS and a number of appellate courts have ruled that concealed carry is not a constitutional right under the second amendment.
But there is is a Constitutional right to carry outside the home, with "reasonable" limitations that can be imposed by the State.
That leaves only open carry as our Constitutional Right.
The "reasonable" limitations are up in the air.

Do law abiding citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to carry outside the home.
That's the key issue being litigated in Young.

States can allow concealed carry at their discretion, but open carry may be a Right under 2A.

As I see it.
But I'm no lawyer.

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #328 on: October 12, 2018, 05:32:12 PM »
Can anyone confirm if I got the following right:

1) If 9 panel doesn't want to hear it, then original 3 panel ruling stands
2) If 9 panel rules either way, it goes SCOTUS.  (Young loses, we will challenge/ Young wins, state might challenge)
        a) With #2 being said, if SCOTUS rules in our favor, then open carry is allowed in all 50 states instead of just the west coast (9th circuit)

9th circuit en banc panels consist of eleven judges.  If the en banc petition is denied then the remaining defendants can file a cert petition.  If the en banc petition is granted then the three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii is vacated and we will have to wait for the en banc decision in Young.  The loser can then file a cert petition. If there is a partial win and a partial loss for both sides then both sides can file a cert petition.

If SCOTUS grants the cert petition(s) then what it says in the Young decision applies to all 50 states just as what it said in the Heller decision became applied against all 50 states when the McDonald decision held that is applies to all states and local governments.

That does not mean that state and local governments won't continue to enforce their Open Carry bans.  In order to prevent the enforcement of a state or local Open Carry ban (or any law for that matter) it requires either an injunction or declaratory relief, and that means that someone will have to file a lawsuit challenging those bans.

That's just the way our legal system works.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #329 on: October 12, 2018, 05:41:49 PM »
Can anyone confirm if I got the following right:

1) If 9 panel doesn't want to hear it, then original 3 panel ruling stands

Off the top of my head (could all be wrong): If the Ninth panel which rendered Young rejects the petition for en banc, any judge in the Ninth Circuit can sua sponte ask for a vote on whether to review the case en banc (See: Peruta). If the case does not go en banc, or goes en banc and is upheld, the ruling stands. The ruling is that the case is remanded to district court to be decided in light of the conclusions of the three judge panel. That decision can be appealed, by the losing side.

2) If 9 panel rules either way, it goes SCOTUS.  (Young loses, we will challenge/ Young wins, state might challenge)

It "goes to SCOTUS" as a writ for certiorari, asking the court to review the case. Typical percentage of cases accepted by SCOTUS 1-3%. See: Peruta, Kachalsky, Woolard, Norman, etc.

        a) With #2 being said, if SCOTUS rules in our favor, then open carry is allowed in all 50 states instead of just the west coast (9th circuit)
If SCOTUS rules that open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment, then all states will have to have laws in place that allow for open carry, with whatever regulations they believe can be defended in court as not infringing on the exercise of that right. This is what we have in Hawaii right now! Read the AG "opinion". Anyone at anytime could have gotten an unconcealed carry license had they applied and met the criteria that have existed forever. Those criteria are "reasonable regulations" (ask them), and not one single person has a license. I'm just sayin'...

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #330 on: October 12, 2018, 06:18:41 PM »
If open or concealed carry passes, I imagine the State and counties will set the requirements like LEOSA.  1 year permit, medical exam every 2 years, annual training class, etc.
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #331 on: October 12, 2018, 06:23:52 PM »
If open or concealed carry passes, I imagine the State and counties will set the requirements like LEOSA.  1 year permit, medical exam every 2 years, annual training class, etc.
They can go fuck themselfs
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #332 on: October 13, 2018, 09:04:53 AM »
I am looking at homes in Arizona.  Grocery prices are cheap too.  $2.19 for 18 ex large eggs.  People are friendly and minimal gun regulations.

wolfwood

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #333 on: October 14, 2018, 03:30:31 PM »
I am looking at homes in Arizona.  Grocery prices are cheap too.  $2.19 for 18 ex large eggs.  People are friendly and minimal gun regulations.

Look into Flagstaff its not hot like Phoenix or Scottsdale.  .
Please add my business facebook page if you are interested in my litigation
https://www.facebook.com/ABeckLaw/

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #334 on: October 16, 2018, 06:47:25 AM »
Look into Flagstaff its not hot like Phoenix or Scottsdale.  .
I don’t want to derail this thread but Flagstaff gets too cold for me.  I am looking around the Kingman area.  It has been a good 10 days being able to legally carry in AZ and NV.  Buffalo Wild Wings in Las Vegas removed their No Guns sign.  It was prominently displayed on the door when I went there last year.

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #335 on: October 16, 2018, 09:06:51 AM »
I don’t want to derail this thread but Flagstaff gets too cold for me.  I am looking around the Kingman area.  It has been a good 10 days being able to legally carry in AZ and NV.  Buffalo Wild Wings in Las Vegas removed their No Guns sign.  It was prominently displayed on the door when I went there last year.

Good thing the no guns signs don't have the weight of the law behind them in NV.  1 could CCW and no one would know.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #336 on: October 16, 2018, 10:10:47 AM »
I just re-read Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, aka Heller II (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf). In that dissent he is arguing, among other things, that the proper way to evaluate possible infringements on the Second Amendment is via "text, history, and tradition", versus an "interest balancing" method such as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis. (I disagree with some of his reasoning, especially regarding the "longstanding" criteria, as it is totally absurd to claim that machine guns may be more or less de facto banned because they are not in "common use"... because the reason they are not and have not been in common use is because they were made nearly impossible to possess via the requirements for ownership due to the NFA 1934, and subsequent legislation that made them too expensive to acquire for almost anyone.)

What is evident, and relevant to Young is that he uses the "text, history, and tradition" test to validate, six times, that "concealed carry may be banned", or other words to that effect, usually in conjunction with other permissible restrictions such as banning ownership and possession by felons, etc.

If people are counting on Kavanaugh to somehow support any claim that a state may not ban concealed carry, or regulate it out of existence de facto, then they are going to be losing that argument (again) at SCOTUS. We don't know what Kavanaugh or the other justices view of unconcealed carry is, but it's pretty clear what Kavanaugh thinks about concealed carry. Unless he has changed his mind. And since he spent 60 pages making the case that the SCOTUS precedents that he is obliged to follow make the case (among other things) that concealed carry can be banned, it's not that likely he will suddenly discover some other interpretation.

Waste of time to argue concealed carry. Hope Young doesn't.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2018, 10:20:52 AM by punaperson »

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #337 on: October 16, 2018, 10:27:30 AM »
Hopefully the DNC/liberals changed his mind to swing him to us more.

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #338 on: October 16, 2018, 10:28:24 AM »
I always preferred Hardiman to be appointed to SCOTUS, even before Gorsuch.  Hope RBG leaves soon, and then Hardiman may have a chance.

macsak

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #339 on: October 16, 2018, 10:39:45 AM »
I always preferred Hardiman to be appointed to SCOTUS, even before Gorsuch.  Hope RBG leaves soon, and then Hardiman may have a chance.

they gonna slander Hardiman worse than they did Kavanagh
next one up will be female, and let's see how they justify messing with a lady...