Can anyone provide a free link to or other free access to this article?

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/18/editorial/island-voices/big-implications-for-open-carry-ruling/

Column: Big implications for open-carry ruling
 
In a somewhat byzantine tangle of legal events, the state of Hawaii may have figuratively shot itself in the foot.


Excerpt at HawaiiFreePress: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/22632/November-18-2018-News-Read.aspx

 …the issue is open carry — the carrying of pistols in plain view — and the court, and states like Hawaii, have found that they have backed themselves into a corner. Because if it’s constitutional to prohibit concealed carry as the 9th Circuit Court has ruled, and the Second Amendment grants the right to “bear” arms (which means to have on one’s person), then it has to be unconstitutional to similarly prohibit open carry, because to ban both concealed and open carry directly contravenes the U.S. Constitution….

* * * *
[I'd prefer an anatomical part at the opposite end of the body, but I guess I'd settle for the foot... and of course Hawaii's argument is that they don't "ban" any kind of carry... anyone can get either an open carry or concealed carry license at any time... one just "must, among other things, demonstrate that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens." You know, virtually the exact words from the constitutions!  ]

Can anyone provide a free link to or other free access to this article?

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/18/editorial/island-voices/big-implications-for-open-carry-ruling/

Column: Big implications for open-carry ruling
 
In a somewhat byzantine tangle of legal events, the state of Hawaii may have figuratively shot itself in the foot.


Excerpt at HawaiiFreePress: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/22632/November-18-2018-News-Read.aspx

 …the issue is open carry — the carrying of pistols in plain view — and the court, and states like Hawaii, have found that they have backed themselves into a corner. Because if it’s constitutional to prohibit concealed carry as the 9th Circuit Court has ruled, and the Second Amendment grants the right to “bear” arms (which means to have on one’s person), then it has to be unconstitutional to similarly prohibit open carry, because to ban both concealed and open carry directly contravenes the U.S. Constitution….

* * * *
[I'd prefer an anatomical part at the opposite end of the body, but I guess I'd settle for the foot... and of course Hawaii's argument is that they don't "ban" any kind of carry... anyone can get either an open carry or concealed carry license at any time... one just "must, among other things, demonstrate that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens." You know, virtually the exact words from the constitutions!  ]

I second that request.

Can anyone provide a free link to or other free access to this article?

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/18/editorial/island-voices/big-implications-for-open-carry-ruling/

Column: Big implications for open-carry ruling
 
In a somewhat byzantine tangle of legal events, the state of Hawaii may have figuratively shot itself in the foot.


Excerpt at HawaiiFreePress: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/22632/November-18-2018-News-Read.aspx

 …the issue is open carry — the carrying of pistols in plain view — and the court, and states like Hawaii, have found that they have backed themselves into a corner. Because if it’s constitutional to prohibit concealed carry as the 9th Circuit Court has ruled, and the Second Amendment grants the right to “bear” arms (which means to have on one’s person), then it has to be unconstitutional to similarly prohibit open carry, because to ban both concealed and open carry directly contravenes the U.S. Constitution….

* * * *
[I'd prefer an anatomical part at the opposite end of the body, but I guess I'd settle for the foot... and of course Hawaii's argument is that they don't "ban" any kind of carry... anyone can get either an open carry or concealed carry license at any time... one just "must, among other things, demonstrate that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens." You know, virtually the exact words from the constitutions!  ]

Was the editorial in the antiquated olde english printed version? Anyone have a copy? Scan and post it?

Was the editorial in the antiquated olde english printed version? Anyone have a copy? Scan and post it?

It's in the online edition at the link (as well (likely) as the print edition), but you have to give them money (be a subscriber) in order to sign in and view it. Hell if I'm giving them a cent. Since the writer says there is a "ban", he likely is as ignorant as the others at that rag who have written error-filled articles about the case. Still, I wanna read what is getting put into the minds of the public.

Amicus Briefs Got filed. Spent all day in Court so I haven't had a chance to read them.
]
https://www.scribd.com/document/393633915/Young-SAF-Amicus-Brief


https://www.scribd.com/document/393634322/Young-GOA-Amicus-Brief

https://www.scribd.com/document/393634538/Young-HRA-Brief



https://www.scribd.com/document/393634673/Young-HFC-Brief

And the NRA sayeth naught?
Aloha

And the NRA sayeth naught?
Aloha

The NRA has an appeal pending before the 9th circuit court of appeals, Flanagan v. Becerra, in which it makes the same argument that it made in Peruta v. San Diego -- States can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.  That argument is foreclosed by the en banc decision in Peruta.  If the Young v. Hawaii decision stands (i.e., the en banc petition is denied) then that pretty much sinks any hope of the Flanagan case going en banc because if Mr. Young prevails then I win my California Open Carry appeal, which means the Flanagan plaintiffs will be able to Open Carry in California.

So, no surprise that the NRA did not file an Amicus brief in support of Open Carry.

All of the Amicus briefs in Young v. Hawaii, both in support and in opposition to en banc, can be found at my website at this page -> http://californiaopencarry.com/young-v-state-of-hawaii-appeal-12-17808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/

I feel better now

It's in the online edition at the link (as well (likely) as the print edition), but you have to give them money (be a subscriber) in order to sign in and view it. Hell if I'm giving them a cent. Since the writer says there is a "ban", he likely is as ignorant as the others at that rag who have written error-filled articles about the case. Still, I wanna read what is getting put into the minds of the public.

Found a print version

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Found a print version

Thanks. I appreciate your effort to provide that for us.

You need to put a pen you want to sell on it and use the paper as the background to circumvent possible copy right laws.

You need to put a pen you want to sell on it and use the paper as the background to circumvent possible copy right laws.

Sorry.. forgot to say I was offering up the paper itself for any recycling projects or for lining birdcages

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Sorry.. forgot to say I was offering up the paper itself for any recycling projects or for lining birdcages

I thought that WAS the bottom of a birdcage...

I  filed a sur-reply..  A surreply s a reply to their reply. I basically am asking permission to file the brief. There are some misrepresentations made by the Defendant that I wanted to point out regarding Hawaii's past practice.

https://www.scribd.com/document/393822475/Young-Filed-Surreply

I relief heavily on the information obtained by the Hawaii Firearms coalition through a series of UIPA request which is Hawaii's equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act.

Please like their page on facebook and consider joining.

http://hifico.org/

https://www.facebook.com/hificoorg

From yesterday's episode of NRA TV's Cam and Company Second Amendment attorney and scholar Steven Halbrook briefly discusses an article about the "second class" Second Amendment. At around the 9 minute mark he briefly discusses limiting the right to bear arms to only "special" classes of people and the divergence between Hawaii's orientation (only security guards get open carry licenses) in Young in the Ninth and Boston/Brookline's orientation (only doctors, lawyers, and retired cops get "unrestricted" concealed carry licenses) in Gould in the First Circuit. [Note that the Second Amendment does NOT read "... the right of security guards, doctors, lawyers, and retired cops to bear arms shall not be infringed".]

https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2018-steve-halbrook-the-second-class-amendment

Steve Halbrook: The Second Class Amendment

Supreme Court Must Stop Spread of Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws

Despite the text of the Second Amendment, supporters of gun rights have often based their arguments on the pre-constitutional right of self-defense. This may be in part why the Supreme Court has been reluctant to stop the spread of federal, state and local gun control. Second Amendment attorney and scholar Steve Halbrook explains why it's up to the newly-constituted Supreme Court with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to make the right to keep and bear arms equal to the rest of the Bill of Rights. They must reign in the appellate courts that are upholding unconstitutional bans. Steve says intermediate scrutiny would never be acceptable for the First Amendment; it's just as unacceptable for the Second. The meaning of "infringe" is clear. Originally aired on Cam & Co 11/20/18.

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

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

Our taxpayer dollars at work and being misspent. It’s sad that we will be paying for both sides of this lawsuit when we eventually prevail. I’m sure it will cost us taxpayers a lot more for the state/county to fight this than you will get when all this is said and done. Don’t get me wrong, whatever you get for this suit after it concludes will be well spent. It just saddens me that our own government is spending our tax dollars to fight to keep our constitutional rights from us.