Update this afternoon from Charles Nichols re a motion by California re Nichols v. Brown that has a bearing on Young v. Hawaii.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 27, 2018 – On February 27, 2018, the 3-judge panel issued an order vacating its submission of Nichols v. Brown pending issuance of a decision in Young v. State of Hawaii.

The State of California wanted the 3-judge panel assigned to the Nichols v. Brown appeal to issue its decision before the 3-judge panel in Young issued its decision because the judges assigned to the Young v. Hawaii appeal appeared to be much more favorable to the Second Amendment than the judges assigned to the Nichols v. Brown appeal.

By vacating the submission of the Nichols v. Brown Appeal, that can't happen. Now we wait for the decision in Young v. Hawaii.

EDIT: This is potentially a good thing.

Hoping for good news!!!!
Thoughts, prayers, crossed fingers and sacrificial chickens.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

New article by Charles Nichols about Young v. Hawaii and his Nichols v. Brown lawsuits recently argued before the Ninth Circuit. It gets a bit "into the weeds" of legal details, but for those interested in where we are, why we're where we are, and what may happen, it's necessary reading. Plus has links to all the relevant portions of both the Young and Nichols oral arguments.

https://newsblaze.com/usnews/national/right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-outside-home_127642/

Is There a Right to Keep and Bear Arms Outside of our Home?

Lost in the perennial argument over gun-free school zones and black rifles these past weeks were two cases argued in the 9th circuit court of appeals, the outcome of which will decide whether or not there is a right to keep and bear arms outside of our home. Specifically, whether or not there is a right to openly carry firearms in public.

The threshold question in both [Young and Nichols] is whether or not the enumerated, fundamental, individual Second Amendment right exists outside the interior of our home.

You might think that nearly ten years after the United States Supreme Court published its first in-depth decision which held that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, including handguns, for the purpose of lawful self-defense that the lawyers for the so-called gun-rights groups would challenge laws which infringe on that right.

For the most part, you would be wrong.

Update this afternoon from Charles Nichols re a motion by California re Nichols v. Brown that has a bearing on Young v. Hawaii.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 27, 2018 – On February 27, 2018, the 3-judge panel issued an order vacating its submission of Nichols v. Brown pending issuance of a decision in Young v. State of Hawaii.

The State of California wanted the 3-judge panel assigned to the Nichols v. Brown appeal to issue its decision before the 3-judge panel in Young issued its decision because the judges assigned to the Young v. Hawaii appeal appeared to be much more favorable to the Second Amendment than the judges assigned to the Nichols v. Brown appeal.

By vacating the submission of the Nichols v. Brown Appeal, that can't happen. Now we wait for the decision in Young v. Hawaii.

EDIT: This is potentially a good thing.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384590619/Young-Opinion#fullscreen&from_embed

I won

Yippeee!!!!

I read the brief but got bogged down in the language . Can someone give us a summary?

I read the brief but got bogged down in the language . Can someone give us a summary?

Me too.

I'll have to to back and read when I have more time (not sure how much that will help with all the legal stuff), but my two key takeaways were:

1) The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of claims brought against the County of Hawaii, dismissed  plaintiff’s appeal as to the State of Hawaii, and remanded, in  plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the denial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self-defense.

2) The panel acknowledged that while the concealed carry of firearms categorically falls outside Second Amendment protection, see Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 939 (2016) (en banc), it was satisfied that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to carry a firearm openly in public for self-defense.

So good in pursuit of right for open carry, it sort of concedes that "concealed carry of firearms categorically falls OUTSIDE Second Amendment protection". 

Probably not that simple, but still a good and hard fought win.   

 

I just saw it on the news this morning.  That mean open carry is a go?

So what’s next?  Does the state appeal or do they request time to put a legal framework in place? 

So what’s next?  Does the state appeal or do they request time to put a legal framework in place?

order goes back to the state court
they can appeal to the whole 9th circuit (en banc) if they choose
then the 9th circuit must decide whether to hear or not

I just saw it on the news this morning.  That mean open carry is a go?

do not open carry
do not pass go
do not collect $200

Good news, but still probably take another year or two before we can actually open carry legally in Hawaii.  Even then most businesses in Hawaii would have NO GUNS ALLOWED or GUN FREE ZONE signs posted. 

Good chance it wont go to en banc.
Next carry case in line for SCOTUS.
Good chance SCOTUS will take the case and rule for it.
Still would need to apply for a carry permit.

Yes it's your right damn it!  Join most of the rest of the country already.  I'm glad to finally hear a slight hope for actual good gun laws in Hawaii.

Open carry for civilians is retarded though and purely for show.  I remember when open carry passed in Texas, we all still conceal carry.  The point is for someone not to know you are armed.  The only people open carrying there now...........well.......when you see them, they are usually interesting.

Regardless, this is great news.  I hope we see some progress on this.  Any way that us regular citizens can get involved with this?

Open carry for civilians is retarded though and purely for show.  I remember when open carry passed in Texas, we all still conceal carry.  The point is for someone not to know you are armed.  The only people open carrying there now...........well.......when you see them, they are usually interesting.

Regardless, this is great news.  I hope we see some progress on this.  Any way that us regular citizens can get involved with this?

I agree, but open carry will lead to CCW.  So it's a step in the right direction.

Good chance it wont go to en banc.
Next carry case in line for SCOTUS.
Good chance SCOTUS will take the case and rule for it.
Still would need to apply for a carry permit.

They will change the law to "may issue" carry permit and screw us all again.

Any way that us regular citizens can get involved with this?

Come down to the next 2a activism meeting next month.  Tentatively august 11 or 18th.  Ill post it here.    Looking for people that will be active and put in the hard work.

They will change the law to "may issue" carry permit and screw us all again.

The whole case is about may issue being unconstitutional. So it will have to be a shall issue permit.

The whole case is about may issue being unconstitutional. So it will have to be a shall issue permit.

Just got hard again!!!!!!!!!!!

I just don’t see how the Liberal 9th can justify CONCEALED CARRY as outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Perhaps they know that generally most gun owners are more comfortable with concealed carry versus open carry.

The guys with those custom leather holsters and that Kimber 1911 that has 50 rounds through it over the course of 10 years will be happy tho. LOL  I KID I KID!!! 

But seriously.. what the hell?