Show Posts
1
Legal and Activism / Re: HIFICO, Wolford etal vs. Lopez (Hawaii State Sensitive Places Lawsuit)
« on: April 13, 2024, 12:21:31 AM »
Some of the main takeaways from the hearing.
The judges were openly questioning and concerned with having a circuit split with the 2nd Circuit Court (New York). In Antonyuk, the 2nd Cir struck down the preliminary injunction thereby upholding the bans in all sensitive places except for churches and places without a "guns allowed" sign. The liberal 9th 3 judge panel is expected to closely follow the 2nd's ruling. A "Circuit Split" is when the appeals courts have different decisions from each other, one of the conditions for SCOTUS to take up a case as you cannot have the same laws applied differently in the US. However the appeals courts judges are supposed to judge cases on their merits while taking into consideration how other courts handled the appeals. They do not base their decisions on preventing SCOTUS from taking a case and overrule them. That is gaming the system and politics. It's very apparent judges do this, but they don't openly say they're doing it.
The other issue is how many historical analogues are needed to rule a 2a restriction constitutional. The opposing counsel and the judges analysis of Bruen was that only one analogue was needed, not analogues. So if there was one gun restriction in a state, city, or territory out of the original 13 states, that was enough. They pointed to a restriction on firearms carry in NYC in 1763 and 1771 that justified the sensitive places ban. I'm not sure what those restrictions are, I have to look them up.
The word "balancing" was used a lot in the opposition. They are still pushing "Interest Balancing" tests for public safety to justify the carry restrictions. This was prohibited under Heller and Bruen opinion which uses the text, history, and tradition. They also talked as if the SCOTUS Heller/Bruen opinions intended for restrictions like this to be allowed
Neal Katyal, the opposing counsel who served under Obama, was a smooth talker. Little substance, but he had the confidence to make it sound good like a car salesman. The three judges were all democrat appointments. Schroader and Graber are extremely anti 2nd amendment from past cases and were pretty hostile to the 2A in court. Sung never ruled on a 2A case before, and her line of questioning was milder. The likely outcome will be ending the preliminary injunction in Hawaii for everything except for the hold on the private property "guns allowed" sign requirement.
There were a few Moms Demand Action ladies in the court. They had a small rally with the Mayor the prior day.
Few other pictures
The judges were openly questioning and concerned with having a circuit split with the 2nd Circuit Court (New York). In Antonyuk, the 2nd Cir struck down the preliminary injunction thereby upholding the bans in all sensitive places except for churches and places without a "guns allowed" sign. The liberal 9th 3 judge panel is expected to closely follow the 2nd's ruling. A "Circuit Split" is when the appeals courts have different decisions from each other, one of the conditions for SCOTUS to take up a case as you cannot have the same laws applied differently in the US. However the appeals courts judges are supposed to judge cases on their merits while taking into consideration how other courts handled the appeals. They do not base their decisions on preventing SCOTUS from taking a case and overrule them. That is gaming the system and politics. It's very apparent judges do this, but they don't openly say they're doing it.
The other issue is how many historical analogues are needed to rule a 2a restriction constitutional. The opposing counsel and the judges analysis of Bruen was that only one analogue was needed, not analogues. So if there was one gun restriction in a state, city, or territory out of the original 13 states, that was enough. They pointed to a restriction on firearms carry in NYC in 1763 and 1771 that justified the sensitive places ban. I'm not sure what those restrictions are, I have to look them up.
The word "balancing" was used a lot in the opposition. They are still pushing "Interest Balancing" tests for public safety to justify the carry restrictions. This was prohibited under Heller and Bruen opinion which uses the text, history, and tradition. They also talked as if the SCOTUS Heller/Bruen opinions intended for restrictions like this to be allowed
Neal Katyal, the opposing counsel who served under Obama, was a smooth talker. Little substance, but he had the confidence to make it sound good like a car salesman. The three judges were all democrat appointments. Schroader and Graber are extremely anti 2nd amendment from past cases and were pretty hostile to the 2A in court. Sung never ruled on a 2A case before, and her line of questioning was milder. The likely outcome will be ending the preliminary injunction in Hawaii for everything except for the hold on the private property "guns allowed" sign requirement.
There were a few Moms Demand Action ladies in the court. They had a small rally with the Mayor the prior day.
Few other pictures
