2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Funtimes on March 26, 2014, 06:08:56 PM
-
Since the decision a lot of people have been asking what is going on. Well, let’s try and break this down a little bit:
1.) Our decision basically rides on the Peruta v. San Diego case. That case was argued earlier in the morning than Baker was argued. Therefore, the decision in that case was released prior. Instead of writing a new decision, the (3) judge panel basically said, “Hey, look at this case – it says why Baker should win.” Our case then had its preliminary injunction vacated and remanded to the district court to be heard in light of Peruta. Remember, a preliminary injunction was us basically saying, “This is so jacked up that you should give me a carry license while we wait to figure out the merits of the case.” We still have to handle the merits. The preliminary injunction was just our first bite at the apple; sadly, it was a bite that took about 3 years to chew (It’s a really long dinner…).
2.) The Peruta case has some stuff going on with it. Basically, after San Diego lost they decided that they were no longer going to defend the matter in court. Their white flag went up and they are surrendering. The State of California Attorney General’s Office, saw this white flag, and were like, “Oh shit. An unconstitutional law needs saving!” So off they ran to the courts to ask if they can pinch hit for the San Diego Sheriff.
This had some problems, because everyone thought the game was over. So they did some voodoo magic and filed some documents asking the 9th circuit court if they can play ball. This matter is currently pending before the court and has not been ruled on.
Why do we care if the Attorney general gets a chance to swing? Well. Good question! After a 3 judge panel makes a ruling, the parties involved have an option to ask the entire court or generally a significantly larger panel, which in the 9th circuit would be 11 justices instead of 3, to rehear the case in question. This process is called en banc.
So, if that wasn’t a pain in the ass enough – if the parties involved don’t want to do this, the judges that were on the panel can do it themselves! To make it even better, judges who were not on the panel can also call for a vote. Once a vote is held or not held, then we kind of know how this will proceed.
Lastly, there are some timelines to this stuff, and a few of them are passing as we speak. The problem is that because this is such a huge cluster of crap, we don’t even think that the courts or anyone involved are 100% sure of what deadlines have passed and what is to be heard next.
3.) Just the other day in our case, Judge Alan Kay (our judge) got notice of all this stuff. He complied with the 9th Circuit and dismissed a section of the case as directed. Then, he put the State of Hawaii and the Attorney General back on legal notice that a law on the books has been implicated. This was kind of necessary, because the State and the AG previously ducked out of the suit saying they didn’t want anything to do with it. Well, now they are going to have to come back and play some ball.
4.) The future: We wait. I know. I know. And, I really hate it too! There isn’t too much to do right now. We have to see how Peruta is ultimately disposed of. If it stand, carry is a win hands down. If they start playing legal games with Peruta, we could be stayed or put on hold for a very long time. Best case scenario is we could be exercising our rights by summer time. Worst case scenario means we could be waiting a few more years for things to play out in the 9th circuit on a single case.
Lastly, I want people to know that we can still use donations. If you like the work we are doing, please help us out. Send a few bucks our way. We had to bear all the costs of that appeal, which was probably in the realm of 12k dollars. If you want to help us out, you can do so online at www.thehdf.org/donate/ (http://www.thehdf.org/donate/) or by mail at 99-040 Kauhale St. #1798, Aiea, HI 96701. If you have any questions, I’m available through e-mail at Chris@thehdf.org. If you really need me, we can talk (just shoot me an e-mail first) and I will be happy to speak with you on the phone.
Blessings to everyone! We are still fighting – 3 years strong!
Christopher Baker
-
Th ank youfor the update, Chris...
-
Great work on the court case guys.
I love Hawaii but really miss CCW.
So I called the Big Island Hawaii Police Department today to request an application for CCW.
After about 5 phone transfers 5 disconnects and an hour of trying I was connected to the Records division. (call the Police and order a Pizza ....see which one shows up first)
I requested an application for a permit. They responded they had been getting lots of requests due to the lawsuit but no such application exists.
I was told the only method on the Big Island was to write a letter directly to Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri and essentially beg for him to allow me the basic exercise of my civil liberties. It wasn't clear if genuflection was required or not.
I pointed out this was a direct contradiction of Baker and Peruta......she confirmed, yes, indeed it was. I asked again for a formal application and was told that no such application exists.
It occurs to me that while recording these phone calls is a good first step, it would be better to conduct these conversations via email as that would provide me an unequivocal transcript of our communications which could be subpoenaed later or FOIA-ed. However, email addresses for our public servants doesn't appear to be ...well, public.
Does anybody have an email list for the relevant people?
-
Great work on the court case guys.
I love Hawaii but really miss CCW.
So I called the Big Island Hawaii Police Department today to request an application for CCW.
After about 5 phone transfers 5 disconnects and an hour of trying I was connected to the Records division. (call the Police and order a Pizza ....see which one shows up first)
I requested an application for a permit. They responded they had been getting lots of requests due to the lawsuit but no such application exists.
I was told the only method on the Big Island was to write a letter directly to Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri and essentially beg for him to allow me the basic exercise of my civil liberties. It wasn't clear if genuflection was required or not.
I pointed out this was a direct contradiction of Baker and Peruta......she confirmed, yes, indeed it was. I asked again for a formal application and was told that no such application exists.
It occurs to me that while recording these phone calls is a good first step, it would be better to conduct these conversations via email as that would provide me an unequivocal transcript of our communications which could be subpoenaed later or FOIA-ed. However, email addresses for our public servants doesn't appear to be ...well, public.
Does anybody have an email list for the relevant people?
not positive, but i thought that recording without consent or warrant is illegal in HI
-
Its illegal to do that almost everywhere if I'm not mistaken. You would need consent from one of the people in the call. Kind of like putting recording/tracking software on someone's phone or computer. That's a federal crime if no consent is given.
-
not positive, but i thought that recording without consent or warrant is illegal in HI
Hawaii is one party consent. If you are recording your call, I'm pretty sure that you have consented =p. It would be illegal to say, record someone elses call where you are not a party. You also cannot install things to make the recording. There are also considerations for expectations of privacy etc., but that's kind of hard to say when you are a government employee - as the public has every right to know everything you are doing with their tax dollars.
-
This is a one party consent state.
And what we have here is a public servant openly stating their intention to disobey the law and lie about the existence of documents already acquired via FOIA.
I would simply like an application form and an honest answer to my questions.
My point is, for legal purposes, an email transcript is superior to voice communications hypothetically recorded and encrypted.
-
I called Hilo PD over a month ago asking for the email address of the Chief (not on the website) so I could ask some questions and get written email answers regarding the current CCW licensing policy in light of Baker and Peruta (at that point it was only Peruta). Four days later I received a call back message stating that the email addresses were there on the website. I looked again, but could find nothing for the chief or any other personnel, only a general "feedback" email address: copsysop@co.hawaii.hi.us. Since the law (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/hrs0134/HRS_0134-0009.htm (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/hrs0134/HRS_0134-0009.htm)) clearly states the the chief is responsible for all such decisions re CCW licenses, there would really be no point in me getting an email back from anyone other than the chief wherein he states his legal position regarding issuance in light of Baker and Peruta. I'm going in today to pick up a "permit to acquire" ( :wtf: Please Master, may I exercise my natural, civil, individual, fundamental, unalienable Constitutionally-guaranteed right?) and plan on asking the clerk if she can tell me the chief's email address. Not that any of it would make any difference, I'm just curious to see what kind of canned response they have, if any, to their continued adherence to a clearly unconstitutional law.
UPDATE: I asked the clerk when I was in there today and she said she did not know, and didn't know why it wouldn't be on the website. I plan on sending an email to the general "contact" email address and asking for his email address. If I get a response I will post it.
-
New guy here looking to move to Hawaii..
The chief is responsible but he doesn't have to be the one personally getting back to you in it. He's just responsible for the content and gives him plausible deniability if something negative happens. Where I am, we have a separate gun section that handles all the questions and such.
The sheriff may simply stonewall until a lawsuit is filed against him for denying someone's permit request. That person must have proof that he was denied so he will have to send a letter to the chief. I'd send it certified mail so you have proof it got there.
Kali screwed the pooch when they outlawed open carry and then a de facto ban by refusing to grant CCW permits. It basically gave no option for someone to exercise their rights to bear arms.
-
not positive, but i thought that recording without consent or warrant is illegal in HI
It's illegal if neither party is aware they are being recorded. If you are ne of the parties, and you are aware that the conversation is being recorded, well...
-
Still trying to find an electronic method of contacting Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri?
You can contact him on his Linked In account. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harry-kubojiri/40/6b7/99 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harry-kubojiri/40/6b7/99) and that will pop up in his e-mail. :thumbsup:
-
Still trying to find an electronic method of contacting Police Chief Harry S. Kubojiri?
You can contact him on his Linked In account. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harry-kubojiri/40/6b7/99 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/harry-kubojiri/40/6b7/99) and that will pop up in his e-mail. :thumbsup:
I don't see it on the page you link to. I'm not signing up for linkedin or facebook. What is his email address? Thanks.
-
Lastly, I want people to know that we can still use donations. If you like the work we are doing, please help us out. Send a few bucks our way. We had to bear all the costs of that appeal, which was probably in the realm of 12k dollars. If you want to help us out, you can do so online at www.thehdf.org/donate/ (http://www.thehdf.org/donate/) or by mail at 99-040 Kauhale St. #1798, Aiea, HI 96701. If you have any questions, I’m available through e-mail at Chris@thehdf.org. If you really need me, we can talk (just shoot me an e-mail first) and I will be happy to speak with you on the phone.
I just donated. Hope others will too.
-
I don't see it on the page you link to. I'm not signing up for linkedin or facebook. What is his email address? Thanks.
Good luck and let us know what he says -
hskubojiri@co.hawaii.hi.us
-
I was hoping the addresses followed some standardized pattern.
Thank you very much. I want to make sure every part of conversation is logged and time stamped. Email is perfect for that.
-
I was hoping the addresses followed some standardized pattern.
Thank you very much. I want to make sure every part of conversation is logged and time stamped. Email is perfect for that.
No problem - I just removed a bunch of info above - people need to be more careful who they share their personal info with - I found his home phone and cell phone number too, not cool.
-
Lastly, I want people to know that we can still use donations. If you like the work we are doing, please help us out. Send a few bucks our way. We had to bear all the costs of that appeal, which was probably in the realm of 12k dollars. If you want to help us out, you can do so online at www.thehdf.org/donate/ (http://www.thehdf.org/donate/) or by mail at 99-040 Kauhale St. #1798, Aiea, HI 96701. If you have any questions, I’m available through e-mail at Chris@thehdf.org. If you really need me, we can talk (just shoot me an e-mail first) and I will be happy to speak with you on the phone.
Blessings to everyone! We are still fighting – 3 years strong!
Christopher Baker
Hundred Bucks heading your way. Great Work. Thanks .
-
Good luck and let us know what he says -
hskubojiri@co.hawaii.hi.us
Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to find that and post it. I probably might have guessed that address (except maybe for the middle initial) given that the general contact email address is copsysop@co.hawaii.hi.us.
Now I have to formulate a few pointed questions with the proper polite "tone" while still asking for precise answers. I'm guessing that they may already have a canned response as I've heard that they have received quite a few inquiries.
-
Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to find that and post it. I probably might have guessed that address (except maybe for the middle initial) given that the general contact email address is copsysop@co.hawaii.hi.us.
Now I have to formulate a few pointed questions with the proper polite "tone" while still asking for precise answers. I'm guessing that they may already have a canned response as I've heard that they have received quite a few inquiries.
I place a high premium on civility. As Churchill said, " It costs nothing to be polite. "
-
Thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to find that and post it. I probably might have guessed that address (except maybe for the middle initial) given that the general contact email address is copsysop@co.hawaii.hi.us.
Now I have to formulate a few pointed questions with the proper polite "tone" while still asking for precise answers. I'm guessing that they may already have a canned response as I've heard that they have received quite a few inquiries.
There are probably a few of us on here who are interested in the very same things, me being one of them.
I'm not sure if it might be helpful to perhaps let him know that your question are representative of many people on 2ahawaii and that perhaps letting him know that his reply is something that will appear on 2ahawaii. Giving him an opportunity to address the situation overall in a more on-line public mannerism? I'm not certain how to approach it... just write what you feel is right and hopefully it wont be ignored.
-
Oh, like they couldn't download an application for any of almost 50 other states, put "Hawaii" on it, maybe make a few relevant changes, and reproduce it for you. What, two hours? And they knew it was coming. Or at least say that application forms will be developed shortly and will be sent to you.
Jeeze.
Or, ideally. here ya go --3x5 index card:
........................................................................................
State of Hawaii
Application and permit to carry a concealed handgun.
All questions must be answered "Yes" in order for
this permit to be validated:
(1) Are you legally eligible to own and possess firearms
under the laws of the United States and your State,
City, and County?
Yes________________ No________________
Print your name:
_________________________________________
Sign your name:
_________________________________________
Validating Official:
_________________________________________
(signature)
Title:
__________________________________________
............................................................................................
;D :thumbsup: :shaka:
Terry, 230RN
-
Back on topic!
City and County requests that the case be reheard by the 9th circuit en banc.
Baker en Banc Motion (http://www.scribd.com/doc/218942693/Baker-en-Banc-Motion#)
-
Reading that request was making me sick with the way that we all know the State treats "good cause."
-
Reading that request was making me sick with the way that we all know the State treats "good cause."
I think my favorite part is where they say heller said that at least "Some place" must be unlawful to carry - yet they cannot see the reverse of their logic.
-
What's up guys,
I thought the deadline to file an en banc was 7 days from the 27th of March? What sorcery is this? Thanks again guys for all of your hard work.
-
.
-
What's up guys,
I thought the deadline to file an en banc was 7 days from the 27th of March? What sorcery is this? Thanks again guys for all of your hard work.
According to the En Banc Procedure Guide (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Guide.pdf) provided by Michel and Associates, the filing deadline was supposed to be 14 days from the 27th. That said, this is "legal stuff" and you need actual lawyers to figure this out. Things were going on in the Peruta case that had many armchair lawyers scratching their heads trying to figure out.
-
I think my favorite part is where they say heller said that at least "Some place" must be unlawful to carry - yet they cannot see the reverse of their logic.
The County attorneys write:
"Peruta, for example, holds that the Second Amendment confers a “right to carry in case of public confrontation.” 742 F.3d at 1169. But Heller expressly approved bans on carrying within “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 627, meaning that at least some laws prohibiting the carry of firearms in places outside the home must be valid."
I'm going to take a stab at fixing that for them (as Chris indicates above) and pretending that they were both logically consistent and honest:
"Peruta, for example, holds that the Second Amendment confers a “right to carry in case of public confrontation.” 742 F.3d at 1169. But Heller expressly approved bans on carrying within “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 627, meaning that at least some laws prohibiting the carry of firearms in places outside the home must be valid, and thus meaning that any law prohibiting carrying in any location other than those deemed "sensitive" is ipso facto unconstitutional, or at the very lest meaning that any laws banning carrying in all places outside the home are unconstitutional."
They are also completely disingenuous, misleading, or outright lying in their implication that under existing law licenses "may" be issued, when in fact, or course they are NOT issued, but you wouldn't know that from reading the brief. Why do they have to lie? Why couldn't they just write "There is a procedure and standard for issuing licenses to carry concealed, but no one has ever met that standard"? (Okay, one person in the last ten years in the whole state.) Do they think that would hurt their "argument"? :wtf: I have no respect for these lawyers.
-
The County attorneys write:
"Peruta, for example, holds that the Second Amendment confers a “right to carry in case of public confrontation.” 742 F.3d at 1169. But Heller expressly approved bans on carrying within “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 627, meaning that at least some laws prohibiting the carry of firearms in places outside the home must be valid."
I'm going to take a stab at fixing that for them (as Chris indicates above) and pretending that they were both logically consistent and honest:
"Peruta, for example, holds that the Second Amendment confers a “right to carry in case of public confrontation.” 742 F.3d at 1169. But Heller expressly approved bans on carrying within “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 627, meaning that at least some laws prohibiting the carry of firearms in places outside the home must be valid, and thus meaning that any law prohibiting carrying in any location other than those deemed "sensitive" is ipso facto unconstitutional, or at the very lest meaning that any laws banning carrying in all places outside the home are unconstitutional."
They are also completely disingenuous, misleading, or outright lying in their implication that under existing law licenses "may" be issued, when in fact, or course they are NOT issued, but you wouldn't know that from reading the brief. Why do they have to lie? Why couldn't they just write "There is a procedure and standard for issuing licenses to carry concealed, but no one has ever met that standard"? (Okay, one person in the last ten years in the whole state.) Do they think that would hurt their "argument"? :wtf: I have no respect for these lawyers.
They can't say there is a procedure or standard because they admitted there isn't one =p already.
-
.
-
Can we just blood eagle all these fckers and call it a day?
Nice Q really nice! I had to search that one.... I will post this to save others from having to search themselves, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_eagle
-
.umbsup:
-
It would be nice if the 9th Circuit responded with.... "too late, the deadline has passed"
-
So the state has requested that this case be looked over again. Big surprise. What does that mean in terms of timeline for everyone waiting for ccw to be a "may issue" a fait accompli?
-
I don't see what the point is for this case to be reheard en banc. It seemed to me that the prevailing logic for this case's outcome was "see Peruta."
Assuming this case were reheard, would the City procedurally be allowed to re-argue the logic that led to the decision in Peruta? I might think that only the parties involved (or trying to become involved) in Peruta have the right to do that. So Baker's decision should have to stand and there would be no point to a rehearing en banc at this point in time. So I think the 9th Circuit should just reject the petition to rehear Baker en banc, unless they want to also rehear Peruta en banc and consider both cases at the same time.
-
.
-
Here is a flow chart showing the process in the Ninth Circuit for a case to be considered for en banc hearing. It doesn't exactly "simplify" things...
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Flowchart.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Flowchart.pdf)
-
After 25 days, 5 phone calls and 4 emails, I have received a response from Hawaii Island PD on official letterhead and signed by Chief Harry S. Kubojiri:
It reads :
April 25, 2014
Dear Mr. XXXX
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated April 4, 2014, in regards to an application for a concealed weapons permit.
To apply for a license to carry a firearm, please review Hawai'i Revised Statutes 134-9 and send a letter addressed to the Police Chief outlining your need for such a license and your qualifications.
In your request, you mention the recent Baker and Peruta rulings (United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).
My position is to follow the requirements set forth by the applicable sections of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, as amended, which have not been deemed unconstitutional and remain controlling as law in Hawai'i. In that you have cited Baker and Peruta, I am sure you are aware that issuance of the mandate in Peruta v. San Diego has been stayed pending further order of the Court. It is not, therefore, controlling law at this time.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Lieutenant John Briski of our Records and and Identification Section at 808 961 2232 (jbriski@co.hawaii.hi.us) .
Sincerely,
Harry S. Kubojiri
Police Chief
-
After 25 days, 5 phone calls and 4 emails, I have received a response from Hawaii Island PD on official letterhead and signed by Chief Harry S. Kubojiri:
It reads :
April 25, 2014
Dear Mr. XXXX
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated April 4, 2014, in regards to an application for a concealed weapons permit.
To apply for a license to carry a firearm, please review Hawai'i Revised Statutes 134-9 and send a letter addressed to the Police Chief outlining your need for such a license and your qualifications.
In your request, you mention the recent Baker and Peruta rulings (United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals).
My position is to follow the requirements set forth by the applicable sections of the Hawai'i Revised Statutes, as amended, which have not been deemed unconstitutional and remain controlling as law in Hawai'i. In that you have cited Baker and Peruta, I am sure you are aware that issuance of the mandate in Peruta v. San Diego has been stayed pending further order of the Court. It is not, therefore, controlling law at this time.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Lieutenant John Briski of our Records and and Identification Section at 808 961 2232 (jbriski@co.hawaii.hi.us) .
Sincerely,
Harry S. Kubojiri
Police Chief
I got a nearly identical response to my inquiry several weeks ago. I am drafting another email to clarify the questions I am asking them AGAIN (essentially "what are the objective criteria to be met, how many applicants have met them, please give an example of a statement that you would deem warrants issuance of a license", etc.) because they did not respond to those questions in my first inquiry (only to "whether or not the Chief intends to follow the law as stated in Peruta, as have several California issuing agents (county sheriffs) even though Peruta is stayed"). I had asked for the "concrete and specific criteria" that need to be met for issuance of a license, and they responded, as above: HRS 134-9. Yeah, right. At least New Jersey has a statutory definition of "justifiable need"... almost no one is deemed to meet it, but at least it's something written down. I don't expect a substantive answer, but want to get them on record anyway. I CCed my original email inquiry to all Hawaii County council members, the mayor, County Counsel, and my state senator and representative. Not a peep out of a single one of those folks, though I suspect that when they saw it at least some of them chuckled or sneered while thinking "What a naive idiot! Hard to believe there is someone stupid enough to think that Hawaii would possibly issue someone a CCW just because some three judge panel in the Ninth Circuit claimed that California's "just cause" requirement is unconstitutional. What a buffoon.". Or something like that.
-
New order issued in Peruta by Ninth Circuit on May 1, 2014.
You can read the brief two page order here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/01/10-56971%20-%20Order.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/01/10-56971%20-%20Order.pdf)
"Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) Appellee William D. Gore is ordered to notify this Court in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order of his position on the pending motions to intervene or that he takes no position. Appellee William D. Gore is further ordered to respond within fourteen days of the date of this order to the suggestion that this case is moot. See Opp’n to Pet. for Reh’g En Banc 16, Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 (“Even were Peruta vacated tomorrow, neither this Court nor the state could do anything to keep Gore from printing permits to all otherwise-qualified comers. The Peruta dispute is moot.”). He shall explain any change in his policy that could affect this Court’s jurisdiction over this case. [9078973] (WL)"
You can read various opinions about what it means, or might mean, or could mean, etc. on this new thread on calguns:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=927641 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=927641)
here is an example:
Person A: If Sheriff Gore responds with a statement that he is now accepting self defense as the only necessary level of 'good cause' as a matter of policy Peruta becomes moot, the 9th no longer has jurisdiction and the decision of the 3 judge panel is vacated.
Person B: Partially correct. It's possible that Peruta could be mooted at this stage if Gore claimed he intended to grant all the relief Peruta is asking for. But Gore saying it doesn't make it so (such a finding would not be automatic). However Gore is not likely to say that, and I'm guessing the panel is aware. So more likely they are looking for ammo to slap Gura with.
In any event, the Peruta decision would not be vacated, but it would effectively be superseded by Richards en banc (or possibly Drake at SCOTUS). As a practical matter it would mean we stay in the limbo we are in now for much longer.
-
Attorneys for Sheriff Gore respond to Ninth Circuit request: 1. Gore supports intervenor status be granted for AG Harris. 2. The case is not moot because they have not changed their CCW issue policy.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/14/10-56971%20Response%20to%20Order.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/14/10-56971%20Response%20to%20Order.pdf)
Apparently there are no time limitations on how long the court may take to decide whether intervenor status will or will not be granted.
-
Attorneys for Sheriff Gore respond to Ninth Circuit request: 1. Gore supports intervenor status be granted for AG Harris. 2. The case is not moot because they have not changed their CCW issue policy.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/14/10-56971%20Response%20to%20Order.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/05/14/10-56971%20Response%20to%20Order.pdf)
Apparently there are no time limitations on how long the court may take to decide whether intervenor status will or will not be granted.
The court rarely gives itself a time limit for anything lol. Wouldn't want to put pressure on yourself to you know do work or anything =p
-
The court rarely gives itself a time limit for anything lol. Wouldn't want to put pressure on yourself to you know do work or anything =p
I'm pretty sure it takes a long time doing lots of research to be able to come up with the legal reasoning to deny a fundamental individual natural Constitutionally-protected civil right. :geekdanc:
Peruta, et. al., are moving rather quickly compared to some others... from an article re Palmer v. District of Columbia at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/09/dc-gun-carry-rights-case-blocked-in-court/: (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/09/dc-gun-carry-rights-case-blocked-in-court/:)
[Complaint originally filed August 6, 2009.] Judge Henry Kennedy was the first judge assigned to the case. He heard oral argument in Jan. 2010 but retired without issuing a ruling.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts intervened in July 2011 and reassigned the case to Judge Frederick Scullin of New York.
Even then, Scullin took over a year to rehear arguments. After the judge heard from both sides in Oct. 2012, he promised that he would make a decision “within a short period of time.”
While a “short period of time” can be interpreted to mean different things, a 20-month delay in issuing a district court decision is so rare that many find it suspicious.
This is the second time that Gura has asked the appeals court to intervene. After a year of waiting for Scullin to issue his ruling, the lawyer filed a writ of mandamus to the appeals court. In Dec. 2013, the court denied the request, saying that the delay was not “egregious or unreasonable.” But Scullin is still radio silent.
-
I'm pretty sure it takes a long time doing lots of research to be able to come up with the legal reasoning to deny a fundamental individual natural Constitutionally-protected civil right. :geekdanc:
Peruta, et. al., are moving rather quickly compared to some others... from an article re Palmer v. District of Columbia at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/09/dc-gun-carry-rights-case-blocked-in-court/: (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/09/dc-gun-carry-rights-case-blocked-in-court/:)
[Complaint originally filed August 6, 2009.] Judge Henry Kennedy was the first judge assigned to the case. He heard oral argument in Jan. 2010 but retired without issuing a ruling.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts intervened in July 2011 and reassigned the case to Judge Frederick Scullin of New York.
Even then, Scullin took over a year to rehear arguments. After the judge heard from both sides in Oct. 2012, he promised that he would make a decision “within a short period of time.”
While a “short period of time” can be interpreted to mean different things, a 20-month delay in issuing a district court decision is so rare that many find it suspicious.
This is the second time that Gura has asked the appeals court to intervene. After a year of waiting for Scullin to issue his ruling, the lawyer filed a writ of mandamus to the appeals court. In Dec. 2013, the court denied the request, saying that the delay was not “egregious or unreasonable.” But Scullin is still radio silent.
That case is just an abomination. Gura has had to file documents twice to try and get a ruling. That was one of the first cases filed in the country. Almost every other case has been all the way up and through appeals and denied by SCOTUS. They can't even get a ruling out of the district court for heavens sake.
-
That case is just an abomination. Gura has had to file documents twice to try and get a ruling. That was one of the first cases filed in the country. Almost every other case has been all the way up and through appeals and denied by SCOTUS. They can't even get a ruling out of the district court for heavens sake.
Speaking of abominations... Not to go too far afield on this thread... but we are discussing waiting on the courts to determine whether we will have a legal option to exercise a natural civil right (self-defense) outside our home. I'm wondering if we might have a moral case for a duty or responsibility to exercise our natural right in spite of any court decisions to the contrary. This was was certainly the strategy adopted by many in the civil rights issues regarding racial discrimination in this country, where the courts consistently ruled that slavery and/or racial discrimination was "legal".
Speaking of delays in decisions... the Dred Scott case decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (essentially declaring slavery legal and that African Americans, even if "freed" could not be citizens) in 1857, was first filed by Scott in 1846. Eleven years he and his family fought in the courts to end their slave status, only to be finally denied at the highest level. The sons of Scott's original owner purchased the family's emancipation after the SCOTUS decision, but Scott died only 18 months later.
Note that the reasons to deny citizenship were made clear by SCOTUS in the decision, because citizenship (even of "freed" slaves):
"...would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
The learned Supreme Court justices rendered this decision by a 7 to 1 margin.
And now we're supposed to wait who knows how long, if ever, before these political appointees tell us whether or not we can exercise a natural fundamental individual civil right? :wtf:
-
A post by HarryS on a CalGuns forum re Peruta (comment #220 at http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282&page=6 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282&page=6)) refers to a brief Wall Street Journal article on the fact that once again the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was the most reversed by SCOTUS. The article is here: http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-biggest-judicial-losers-1402615642 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-biggest-judicial-losers-1402615642)
A couple of excerpts (the first two paragraphs):
The Supreme Court is heading to the final days of its term, and so far the biggest loser is once again the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The famously liberal appellate court has logged more reversals than any other circuit, having lost 10 of 11 cases.
For liberals who want to believe this is merely a case of conservative Justices overruling liberal rulings, look again. In its 11 cases the Ninth Circuit managed to draw a total of only 16 votes from the nine Justices. Eight of the 10 reversals were unanimous, and the decision to overturn the circuit was joined seven times by Justice Stephen Breyer, nine times by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and 10 times by Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
******
This of course leads to speculation about whether or not the Peruta decision, if overturned en banc, would likely be another case of the Ninth getting it wrong in the eyes of SCOTUS if appealed for cert and it's granted. Just a minor distraction as we continue to wait :sleeping: for notification as to whether intervenor status will be granted to California A.G. Kamala Harris...
-
Any updates? I'm hoping for a miracle.
-
Any updates? I'm hoping for a miracle.
We're still waiting to hear what is happening in Peruta. California's AG has applied for intervenor status to appeal for an en banc hearing. So now it's up to the 9th circuit court to decide that, then decide if they will grant the en banc hearing, then finally (maybe) they'll decide if they'll grant the en banc in Baker. Still lots of waiting time.
-
Any updates? I'm hoping for a miracle.
Honest truth, check back in another month or so lol. These things are not fast =( :sleeping:
-
Honest truth, check back in another month or so lol. These things are not fast =( :sleeping:
High level stuff is not measured in days or weeks, but instead months and years.
-
Breitbart senior legal analyst Ken Klukowski was on NRA News Cam and Co. today, June 30, 2014 talking about today's SCOTUS decisions, and then for the last two minutes of his interview about Peruta.
http://www.nranews.com/home/list/cam-company (http://www.nranews.com/home/list/cam-company) (Look at the June 30 program.)
My summary of his comments (Please listen to the audio to hear what he actually said!) (If you download the podcast the Peruta discussion starts at 1:50:44):
He hopes the court (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: 9th CA) grants California AG Kamala Harris intervenor status. If the case goes against her in the 9th CA she will likely appeal it to SCOTUS and he believes SCOTUS will take the case in the next 1-2 years (and he thinks Peruta as decided by the three judge panel will be upheld there). Re the motion to intervene, (re-)hearing en banc, etc. he is "surprised we haven't heard yet" and expects news "any day now, certainly within the next few weeks." He attributes the length of time it has taken thus far to the fact that there are 29 judges in the circuit and they all have to vote on whether to accept Harris and/or the other amici asking for intervenor status, as well as the en banc question. He speculates that it's possible that the losers of whatever the decision is are writing an angry (and possibly lengthy) dissent that is taking time to finish and be ready for publication.
I hope he's correct and that we hear something in the next few weeks so this thing can get moving again, one way or another.
-
Another update on no Peruta action by the Ninth Circuit. This time from Chuck Michel, senior partner of Michel and Associates who are litigating Peruta, from NRA News on Sportsman Channel, July 2, 2014:
http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/chuck-michel-ninth-circuit-mum-on-peruta-v-san-diego-county/list/sportsman-channel-videos (http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/chuck-michel-ninth-circuit-mum-on-peruta-v-san-diego-county/list/sportsman-channel-videos)
His introductory comment:
"We really can't understand what's taking so long. It's not like there's some logical reason that's easily discernible. We just can't imagine what it is."
He does suggest that people in California apply for CCW due to some changes in postponing fee payment until after the application is approved or rejected. He makes no mention of Hawaii.
Back to :sleeping:. Wake me up when something happens.
-
I talked to Chuck Michel a couple weeks ago. He has no idea. I don't have any idea.
My best guess is that one judge is deeply conflicted on whether to grant the CA AG intervenor status.
-
Latest update (7/22/14) from Chuck Michel re silence from the Ninth Circuit re Peruta, via phone interview on NRA News on the Sportsman Channel: http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/chuck-michel-incremental-regulation-means-a-ban-in-california/list/sportsman-channel-videos (http://www.nranews.com/cam/video/chuck-michel-incremental-regulation-means-a-ban-in-california/list/sportsman-channel-videos)
Mostly about the newer California gun laws, but at 5:30 he makes a few statements about Peruta, that start thus when asked about any news re Peruta: "Not a peep, and we are starting to wonder what the heck is going on." So it's not just me. :geekdanc:
-
Today's (7/28/14) update, again from Breitbart senior legal analyst Ken Klukowski on NRA News (http://www.nranews.com/home/list/cam-company (http://www.nranews.com/home/list/cam-company)), mostly speaking about the Palmer decision in D.C. which overturned the official "no issue" CCW policy. He then goes on to talk about how the Palmer case relates to Peruta and what it all means, and what might explain the length of time it's taking the Ninth Circuit to rule on Kamala Harris's intervenor request. Paraphrased summary: The Ninth has likely already made their decision, but with 29 judges it's taking a long time for all the legal briefs to go back and forth amongst all the judges ("so many cooks in the kitchen") with various judges writing (and revising) opinions about the decision (including possibly lengthy dissents). He believes Harris will be granted intervenor status, and that whether or not the case is heard en banc or not, that Peruta will likely be appealed to/heard by SCOTUS before SCOTUS hears Palmer (which will be appealed to the local Circuit court from the District court ruling, which would then be appealed to SCOTUS, unless Peruta has been decided in a way that makes Palmer moot.
I.e. Some day we're gonna hear something.
-
Anything at this point is just pure speculation lol.
-
Anything at this point is just pure speculation lol.
Speaking of speculation... here's some on the SCOTUS divide on the Second Amendment and how they may have to take a case some day to clarify CCW (perhaps Peruta/Prieto/Baker will be that case?):
Here Comes the Next Big Supreme Court Gun-Rights Case
http//:www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-29/a-supreme-court-forecast-big-gun-rights-case-is-coming-soon?campaign_id=yhoo (http://http//:www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-29/a-supreme-court-forecast-big-gun-rights-case-is-coming-soon?campaign_id=yhoo)
Excerpt:
Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, offered intriguing speculation on why the high court has been avoiding firearms cases. “It’s long been suspected that [Justice Anthony] Kennedy signed on to the earlier Second Amendment rulings by the court only after language was inserted allowing for reasonable restrictions on guns,” he wrote in June in an article in Slate. “But the question has lingered: How far would Kennedy allow gun control to go? That question might well have been on the minds of the other justices when they voted not to hear a Second Amendment case this year. With four justices likely in favor of broad Second Amendment rights and another four likely opposed, the scope of the right to bear arms turns on Kennedy. His views may have been sufficiently unclear that neither side wanted to take a risk of a landmark decision coming out the wrong way.”
(http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2014-07-31/news_pol32_630.jpg)
-
Just wanted to post today to mark the seven month anniversary of the Peruta decision, and ask: :wtf:
If it takes at least this long (and who knows how long it will end up taking) to decide whether or not to grant intervenor status to Kamala Harris, and/or whether to re-hear, and/or whether to hear en banc... how long will it take to actually re-hear (one way or the other) and issue the next opinion? I ain't gettin' any younger.
-
Just wanted to post today to mark the seven month anniversary of the Peruta decision, and ask: :wtf:
If it takes at least this long (and who knows how long it will end up taking) to decide whether or not to grant intervenor status to Kamala Harris, and/or whether to re-hear, and/or whether to hear en banc... how long will it take to actually re-hear (one way or the other) and issue the next opinion? I ain't gettin' any younger.
I know some court cases take 5 to 10 years to finish. I'm not surprised it's taking this long for this.
-
I know some court cases take 5 to 10 years to finish. I'm not surprised it's taking this long for this.
Opinions take a long time to release, and then appeals, and then more opinions. This is kind of different; we should have had answers months ago.
-
Opinions take a long time to release, and then appeals, and then more opinions. This is kind of different; we should have had answers months ago.
Would you happen to know if the coming opinion will ONLY allow or deny intervenor status for Kamala Harris, or will it also include a ruling about re-hearing and/or en banc hearing as she requested? :shaka:
-
Would you happen to know if the coming opinion will ONLY allow or deny intervenor status for Kamala Harris, or will it also include a ruling about re-hearing and/or en banc hearing as she requested? :shaka:
It's going to be step one re: Kamala. Once she is approved (if approved) then she would get an opportunity to request en banc. By most accounts, the judges timeline to request en banc has passed (we think?). So now it would just be her getting a chance.
Best case she is denied and then the flood gates should open. :shake:
-
so, any updates on baker? we seemed really close to a breakthrough for a while...
-
I wonder how this will play out if the court approves CCW. WIll it be like D.C. where anyone can carry without a permit until the city comes up with new laws and requirements? Or would the city be able to immediately start processing CCW permit applications, but does the HPD already have a written set of requirements such as taking a CCW class and test?
-
so, any updates on baker? we seemed really close to a breakthrough for a while...
Still waiting on California. #tumbleweed.
-
Just saw this:
It’s a long way from May to December, and February through October is even longer. The landmark Second Amendment case, Peruta v. County of San Diego, No. 10-56971 (02/13/14), has been left hanging for eight months on a procedural issue, the intervention motion made by the California Attorney General.
In Peruta, the Ninth Circuit held San Diego County’s concealed carry permit system violated the Second Amendment because it required “good cause” for the issuance of the permit and not a general desire for self-defense. (Seehttp://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2014/04/12/tactical-considerations-in-the-pending-motion-en-banc-to-review-ninth-circuits-peruta-decision-on-the-second-amendments-effect-on-concealed-carry-permit-issuance-in/#ixzz31nmZMr3b)
Read more: http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2014/10/12/state-ags-intervention-motion-stalls-peruta-case-for-eight-months/#ixzz3G0dEY1W5 (http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching/2014/10/12/state-ags-intervention-motion-stalls-peruta-case-for-eight-months/#ixzz3G0dEY1W5)
-
Nothing on Baker. And almost nothing on Peruta, other than that it has been relied upon heavily by Judge Scullin in the D.C. Court of Appeals to overturn the D.C. carry ban (Palmer, et. al. v. Washington D.C.). One speculation is that the Ninth Peruta panel is not acting on the Harris intervenor status in order to allow more courts to possibly cite Peruta in other circuits, and thus give it more "weight". Like i said, speculation. But for those who might want to read something peripherally relating to Baker/Peruta and CCW rights...
Washington D.C. enacted a "temporary" CCW licensing law in order to conform with judge Scullin's ruling. You'll never guess, but that new law requires "good reason", which also requires documented proof of that good reason. In other words, no CCW for anyone who wants to carry for self-defense without meeting the other unknown standards. Sound familiar? Of course Palmer, et. al. had sued in order to carry in public for "self defense", which attorney Alan Gura argued, novelly enough, that the right to bear arms (outside the home) is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Without the necessity of meeting any "good reason" standard (or any other) erected by our government bureaucrats.
I thought some might like to see some of the quotes from his "Memorandum re Permanent Injunction Request " from October 30, 2014 for it's similarities to Hawaii law (prohibitions against CCW). The whole thing can be downloaded/read here:
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=365704&d=1414888523 (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=365704&d=1414888523)
I've selected some quotes and placed in bold the most relevant phrases... I hope Gura succeeds and that perhaps this case as it is appealed helps push Peruta (and thus Baker), but I expect the same thing from Hawaii as we see from the D.C. legislators.Note that Gura argues at one point that even those who do not apply and have been rejected have standing to sue if it is known that the process of applying is futile (sound familiar?). So if that is the case all of us who merely want a CCW, even without having applied and been denied, would have standing to sue the state/county/police chief. Woohoo!
Parties often elevate form when they have no substance to discuss, and indeed, very little of
Defendants’ opposition asserts that their new/old licensing regime meets constitutional standards.
Plainly, it does not. Instead, the Court is again treated to a blend of inapposite cases, flat-out error,
and doublespeak. At the root of the problem, Defendants confuse the related concepts of ripeness,
mootness, and standing, and get all three wrong. But perhaps worst of all, Defendants deny the
power of federal courts to enforce compliance with their judgments. p1
Defendants believe that they may instead endlessly erect barriers, pretending that each barrier is a “new law” requiring not only litigation to start from scratch, but administrative exhaustion as well. None of this is correct. p2
When it suited Defendants, the 1932 law was a “longstanding,” “practical ban.” Now it suits
Defendants to present the 1932 regime, copied verbatim in the 2014 law following a five year
absence, as somewhat flexible. In a sense, Defendants are saying, “this time, trust us,” claiming that
“subsequent interpretation will be informed (and cabined) by relevant Second-Amendment case
law—none of which existed in 1931.” Opp., Dkt. 73, at 11 n.9. “[T]he District will now issue such
licenses, where it did not before.” Id. at 11. But Defendants do not suggest that they will issue
licenses to the Plaintiffs, who obviously cannot meet the Defendants’ new/old standards, so how is it
that Plaintiffs’ injury is resolved? Plaintiffs did not sue for an administrative adjudication, for the
right to discover the police chief’s opinion of whether they deserve to carry defensive handguns.
That much was never a secret. Plaintiffs sued for a constitutional right. p5
Of course, any suggestion that the individual plaintiffs, and SAF’s membership at-large,
might obtain handgun carry permits based on the constitutional interest in self-defense would be
cynical. Mere days after filing their brief, Defendants released their handgun carry license
application form, which require the submission of a “good” or “proper” reason under D.C. law,
along with substantiating evidence. See Exh. A, at 3-4; Exh. B, at 4. Plaintiffs lack those attributes,
see infra, so they cannot apply. Of course, this case has never been about the special privileges of
favored individuals presenting rare circumstances. It is about whether ordinary, law-abiding,
responsible citizens may carry handguns for self-defense. The “new” law does not allow for that. p6
They have merely formalized the process of denial and prohibition by requiring
that which Plaintiffs do not have. If a license were truly now available to Tom Palmer, it would not
have been too much to ask Defendants to explain exactly how he might obtain one considering his
lack of “good” or “proper” “reason.” p12
Whatever Defendants might pretend about how they would go about policing “good”
and “proper” reasons, they cannot seriously suggest that they are prepared to issue handgun carry
licenses to people who fail to submit any reason at all for carrying handguns. p14
“One need not apply for a benefit conditioned by a facially unconstitutional law.” United
States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). “The Constitution can
hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of [a licensing law] the right to attack its
constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands.” Lakewood , 486 U.S. at 756 (quoting
Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 602 (1942) (Stone, C. J., dissenting), adopted per curiam on
rehearing, 319 U.S. 103, 104 (1943)). “As the ordinance [providing for unbridled licensing
discretion] is void on its face, it was not necessary for appellant to seek a permit under it.” p18
The issue is not whether Defendants are properly interpreting their “good reason”/“proper reason” requirement; the issue is whether that requirement, which on its face precludes Plaintiffs from carrying handguns, is unconstitutional—a decision that Defendant [Washington D.C. police chief] Lanier, unlike a federal court, is not qualified and not authorized to make. p19
A corollary to the rule that one need not submit to a law in order to attack the law as
constitutionally defective is the rule excusing litigants from performing ritualistic and pointless
deeds in order to confirm that they are, in fact, injured by the law. If circumstances make clear that
an administrative application is hopeless, a plaintiff need not go through the futile act of submitting paperwork. p19
One can readily see why a replacement statute must not “differ[] only in some insignificant
respect” from the enjoined statute. Today, one needs “good reason” to exercise the right. When that
falls by the wayside, perhaps after another decade of litigation, the application fee would be raised to a million dollars. A decade later, only ambidextrous people can safely carry guns. A decade after that, Olympic medal marksmanship might be demanded. The list of “new laws” is bounded only by Defendants’ imagination. Each time, supposedly, exhaustion and litigation would be required anew, but generations of plaintiffs would [n]ever enjoy a meaningful right. p20
[You can't say Gura doesn't have a sense of humor while reaming them...]
-
Peruta stands. No one has standing to appeal. Sua sponte en banc still a possibility. Now on to Baker and the Yolo County cases...
Decision on CalGuns site:
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=368335&d=1415806941 (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=368335&d=1415806941)
Also here: Peruta Intervention Denied Order (http://www.scribd.com/doc/246350943/Peruta-Intervention-Denied-Order#)
Let's hope the court also denies the Hawaii request for en banc... I wanna see and hear what lame unconstitutional excuses the police chiefs, attorney general, county counsels, and our new governor-elect start whining...
SUMMARY*
* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Civil Rights
The panel denied motions to intervene, which were filed
after the panel’s opinion and judgment holding that a
responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right under the Second
Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.
The State of California and the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence moved to intervene under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 24 after San Diego Sheriff William D.
Gore declined to file a petition for rehearing en banc. The
California Police Chiefs’ Association and the California
Peace Officers’ Association, amici in this case, submitted a
petition for rehearing en banc. Noting that amici cannot file
petitions for rehearing en banc, the panel construed the
petition as a motion to intervene.
The panel held that the movants did not meet the heavy
burden of demonstrating imperative reasons in favor of
intervention on appeal. Noting that the movants sought
intervention more than four years after the case began, the
panel stated that the stage of the proceedings, the length of
the delay, and the reason for the delay all weighed against
timeliness. In the absence of a timely motion, intervention
was unavailable.
The panel further concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 did not provide a basis
for intervention because the panel’s opinion never drew into
question the constitutionality of any California statute, but
only questioned San Diego County’s exercise of regulatory
authority under the relevant state statutes, specifically the
County’s policy that an assertion of self-defense is
insufficient to demonstrate “good cause” under the California
statutory scheme.
Dissenting, Judge Thomas stated that the majority’s
decision to prevent the State of California from intervening
in this case conflicted with controlling circuit precedent and
deprived one of the parties most affected by the panel’s
decision the opportunity to even present an argument on an
important constitutional question affecting millions of
citizens.
-
Now we wait to see if Hawaii tries to go en banc / cert petition in my case.
-
Has Baker been ruled on? Puerta, stands. Has the stay been put aside? I have been advised by my lawyers to not file against the county of Hawaii until Baker is resolved. Why wait for Hawaii challenges? Shouldn't all Hawaiians that desire one, now apply for a CCW? Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Has Baker been ruled on? Puerta, stands. Has the stay been put aside? I have been advised by my lawyers to not file against the county of Hawaii until Baker is resolved. Why wait for Hawaii challenges? Shouldn't all Hawaiians that desire one, now apply for a CCW? Inquiring minds want to know.
Baker has been ruled on and matches the ruling in Peruta. Honolulu has applied to rehear the case en banc, so we'll see more in the next few weeks.
-
Thanks for the response.
I will wait till 2015 to start jerking Kubojiri's chain.
With all due respect, he belongs in chains, by reason
of "exceptional" need.
-
>> punaperson
>>>Let's hope the court also denies the Hawaii request for en banc... I wanna see and hear what lame unconstitutional excuses the police chiefs, attorney general, county counsels, and our new governor-elect start whining...<<<
As far as our NEW Governor is concerned, unless he LIED on Hawaii Rifle Association's survey of candidates, he was rated an "A" by HRA (compared to Abercrombie's "F" rating). So, based on that, Governor-elect IGE would have to allow Hawaii to become "shall issue". We'll see how much "pull" he has with his almost completely Democrat Legislature. Of course, if he opposes it, then next election we need to make sure that ALL GUNOWNERS puts him out of office.
-
>> punaperson
>>>Let's hope the court also denies the Hawaii request for en banc... I wanna see and hear what lame unconstitutional excuses the police chiefs, attorney general, county counsels, and our new governor-elect start whining...<<<
As far as our NEW Governor is concerned, unless he LIED on Hawaii Rifle Association's survey of candidates, he was rated an "A" by HRA (compared to Abercrombie's "F" rating). So, based on that, Governor-elect IGE would have to allow Hawaii to become "shall issue". We'll see how much "pull" he has with his almost completely Democrat Legislature. Of course, if he opposes it, then next election we need to make sure that ALL GUNOWNERS puts him out of office.
Seriously? You think that "A" grade from HRA means Ige supports CCW for law-abiding Hawaii citizens? I've tried (via emails and phone calls) for over two months to get him or his campaign to answer clear and direct questions about his position on CCW in general and in particular in light of Peruta. Not a peep from anyone having anything to do with Ige. (As a side note, I have posted the email I want to send to Ige with the revised questions re CCW on another thread, and yesterday their phones were working, but apparently there is still no email address for our governor-elect. Go figure.) It appears to me that the HRA (who almost always gives candidates higher ratings than the NRA-ILA does) appears to grade on a "curve". They give an "F" to people who advocate "almost no weapons for anyone anywhere anytime", and give and "A" to people who advocate some restricted/limited weapons for some people some of the time in some locations. That's not my idea of an "A". If Ige supported CCW he could long ago have stated his support by noting that the "no issue" policy of Hawaii is unconstitutional regarding both the U.S. Constitution and the Hawaii state constitution. There have been CCW bills in that last several (or more) legislative sessions and I don't recall Ige supporting them. When Peruta was decided in February 2014 he could have stated that he saw the validity of the legal arguments and would work to assure all Hawaii citizens their right to self-defense outside the home via CCW. I must have missed that press release. Perhaps he'll decide in light of yesterday's ruling that it would be better to spend taxpayer dollars to enhance the economy in ways that will make Hawaii more business and job friendly rather than spending that money to continue to violate the rights of Hawaii citizens. Wanna bet?
I'm curious to see how long it takes the panel to rule on the Richards case request for en banc/review and what happens with Baker being remanded to the lower court.
-
>> punaperson
>>>Let's hope the court also denies the Hawaii request for en banc... I wanna see and hear what lame unconstitutional excuses the police chiefs, attorney general, county counsels, and our new governor-elect start whining...<<<
As far as our NEW Governor is concerned, unless he LIED on Hawaii Rifle Association's survey of candidates, he was rated an "A" by HRA (compared to Abercrombie's "F" rating). So, based on that, Governor-elect IGE would have to allow Hawaii to become "shall issue". We'll see how much "pull" he has with his almost completely Democrat Legislature. Of course, if he opposes it, then next election we need to make sure that ALL GUNOWNERS puts him out of office.
I look forward to the day david ige tells the chief of police to start handing out CCW permits.
-
I look forward to the day david ige tells the chief of police to start handing out CCW permits.
Crystal ball:
(http://www.holland.com/upload_mm/5/3/e/22758_fullimage_flying_pig_560x350.jpg)
I couldn't find a photo of the federal marshals outside the governor's office waiting to see if he followed the court-mandated order.
-
The Baker case was remanded back to the Hawaii Federal District Court many months ago. Hasn't the time period to request the panel decision be heard en blanc before the entire 9th ended? If so it's a done deal and we only need Judge Kay to hear the case on remand.
-
The Baker case was remanded back to the Hawaii Federal District Court many months ago. Hasn't the time period to request the panel decision be heard en blanc before the entire 9th ended? If so it's a done deal and we only need Judge Kay to hear the case on remand.
I believe that because both Baker and Richards essentially said "See Peruta", that the time limit to ask for en banc does not start until Peruta is finalized (and it hasn't been yet). Once that happens (after possible Harris appeal to 9CA/SCOTUS, possible en banc in 9CA either sua sponte or if Harris's appeal is upheld to become intervenor and her request for en banc is accepted... so it might be a while ;)), the parties can ask for en banc, and my understanding is that the defendants in both cases have already filed for en banc and/or announced that they plan to file for en banc at the appropriate time. Sheriff Prieto, defendant in the Yolo county Richards case, has stated that he will take all possible legal steps to maintain his discretionary issuance of CCW licenses, including asking for cert from SCOTUS if necessary.
Another possibility, of course, is that some or all of the police chiefs here in Hawaii, like some of the county sheriffs in California, can decide of the own volition to issue CCW licenses in accord with the Peruta ruling even though it has not been finalized. (See flying pig image above.)
If anyone has contrary info, please post it and correct what I have surmised during my reading of the past several days. :shaka:
Addition at 1:20PM. Thanks to arslin at a calguns thread http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282&page=25, (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=811282&page=25,) post #978, here is the statement from the San Diego Sheriffs Department regarding their current policy re issuing CCWs in light of the Wednesday denials of intervenor status. Remember, Peruta technically only applies to San Diego county policy by sheriff Gore, so they are the most immediately and directly affected by Peruta.
"The issue of whether the State, the Brady Center, and/or CPCA and CPOA can intervene in the case has been settled – they cannot. However, the issue of whether or not the full Ninth Circuit will review the case en banc remains unanswered. The full court can accept a case for en banc review even if none of the parties make such a request – only time will answer that question.
Therefore nothing has changed for us, we will continue to process applications as we have been doing. Others that wish to place an application in abeyance may do so in person, not by mail. Should the decision be upheld, we will contact the applicants in the order applications were received."
__________________
-
I just read another statement by another California county sheriff re how the intervenor denial by CA9 in Peruta will affect their CCW issuing policy. Notice how they make it seem as if they are already abiding by Peruta, and thus don't expect many people to apply, yet they emphasize with capital letters that they are still going to use the "good moral character" criterion at their own discretion. Please also note that they have issued 1200 permits in a county of 2,293,000 people. That is .05 PERCENT of the population in Riverside county that have qualified and been issued permits. Compare that to entire states: South Dakota 12.03% (240 TIMES higher rate), Indiana10.79% (216 TIMES higher rate), Alabama10.21% (204 TIMES higher rate). Even the 40th ranked state, New Hampshire has .96% of its citizens issued CCW licenses, which is more than 19 TIMES the rate of issuance of Riverside county. I'd like to see an explanation as to why the population of Riverside county is so averse to CCW if the process is really in accord with Peruta... they must have no crime there! Kinda like here, right? :geekdanc:
http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/81897/ (http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/81897/)
Sheriff Sniff’s observations on the recent 9th Circuit Peruta Decision
Friday, November 14th, 2014
Issue 46, Volume 18.
The Sheriff’s Department is aware of the latest decision in the Peruta case announced yesterday, November 12th. It will be a short time before the legal guidance for the some 400 California police departments and sheriff’s offices that are impacted change their Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) processes in California. CCW permits can be issued to residents by both city police chiefs and our county sheriffs throughout California.
Those issued CCW permits are good throughout California, licensing the permit holders to carry loaded handguns, hidden on their persons or in their vehicle, throughout our California communities.
Just as every other law enforcement agency, the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department will always comply with statutory law and finalized court directions in this and other legal matters. Residents are reminded that California CCW issuance is discretionary by the police chief or sheriff, and is based upon both reason of (1) self-defense or self-protection, AND[their caps, my bold] (2) good moral character.
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department does not anticipate a big increase in CCW applications with our agency, as our posture prior to yesterday’s Circuit Court decision has been both fair and reasonable for years, with a very large variety of so-called "good causes" being entirely acceptable – and each one simply articulated and expanded these very same "self-defense" and "self-protection" criteria outlined in Peruta. Many California law enforcement agencies have historically not issued CCWs to their residents and that is where we anticipate much greater impact as a result of yesterday’s decision by the 9th Circuit.
Riverside County residents are reminded that a CCW permit is not required to purchase a handgun and possess it for self-defense or personal protection within their home or within their place of business. CCW permits are required to carry a loaded, concealed firearm into our public places like driving on our roadways, and going to theaters, markets, and alike.
Unloaded or loaded firearms, openly displayed in clear view in a public place, generally remains a crime in California after "open carry" was banned by our state legislator [sic] just a few years back.
We may very well see the California Legislature react to this ruling by enacting new firearms laws this next year, and these issues in the various Circuit Courts may well still go forward to the SCOTUS.
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department currently has approximately 1,200 CCWs issued across Riverside County. Nearly all of these have been issued after Sheriff Sniff took office in 2007.
-
It would seem to me that the State now faces a few legal and financial issues in this matter.
1) A takings requires compensation. The State could be flooded with personal body guard invoices by any number of private citizens who wish self protection.
2) Successfully prosecuting an individual for carrying a firearm without a permit is now a toilet grade prosecution via appeals.
3) Victims and their Families may now seek financial compensation from the State or Chief of Police for any bodily injury or wrongful death that may occur by would be criminal acts of assault, rape, murder etc. because the State has prohibited meaningful self protection.
Feel free to add to this list of newly adopted State responsibilities.
-
Today, the final day to file appeals re the denials of intervenor status for California AG Kamala Harris and The Brady Campaign (or Center), both have filed their appeals asking for en banc reviews of their denials.
Heard Chuck Michel (of Michel & Associates, litigators of Peruta) on NRA News today apparently saying that there is no time limit on how long the court may take to decide on whether or not to grant or deny these appeals. It took the 3-judge panel nine months to deny the requests, so who knows how long it will take for this decision? If denied, Harris/Brady could appeal to SCOTUS, which would likely add another year to the process (though less if they deny cert). If granted by the Ninth, then they would ask for en banc review of Peruta, and then there is (I believe) another "open ended" time period for granting or denying en banc review. IF granted, I'd guess a couple of years to schedule, re-hear, and issue an en banc opinion re Peruta. Two-thirds of the judges in the Ninth are appointed by Democrats, so the likelihood that the randomly selected 11 judge en banc panel would uphold Peruta is very slim. Whichever side loses at that point will likely appeal to SCOTUS for cert, and whatever SCOTUS does add another few months (denial of cert) to a couple more years (grant cert and hear the case). I'll be a LOT older when this gets resolved.
In the meantime, it's unclear what affect all that legal maneuvering will have on the issuance of the mandate to Gore (San Diego County) requiring him to issue solely on the basis of a claim of "self-defense". And of course, Baker might be so affected as well. I don't see any definitive answer as to whether Peruta (Gore) or Richards or Baker will essentially be stayed until it's all resolved or not.
Stay tuned. For a few more years. :crazy:
[Edit: Of course, I should add that it is within the realm of "possibility" that the Ninth will deny both parties appeals in a day or two, neither party will appeal to SCOTUS, there will be no sua sponte Ninth decision to go en banc, Richards and Baker requests for en banc will be denied and they won't appeal at any level and we will all have our CCWs in hand by New Years Day, 2015. Where's the icon for "double crazy"?]
Here is the Harris appeal court document: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Petition-for-Rehearing-or-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Petition-for-Rehearing-or-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf)
-
Today, the final day to file appeals re the denials of intervenor status for California AG Kamala Harris and The Brady Campaign (or Center), both have filed their appeals asking for en banc reviews of their denials.
Heard Chuck Michel (of Michel & Associates, litigators of Peruta) on NRA News today apparently saying that there is no time limit on how long the court may take to decide on whether or not to grant or deny these appeals. It took the 3-judge panel nine months to deny the requests, so who knows how long it will take for this decision? If denied, Harris/Brady could appeal to SCOTUS, which would likely add another year to the process (though less if they deny cert). If granted by the Ninth, then they would ask for en banc review of Peruta, and then there is (I believe) another "open ended" time period for granting or denying en banc review. IF granted, I'd guess a couple of years to schedule, re-hear, and issue an en banc opinion re Peruta. Two-thirds of the judges in the Ninth are appointed by Democrats, so the likelihood that the randomly selected 11 judge en banc panel would uphold Peruta is very slim. Whichever side loses at that point will likely appeal to SCOTUS for cert, and whatever SCOTUS does add another few months (denail of cert) to a couple more years (grant cert and hear the case). I'll be a LOT older when this gets resolved.
In the meantime, it's unclear what affect all that legal maneuvering will have on the issuance of the mandate to Gore (San Diego County) requiring him to issue solely on the basis of a claim of "self-defense". And of course, Baker might be so affected as well. I don't see any difinitive answer as to whether Peruta (Gore) or Richards or Baker will essentially be stayed until it's all resolved or not.
Stay tuned. For a few more years. :crazy:
[Edit: Of course, I should add that it is within the realm of "possibility" that the Ninth will deny both parties appeals in a day or two, neither party will appeal to SCOTUS, there will be no sua sponte Ninth decision to go en banc, Richards and Baker requests for en banc will be denied and they won't appeal at any level and we will all have our CCWs in hand by New Years Day, 2015. Where's the icon for "double crazy"?]
Here is the Harris appeal court document: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Petition-for-Rehearing-or-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Petition-for-Rehearing-or-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf)
Yep probably be like 2016 before all this procedural bullshit is over.
-
Today's (December 3, 2014) order and updates from the court:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722)
12/3/2014 Order directing response to State of California's 11/26/2014 petitions
11/26/2014 Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Motion to join State of California's 11/26/2014 petitions
11/26/2014 State of California's Petition for Panel Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc (from 11/12/14 Order)
The order directs plaintiff (Peruta) to file a response to the petitions for rehearing en banc for Harris and Brady within 21 days (Christmas eve).
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/12/03/10-5697112-03-2014.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/12/03/10-5697112-03-2014.pdf)
Anyone holding their breath on this one is in serious trouble. At the rate this is going, some of us who aren't holding our breath may be in serious trouble.
-
Update for Peruta
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...2-03-2014B.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...2-03-2014B.pdf)
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
A judge of this Court having made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether this case should be reheard en banc, the parties shall file, within 21 days from the date of this order, simultaneous briefs setting forth their respective positions on whether this case should be reheard en banc. See G.O. 5.4(c)(3). Amici curiae wishing to file briefs regarding whether this case should be reheard en banc may also do so within 21 days from the date of this order.
Parties who are registered for ECF should file the brief electronically without submission of paper copies. Parties who are not registered ECF filers should submit the original brief plus 50 paper copies.
-
Yep probably be like 2016 before all this procedural bullshit is over.
But then you have to add on more years when/if the state legislature drags its feet on rewriting the law and we have to sue again for failure to abide by the court ruling. Or do you anticipate that in the 2016 estimate?
-
[ fixed, after proper correction from punaperson -- thanks ]
Peruta might go en banc, after all -- Even though neither of the parties have appealed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/04/the-ninth-circuit-and-the-right-to-carry-guns-hello-again-peruta/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/04/the-ninth-circuit-and-the-right-to-carry-guns-hello-again-peruta/)
-
Peruta goes en banc -- Even though neither of the parties have appealed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/04/the-ninth-circuit-and-the-right-to-carry-guns-hello-again-peruta/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/04/the-ninth-circuit-and-the-right-to-carry-guns-hello-again-peruta/)
A minor clarification for those who might not read the linked article: There has been a sua sponte request (a request by a judge of the Ninth Circuit) for a vote by all the judges (29, thus would require 15 "yes" votes to go en banc)) on whether or not to take Peruta en banc (a randomly drawn 10 judge panel (2/3 of the judges are Democratic appointees) plus the chief judge, who, as of December 1, is Peruta dissenter judge Thomas (who replaced pro-2A chief judge Kozinski). The announcement of the vote on whether or not the court takes the case en banc will likely not happen until at least March or April, and could take longer. Most people commenting on the en banc situation seem to think it will go en banc, and will be overturned there, and possibly even be "depublished" (it would have no force of law at all). If that turns out to be the case, then an appeal to SCOTUS is the remaining option. SCOTUS has, in the past two years, declined and let stand three other district court of appeals appeals on cases nearly identical: claims that discretionary "good cause" practices that allow almost no one to acquire the right to bear arms outside the home or business are unconstitutional. Peruta thus may not be granted cert, and thus would be null and void. Baker would be done. We'd have no CCW, and it would be "constitutional" according to the courts. But it's all just crystal ball gazing, no one really knows what will happen, but there are certainly precedents and evidence that suggest the probability of possible outcomes (CCW in Hawaii anytime in the near future is not one of them).
-
But then you have to add on more years when/if the state legislature drags its feet on rewriting the law and we have to sue again for failure to abide by the court ruling. Or do you anticipate that in the 2016 estimate?
Ont his current case it's Good cause = self defense. So I don't know what they will come up with. Even places like IL are getting it. The litigation in DC may be over with on this point - they seem to be playing that game. I don't know for sure though. The only thing I really learned is that restoring a right takes a shit ton of time lol.
-
Update today: Amicus brief filed in support of AG Harris's appeal for rehearing or rehearing en banc re intervenor status by The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Mentions Baker in a footnote as one (along with Richards) of the "other pending proceedings that would allow the Court to revisit en banc the divided panel’s sweeping merits decision in this case."
The only good news about this is that they tout their submission of prior amicus briefs in Heller and McDonald, both of which they lost, so let's hope their streak stays alive.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/12/09/10-56971%20Amicus%20by%20Law%20Ctr%20to%20Prevent%20Gun%20Violence.pdf (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/12/09/10-56971%20Amicus%20by%20Law%20Ctr%20to%20Prevent%20Gun%20Violence.pdf)
-
Just another "detail". Amicus brief supporting en banc hearing of Peruta filed by Sheriff Prieto and Yolo county. Prieto is the sheriff in Richartds v. Prieto subject to the Peruta decision, which, like Baker, essentially says "see Peruta".
Those of you interested in these sorts of details need to read the brief linked to below. I'll just give one example of an argument presented: Because Heller allows for some restrictions on carry outside the home for "sensitive places", and because the Peruta majority does not delineate what that "sensitive place" rationale in Heller specifically entails, therefore there is no argument that California's law, and sheriffs Gore's and Prieto's "good cause" requirement ("one's personal safety alone is not considered good cause") could not include EVERYWHERE OUTSIDE THE HOME ("airports, city streets, plazas, parks, malls, stadiums, depots, and other places"). I kid you not. Read it. And weep. :'( :crazy: :wtf:
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-Sheriff-Ed-Prieto-and-County-of-Yolo-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc1.pdf (http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-Sheriff-Ed-Prieto-and-County-of-Yolo-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc1.pdf)
-
Maybe Florida and 4th circuit will save us?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3236886/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3236886/posts)
I would be happy to open carry. I'd love to see the progs
vomit and shake. :geekdanc:
-
Two more amicus briefs have been filed arguing for en banc rehearing of Peruta. One by the Brady Center, and one by California Police Chiefs’ Association and California Peace Officers’ Association. Apparently Hawaii has also filed an amicus brief, but it isn't available yet. Both briefs rehash previous arguments as to how the Peruta majority got it wrong, and Brady in particular argues extensively quoting the judge Thomas original panel dissent. The police organizations argue more based upon the contradictory ruling in other circuits that have upheld "good cause"
prohibitions requirements in New Jersey, Maryland, and New York. Of course they completely cherry-pick their quotations to support their arguments and ignore all the quotes from Heller and McDonald that disprove their disingenuous arguments (as clearly laid out by judge O'Scannlain in the original Peruta decision in refuting the arguments from the other circuits).
One thing I find interesting as a lay reader is noting the typos and errors. These would seem to be important documents, written by highly paid attorneys specializing in these issues, and thus I am surprised that they don't know the most basic facts about the court and can't proofread accurately, given spell-checkers and all. The police association brief addresses it to "HONORABLE CHIEF JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI", whereas Peruta dissent author Sidney Thomas has been chief judge since December 1. They also, in their table of contents write "EN BANK" rather than "en banc". Brady table of contents lists "page 177" while the brief is 28 pages long. Let's hope the minds that created these documents are insufficient not only to the task of proofreading and knowing who the chief judge is, but in making persuasive legal arguments.
I'll watch for the Hawaii amicus brief and post when it becomes available, but I suspect they will rehash the same arguments, though I'd hope they'd include some documentation as to why the residents of Hawaii are particularly unsuitable to shoulder the burden of responsibility of bearing arms. I'd really like to read that. In the meantime, if you happen to be an elderly person, and ever want to legally bear arms in public for self-defense, I'm pretty sure you're going to have to move to one of the 43 states where the Second Amendment is recognized as meaningful.
The latest filings and court actions can be found on the Michel and Associates website: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/ (http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/)
Brady brief:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae-Brady-Center-to-Prevent-Gun-Violence-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae-Brady-Center-to-Prevent-Gun-Violence-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf)
Police associations brief:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc-by-Amici-Curiae-California-Police-Chiefs-Association-and-California-Peace-Officers-Association.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc-by-Amici-Curiae-California-Police-Chiefs-Association-and-California-Peace-Officers-Association.pdf)
-
Okay, Hawaii filed their amicus brief today, and it is available to read here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Amicus-Curiae-Brief-of-the-State-of-Hawaii-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Amicus-Curiae-Brief-of-the-State-of-Hawaii-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf)
I'm disgusted. I'm truly disgusted. You need to read this garbage brief to see the twisted (il)logic, cherry-picking of statistics, and inane specious arguments. It's really unbelievable. Plus no other briefs are rife with all the bold face type and the underlined bold face type that stands out on every page of the Hawaii brief. It looks amateurish to me.
A couple of examples.
The first section is entitled: "The Second Amendment Does Not Protect a Right to Carry Guns in Public, Openly or Concealed". I'm surprised they haven't called for an end to all possession outside the home (hunting, range shooting, driving to range/hunting, etc.), where you'd have to have the firearm delivered to your house by law enforcement and never allow it past the portal of your door. That makes as much sense. They use the New Jersey, Maryland, and New York circuit cases (as the other briefs do) to argue that the Peruta panel got it wrong. As I wrote above, judge O'Scannlain disposed of those fallacious circuit arguments in the Peruta decision, and none of the new briefs, including Hawaii's adequately address O'Scannlain's arguments on those points).
Their main argument is "public safety". One argument re public safety is that since Heller declared that long-standing laws prohibiting concealed carry in "sensitive places" (like government buildings, schools, etc.) are "presumptively legal" MEANS [yeah, that's fun...] that such a ban from those locations are legal BECAUSE guns are dangerous and people can get killed or injured either by intention or accidentally, THEREFORE EVERYWHERE OUTSIDE THE HOME IS A SENSITIVE PLACE, and thus no firearms ought ever be allowed (presumably they make exceptions for the "only ones" in the employ of the government monopoly of force). I kid you not. EVERYWHERE is a "sensitive place". They wrote that. In a legal brief. In an appeal to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This from the best and brightest the state Attorney General's office has to offer. And we wonder why we're in such deep doo doo here re our Second Amendment rights?
One more. They argue that since even in jurisdictions where concealed carry is legal (and thus suffering all the extra murder and crime that their bogus studies claim), people are generally prohibited from carrying in bars or restaurants where intoxicating beverages are sold, BECAUSE IT IS DANGEROUS for intoxicated people to have firearms. People who are intoxicated can go anywhere in public. Therefore, NO ONE ANYWHERE IN PUBLIC SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO CARRY A FIREARM BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE INTOXICATED. I sh*t you not. I couldn't even make up crap like that.
And it continues on. :wtf:
.
-
.....It looks amateurish to me.
....This from the best and brightest the state Attorney General's office has to offer. And we wonder why we're in such deep doo doo here re our Second Amendment rights?
One more..... I sh*t you not. I couldn't even make up crap like that.
And it continues on. :wtf:
Who knows, maybe that will make refuting their arguments easier....
-
I can't believe that guy went to Havard and Hawaii pays him over 200k a year to file some crap like that.
-
Who knows, maybe that will make refuting their arguments easier....
God I hope so. Their arguments are so asinine that it makes the whole thing that much more frustrating.....
-
God I hope so. Their arguments are so asinine that it makes the whole thing that much more frustrating.....
Do you really think their arguments are really that asinine? This guy is a Harvard graduate
-
Another amicus brief filed late yesterday by The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Nothing particularly new in terms of arguments for en banc and the claims of errors made by the Peruta panel majority. Baker is mentioned several times, including in the section noting one of the justifications supporting en banc (re)hearing is if a case is of "exceptional importance", and since all the citizens of Hawaii would be gravely endangered if more than four (4) people were granted CCW licenses in 15 years, en banc rehearing and overturning Peruta is of "exceptional importance".
Today, December 24, is the final day for amicus briefs to be filed, so there might be more by the end of the day, but apparently most of the lawyers wanted to get at least a one day early start on their holiday. We haven't seen any briefs from the Peruta camp yet, so I'm hoping they are going to file something today, maybe even including something to counter the "everywhere outside the home is a "sensitive place"" and other absurd arguments in the Hawaii brief.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae-The-Law-Center-to-Prevent-Gun-Violence-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae-The-Law-Center-to-Prevent-Gun-Violence-in-Support-of-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf)
-
LOL, if they want to include"everywhere" outside the house, I'd say "everywhere" includes 49 other States, the majority of which have demonstrated "everywhere" is NOT a sensitive area.
-
One Brief of Amici Curiae Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc et al Opposing Rehearing En Banc was filed late on the 23rd, and two were filed on the early evening of the 24th: Appellants’ Opposition to Sua Sponte Rehearing En Banc and Appellant’s Response to Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc Regarding Intervention.
Interesting to note the members filing the first brief: FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION, INC.: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES, INC.; PINK PISTOLS; GUN RIGHTS ACROSS AMERICA; LIBERAL GUN OWNERS ASSOCIATION; MADISON SOCIETY, INC.; HAWAII DEFENSE FOUNDATION; FLORIDA CARRY, INC.; ILLINOIS CARRY; KNIFE RIGHTS FOUNDATION, INC.; AND SECOND AMENDMENT PLAINTIFFS OPPOSING REHEARING EN BANC. Seems like a fairly diverse cross-section of citizens. They basically argue that in the past the AG has argued in court, several times, that they (the state and AG) cannot be sued (in essence "we don't have standing") in cases re CCW denial because the state has nothing to do with issuing the licenses, which are the sole province of the county sheriffs and/or local police chiefs. Peruta only effects sheriff Gore's implementation of the CCW requirements in San Diego county, and there is nothing the state could legally do to remedy any decision against Gore, and thus ought not have standing.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-San-Diego_Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-Firearms-Policy-Coalition-Inc-et-al-Opposing-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-218,547 (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-San-Diego_Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-Firearms-Policy-Coalition-Inc-et-al-Opposing-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,-218,547)
The brief for Peruta by Michel and Associates re intervention by AG Harris argues (as the above brief does) that the state has no statutory basis for intervention, because the decision only effects county policy, in which the state has, and could have, no role. They also state that they do not object to intervenor status being granted on other grounds ("timeliness" and "independent ground for jurisdiction").
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_-Appellants-Response-to-Petition-for-Rehearing-or-Rehearing-En-Banc-Regarding-Intervention.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_-Appellants-Response-to-Petition-for-Rehearing-or-Rehearing-En-Banc-Regarding-Intervention.pdf)
The brief for Peruta by Michel and Associates re sua sponte rehearing en banc of the Peruta decision basically argues 1. that the panel got it right, and that the right to bear arms does exist outside the home, and 2. that law-abiding citizens may not be denied the right to bear a firearm outside home for self-defense (which is what Gore's policy did for almost all applicants for CCW licenses in his jurisdiction). Therefore, because the panel decision was correct, there is obviously no need to rehear it en banc.
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_Appellants-Opposition-to-Sua-Sponte-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta_Appellants-Opposition-to-Sua-Sponte-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf)
None of the briefs against intervention or rehearing the whole question en banc specifically addressed or countered the arguments presented in the pro-intervenor pro-en banc hearing of Peruta, but rather just made their arguments against.
Now... we wait. And wait. And wait. See ya in the Spring... maybe. And if it does go en banc... 2017.
[Edit 12/26/14 4:30PM: Added links to briefs. Sorry about leaving those out.]
-
Another amicus brief filed on the 24th and just listed on the Michel and Associates website (http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/ (http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/)). They seem to be on top of the filings, whereas the actual Ninth Circuit site dedicated to the Peruta case (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722 (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000722)) sometimes takes many days to list filings, etc. None of the briefs from this week are on the Ninth Circuit site yet.
This brief is filed by Alan Gura (head litigator of Heller, McDonald, Palmer, etc.) on behalf of the individuals in the Richards v. Prieto (Yolo county case) and the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation. He argues that Harris does not have standing for several reasons and that the court would be better served to deny en banc to Peruta and instead take up Richards (Gura is the litigator) en banc, because unlike Peruta which only challenges Gore's discretionary application of the "good cause" law, Richards challenges the state law of "good cause" itself.
Gura definitely has a more "direct" (possibly "confrontational" or "in your face" or something) style as evidenced by his pointing out how the Ninth Circuit has already been overturned at least twice by the Supreme Court for incorrectly granting intervenor status to parties who did not meet the standards for intervenor (i.e. "Are you going to screw up again and get slapped down by SCOTUS again?"). There are other examples in there as well, and I found it interesting that that in titling the amicus brief they write:
EDWARD PERUTA, ET.AL
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Intervenor-Pending,
v..
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
As if AG Harris will be arguing with Peruta against sheriff Gore. Of course she is asking for intervenor status because Gore has refused to litigate further. I guess that's lawyer humor, or something. :geekdanc:
http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Adam-Richards-Brett-Stewart-Second-Amendment-Foundation-and-The-Calguns-Foundation-as-Amicus-Curiae-in-Opposition-to-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v-San-Diego_Brief-of-Adam-Richards-Brett-Stewart-Second-Amendment-Foundation-and-The-Calguns-Foundation-as-Amicus-Curiae-in-Opposition-to-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf)
-
well win or lose in Baker at least I am making the liberals work
I've got Young and Fisher coming up right after this. Briefing is done in Young. Hawaii files their brief in Fisher on the 12th unless they ask for another extension.
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/27814397/hawaii-concealed-carry-law-could-change (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/27814397/hawaii-concealed-carry-law-could-change)
-
well win or lose in Baker at least I am making the liberals work
I've got Young and Fisher coming up right after this. Briefing is done in Young. Hawaii files their brief in Fisher on the 12th unless they ask for another extension.
Please tell us more about these new ones...Young and Fisher. Are they new cases similar to Baker vs Kealoha?
I've been following Peruta and Baker vs Kealoha as closely as I can.
Mahalo
-
Please tell us more about these new ones...Young and Fisher. Are they new cases similar to Baker vs Kealoha?
I've been following Peruta and Baker vs Kealoha as closely as I can.
Mahalo
I'll let Wolfwood answer your question, but in the meantime if you are interested in reading any or all of the court documents:
http://michellawyers.com/fisher-v-kealoha/ (http://michellawyers.com/fisher-v-kealoha/)
http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/ (http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/)
-
Those links are helpful, thanks. I'll continue to monitor and look forward to more info from wolfwood. Have a great evening
-
At a bare minimum Young will get us rifle carry, shotgun carry, switchblades and tasers in Hawaii. Hawaii threw in the towel on those issues. We may get more.. Young is a very complicated appeal.
Fisher is an attack on Hawaii's adoption of Lautenberg. We are filing the reply brief next week on that. With the way the Ninth Circuit is working don't hold your breath on that.
I finished briefing on Young in 2013. I haven't gotten oral arguments yet.
It looks like my partner wants to take the transport laws next.
We recently overturned the resident alien prohibition on firearm ownership and the transport laws are the next set of blatantly unconstitutional laws on the books.
We just need to save up a little money before doing that. Rick Holcomb and I are doing all these cases out of our pocket so we have to be frugal as to how many cases we file.
-
Snipped
We just need to save up a little money before doing that. Rick Holcomb and I are doing all these cases out of our pocket so we have to be frugal as to how many cases we file.
wolfwood I know it might be somewhere on this forum I would know where to find it if it was, so I will ask can folks donate to the cause, if so how?
-
Snipped
wolfwood I know it might be somewhere on this forum I would know where to find it if it was, so I will ask can folks donate to the cause, if so how?
+1 :thumbsup:
-
+1 :thumbsup:
+2 :thumbsup:
-
We've never actually set anything up to receive money. That's a good idea though. I'd certainly be open to Bill Richter or HRA taking donations for us if that was something they wanted to do. Then pay us through those donation. Its hard for a lawyer to ethically (that's a legal term not how it is typically used) take money directly from a non-client for work he is going to do for a client. Having a third party like H.R.A. would make it easier. Its not really something that we've put a lot of thought into since I never thought there would be much interest.
-
Apparently the voting period to rehear Peruta by en banc has ended unless it was extended by the en banc coordinator.
Here is a link that I use that provides updates to the case, hope this helps.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1575 (http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1575)
-
Can someone let us know what this means in "English" :)
-
Can someone let us know what this means in "English" :)
Means that their voting on the hearing *should* be complete, but keep waiting. From something someone posted, I think something was special about the 11th or some stuff - so I would give it another week or so before worrying about anything.
-
Can someone let us know what this means in "English" :)
One version: The en banc votes have been made, but there is no deadline for an announcement of the results of that vote. If the case has been voted to go en banc, there is no deadline for an announcement about whether it will be reheard via oral arguments or only by briefs. There is no deadline for the en banc conference to discuss the case or hold the oral arguments, and there is no deadline for announcing a final en banc decision. In other words, to quote the link " All we can do now is wait." I'm guessing that it's going to be a long (at least a couple more years?) wait until the end.
-
really love waiting damn near a decade for this to be resolved
-
really love waiting damn near a decade for this to be resolved
It's taking a lot longer than I thought. It has been almost a year since the initial opinion was released lol. Still waiting. #tumbleweed.
-
It's taking a lot longer than I thought. It has been almost a year since the initial opinion was released lol. Still waiting. #tumbleweed.
Hey Chris. If Harris is or isn't granted en banc review of intervenor status, or if the case is or isn't granted en banc review, I suspect that the losing party will likely appeal to the Supreme Court. So if no en banc of either request, and Peruta stands (my guess: highly unlikely), then it would be an appeal to SCOTUS and that would likely take at least a year even to get to no certiorari (in addition to however long it's going to take to find about about the en banc request decisions). If one or both issues go en banc, that's another year for sure, maybe two, and then the appeal to SCOTUS. That's why above I speculated at least two years. Even if successful through all that, and Peruta stands, then we'd have to see what kind of legal shenanigans Hawaii will come up with to delay things even further. :wtf: :shaka:
-
Hey Chris. If Harris is or isn't granted en banc review of intervenor status, or if the case is or isn't granted en banc review, I suspect that the losing party will likely appeal to the Supreme Court. So if no en banc of either request, and Peruta stands (my guess: highly unlikely), then it would be an appeal to SCOTUS and that would likely take at least a year even to get to no certiorari (in addition to however long it's going to take to find about about the en banc request decisions). If one or both issues go en banc, that's another year for sure, maybe two, and then the appeal to SCOTUS. That's why above I speculated at least two years. Even if successful through all that, and Peruta stands, then we'd have to see what kind of legal shenanigans Hawaii will come up with to delay things even further. :wtf: :shaka:
I don't think they will / can appeal their denial of intervention to a higher court. I'm not sure though. What's more likely is Richards gets picked up En Banc and/or both the cases are heard together I think. Any way it goes, I suspect it will be about 2-3 more years.
-
Just saw the Peruta is being review en banc....
http://firearmspolicy.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=7b69d67922f8e32ca499bb6b7&id=997c8072c7&e=e9520ab440 (http://firearmspolicy.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=7b69d67922f8e32ca499bb6b7&id=997c8072c7&e=e9520ab440)
Chris or his legal team, what's your take?
-
:'(
Oral arguments to be heard during the week of June 15, 2015. A couple more years and then reversal. Then appeal to SCOTUS. Another year or two if cert is granted, if not, I will never see CCW in Hawaii according to the Constitution. :wtf:
-
Yup, this is not good news for CCW in Hawaii. The Supreme Court hasn't taken any 2A cases since McDonald in 2010, dimming my belief that we (the average non-LEO citizen) will be able to legally carry in Hawaii for the foreseeable future.
-
Yup, this is not good news for CCW in Hawaii. The Supreme Court hasn't taken any 2A cases since McDonald in 2010, dimming my belief that we (the average non-LEO citizen) will be able to legally carry in Hawaii for the foreseeable future.
If the government denies your rights, what are your other options besides "to legally carry"?
-
If the government denies your rights, what are your other options besides "to legally carry"?
I use the term "legally carry" for the simple reason that there are likely hundreds of people in Hawaii who conceal carry every day, illegally. Hawaii's restrictive CCW laws don't impact illegal carry in the slightest.
-
I use the term "legally carry" for the simple reason that there are likely hundreds of people in Hawaii who conceal carry every day, illegally. Hawaii's restrictive CCW laws don't impact illegal carry in the slightest.
The government denies you a natural civil right guaranteed by the Constitution, and exercising that right, and harming no one in the process, is a crime according to the government. Shades of refusing to sit in the back of the bus or not using the "separate but equal" water fountains, bathrooms and schools. Where are we? How many more years can they get away with this?
-
The government denies you a natural civil right guaranteed by the Constitution, and exercising that right, and harming no one in the process, is a crime according to the government. Shades of refusing to sit in the back of the bus or not using the "separate but equal" water fountains, bathrooms and schools. Where are we? How many more years can they get away with this?
So... an act of civil disobedience? Can we get 500 people to show up at the capitol, all carrying openly? "Dare" the government to turn so many upstanding citizens into felons?
-
So... an act of civil disobedience? Can we get 500 people to show up at the capitol, all carrying openly? "Dare" the government to turn so many upstanding citizens into felons?
they would do it in a heartbeat.
-
So... an act of civil disobedience? Can we get 500 people to show up at the capitol, all carrying openly? "Dare" the government to turn so many upstanding citizens into felons?
To begin with I do not violate any Federal, State, or Local laws. But going "toe to toe" with the Hawaii State
militarized police won't work. Courts are a "death by a thousand cuts". You do what you need to do to defend
yourself from the police. In Hawaii they are a bigger threat to us than the crooks are. Keep in mind ALWAYS
obey the law.
-
So... an act of civil disobedience? Can we get 500 people to show up at the capitol, all carrying openly? "Dare" the government to turn so many upstanding citizens into felons?
they would do it in a heartbeat.
In this state, absolutely they would. Look at how low voter participation is in Hawaii, last in the country. An ill-informed electorate is easy to cower. Now if you tried such a demonstration in Colorado, which has a much stronger civic mindset, and is far more pro-gun per capita, I think you would find law enforcement far more hesitant.
-
Quote from: Tom_G on Today at 02:52:33 PM
So... an act of civil disobedience? Can we get 500 people to show up at the capitol, all carrying openly? "Dare" the government to turn so many upstanding citizens into felons?
Quote from: xer 21 on Today at 04:48:21 PM
they would do it in a heartbeat.
Yeah, this isn't Washington state where open carry is legal and the protest was "illegally" "transferring" (aka "handing") firearms from one person to another without the benefit of a background check for each "transfer" (I-594). Law enforcement there did nothing. OFWGs getting arrested for illegally carrying doesn't have the "sympathy factor" (especially in Hawaii) as did the images of black children being attacked by police dogs for trying to go to school. The general public here doesn't care about our issue, and likely wouldn't be moved to do anything if dozens or hundreds of people were arrested (which likely would never happen in the first place as people having jobs and families to feed couldn't afford to risk it all for a symbolic gesture most likely having no meaningful consequent movement to restore our rights).
Given this expected decision for en banc (aka "overturn"), the best option for Hawaii residents wanting to exercise the full range of their Second Amendment rights is to move.
Once Peruta is vacated, Baker will be null and void, though the appeal to SCOTUS will keep things in limbo (or status quo: no CCW in Hawaii) for a few more years. Maybe Palmer will be granted cert by SCOTUS and we'll get a clear ruling allowing us to "bear arms" for self-defense. Or not. "Not" seems most likely at this point given the refusal of cert by SCOTUS of all the previous CCW cases in the past two years. :crazy:
-
Yeah, this isn't Washington state where open carry is legal and the protest was "illegally" "transferring" (aka "handing") firearms from one person to another without the benefit of a background check for each "transfer" (I-594). Law enforcement there did nothing. OFWGs getting arrested for illegally carrying doesn't have the "sympathy factor" (especially in Hawaii) as did the images of black children being attacked by police dogs for trying to go to school. The general public here doesn't care about our issue, and likely wouldn't be moved to do anything if dozens or hundreds of people were arrested (which likely would never happen in the first place as people having jobs and families to feed couldn't afford to risk it all for a symbolic gesture most likely having no meaningful consequent movement to restore our rights).
Given this expected decision for en banc (aka "overturn"), the best option for Hawaii residents wanting to exercise the full range of their Second Amendment rights is to move.
Once Peruta is vacated, Baker will be null and void, though the appeal to SCOTUS will keep things in limbo (or status quo: no CCW in Hawaii) for a few more years. Maybe Palmer will be granted cert by SCOTUS and we'll get a clear ruling allowing us to "bear arms" for self-defense. Or not. "Not" seems most likely at this point given the refusal of cert by SCOTUS of all the previous CCW cases in the past two years. :crazy:
well said.
-
Chuck Michel, chief litigator of the Peruta case, was interviewed today (Friday Marcdh 27) on the NRA News show. No mention of Richards, which will heard at the same oral arguments session with Peruta during the week of June 15. Also no mention of Baker, which did not go en banc, even though it was heard originally at the same time as Peruta and Richards.
http://www.nranews.com/cam/list/cam-company (http://www.nranews.com/cam/list/cam-company)
1:41:21
-
The next presidential election is going to be very important for concealed carry as the next president will be appointing several supreme court justices. And since they are appointed for life, the election could decide if we get CCW through the courts for the next 20 years.
-
Chief judge Thomas issued an order today clarifying that all briefs, including amicus briefs, need to be submitted within 35 days of the order for en banc hearing of Peruta/Richards.
Could anyone explain to me why the "State of California, Intervenor - Pending", is listed on the Peruta side rather than on the San Diego County, Sheriff Gore side? Harris/California are going to be arguing against Peruta, not with him...
Also, has there been any official explanation as to why Baker was not included in the en banc hearing? How about any unofficial explanation?
-
Just saw
the judges for the up coming hearing has be listed. Does not look good for ccw in our life time. :(
-
Just saw
the judges for the up coming hearing has be listed. Does not look good for ccw in our life time. :(
Link?
-
blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_i
sorry forgot to ad the link Sodie
-
:closed: :closed:This will be my last posting to this site. You guys are all law abiding. I cannot soil your reputation and cause you harm. That being said,
Hawaii makes you ask for permission to own, you must register, and are on the police data banks as a potential terrorist when you have a gun. Only stupid white people( Haloes) follow these laws. Hawaii does not have a lot of gun crime, that is mainly due to the fact we don't have a lot of Blacks and have a very strong Ohana tradition. That is all adults are an Auntie or Uncle and you listen to them! I'm fighting to get a CCW and the local police head chief won't grant me that right. I carry anyway, legally of course. It just costs a few more seconds, in reaction time, and I have a lawyer on speed dial.
I'm going to try to get my anti gun police chief fired, and make sure we have the worst paid police and smallest
police to people ratio in the country.
That is probably more do-able than expecting the 9th to respect our rights.
In my county more people get killed by cops, than by druggies.
Good bye!
-
En banc oral arguments on Peruta v. County of San Diego were heard today and can be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anKfVru1des (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anKfVru1des)
-
:closed: :closed:This will be my last posting to this site. You guys are all law abiding. I cannot soil your reputation and cause you harm. That being said,
Hawaii makes you ask for permission to own, you must register, and are on the police data banks as a potential terrorist when you have a gun. Only stupid white people( Haloes) follow these laws. Hawaii does not have a lot of gun crime, that is mainly due to the fact we don't have a lot of Blacks and have a very strong Ohana tradition. That is all adults are an Auntie or Uncle and you listen to them! I'm fighting to get a CCW and the local police head chief won't grant me that right. I carry anyway, legally of course. It just costs a few more seconds, in reaction time, and I have a lawyer on speed dial.
I'm going to try to get my anti gun police chief fired, and make sure we have the worst paid police and smallest
police to people ratio in the country.
That is probably more do-able than expecting the 9th to respect our rights.
In my county more people get killed by cops, than by druggies.
Good bye!
k?
that's kinda racist, but hey.
-
k?
that's kinda racist, but hey.
I was waiting for someone else to mention the ratio of Haoles [sic] (I guess some of us wear "Haloes" :D ) to non-Haoles in the registration lines day to day. I know when I go, it's primarily local types unless a few military guys go there together.
Based on the people I see buying routinely in the gun shops and visiting the HPD firearm unit, PLUS the demographics of the people I see at the range, I'm going to call BS on this statement that "Only stupid white people( Haloes) follow these laws."
-
Of possible interest in this regard, Puerto Rico seems to have eliminated a lot of their restrictive gun laws. See:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saf-lauds-puerto-rico-court-victory-for-gun-rights-300102214.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/saf-lauds-puerto-rico-court-victory-for-gun-rights-300102214.html)
I posted on this at:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=19524.msg176860#new (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=19524.msg176860#new)
Of particular interest, this class action suit had 850 plaintiffs, and was brought by a coalition of ladies.
Perhaps if you "guys" started working on the "ladies" to emphasize the benefits of self-protection, it might help to change the apparent "do not care" attitude of most Hawaiians regarding gun rights. After all, as far as I know, women, the elderly, and the handicapped are the most frequent victims of violent aggression... children, too, but that's apart from the bearing of arms question.
Just sayin'.
Terry, 230RN
-
About Women & Guns
Make a list of women who were Raped, Kidnapped & Murdered here in Hawaii.
How many of these cases were solved?
Bring it up at hearings, Ask the LE where they were and why the cases are unsolved?
Could these women benefited by a CCW?
Hard for legislators to Deny Women right to self defense when they show up en mass at hearings.
As I was told by my Alaskan friend, Women Demanded gun rights and got it in Alaska.
What are you guys doing to Help Women's gun rights?
When was the last time there was a Ladies Day at the range?
Was there ever one?
Sad part is when a woman shows up at the range, no one really helps her/them.
A while back, HRA newsletter had a Women's column written by a local girl.
Went on for over a year. No comments at all.
Don't know if the guys ever showed it to their women.
How many women are Active contributing members on this forum?
According to my Wife, local men don't know how to treat their women.
Even I get called on it by her as being "too Samurai".
We should All take a good look at ourselves and how we take care of our "women".
If you haven't noticed, the major gun makers are bringing out guns just for women.
Women are making a difference in many mainland State Associations.
Something to chew on.
-
About Women & Guns
Make a list of women who were Raped, Kidnapped & Murdered here in Hawaii.
How many of these cases were solved?
Bring it up at hearings, Ask the LE where they were and why the cases are unsolved?
Could these women benefited by a CCW?
Hard for legislators to Deny Women right to self defense when they show up en mass at hearings.
As I was told by my Alaskan friend, Women Demanded gun rights and got it in Alaska.
What are you guys doing to Help Women's gun rights?
When was the last time there was a Ladies Day at the range?
Was there ever one?
Sad part is when a woman shows up at the range, no one really helps her/them.
A while back, HRA newsletter had a Women's column written by a local girl.
Went on for over a year. No comments at all.
Don't know if the guys ever showed it to their women.
How many women are Active contributing members on this forum?
According to my Wife, local men don't know how to treat their women.
Even I get called on it by her as being "too Samurai".
We should All take a good look at ourselves and how we take care of our "women".
If you haven't noticed, the major gun makers are bringing out guns just for women.
Women are making a difference in many mainland State Associations.
Something to chew on.
Like, like, like. Way to go, Old Guy !
-
About Women & Guns
When was the last time there was a Ladies Day at the range?
Was there ever one?
Did you know that "Lessons In Firearms Education" was originally started as "Ladies Involved In Firearms Education" in Hawaii on August 17, 1994. ? :geekdanc:
Sad part is when a woman shows up at the range, no one really helps her/them.
I'd be all over that ! :crazy: :love: :wave:
According to my Wife, local men don't know how to treat their women.
Cause their wives can't do 1MOA :oops:
We should All take a good look at ourselves and how we take care of our "women".
Easy, just get her to shoot 1MOA.
You'll definitely treat her nicer ! :shake: :shake: :shake: :love:
Something to chew on.
see above comment. :love:
-
I've got more interest from women on my www.meetup.com/HawaiiGGG (http://www.meetup.com/HawaiiGGG) group. I'm working on getting a 50%/50% mix of women/men participants which will eventually grow into what you wanted, more women getting familiar with guns and what it can do for them.
-
see above comment. :love:
Here on Maui there is a well armed women group they have thier own range day. Wife loves it. :shaka:
-
Here on Maui there is a well armed women group they have thier own range day. Wife loves it. :shaka:
once last year when I visited I stopped by a gun shop and it was owned by a woman and she was telling my wife about their ladies club really cool to have heard about it. Got fired up and went to shoot sporting clays in hailemaile after that. Lol
-
Time for a yearly update on Baker... (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/oji.gif).
Here is a verbatim Facebook post today from Charles Nichols of California Right to Carry/California Open Carry speculating on the Baker case delay. I am not endorsing Nichols' opinions in this instance, merely presenting them as one view about the case. Nichols filed his opening brief on November 9, 2016, and a request for his case to initially be heard en banc on December 14, 2016.
* * * * *
It has been 1861 days since my California Open Carry lawsuit was filed!
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 3, 2017 – For a variety of reasons, some of which I wrote about in this article [http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1622] nearly four months ago, this case is a mess. But not so much a mess which would prevent a decision by now. After all, they already had an opinion from the Peruta v. San Diego concealed carry 3 judge panel decision (now vacated) which would have been a fine opinion had the two judge majority not written that nonsense about it being perfectly constitutional to ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry. Trim a couple of lines and add that states cannot require a permit to openly carry a firearm as well as an injunction against Hawaii laws to the extent they prohibit Open Carry and they’re good to go.
In other words, about 15 minutes of work is all that would have been required to publish a decision in this case by now. Since that hasn’t happened, there are two likely reasons. Either the two judges in the majority hate Open Carry so much, a possibility I put forth in this article I wrote back in August, or Judge Thomas [now chief judge of the Ninth CCA] is withholding his dissent thereby prohibiting the decision from being issued.
If Judge Thomas is withholding his dissent then he can withhold it indefinitely. It would take a writ by Justice Kennedy (or SCOTUS) to force the circuit court to issue a decision, assuming that Baker’s attorneys would even file a writ. They strike me as being too gunshy to do that and I’m not sure they have even been admitted to the Supreme Court bar. If they haven’t been admitted then they would have to find a lawyer who is in order to file the writ for them.
Another possibility, somewhat less likely, is the three circuit judges who are presiding over the Baker case are waiting for a decision in my en banc petition with an eye toward hearing my appeal as well as the two appeals out of Hawaii (Baker and Young) at the same time.
There is no way of knowing for certain. Only time will tell and even then it won’t tell the whole story.
Note: Links to the two articles I referenced are at my website under today's update. Simply click on the link.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1622
-
Charles Nichols, California Right to [Open] Carry, marks a milestone:
It has been 2,000 days since this case (Baker v Kealoha [that name will have to now be changed... :D]) was filed!
To give you some perspective on just how long that is, if your child was a Freshman in high school when this case was filed he would now be a Sophomore in college.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1622
What does it say about the "Justice delayed is justice denied" concept when not one single person originally cited as government officers (police chief, attorney general, governor, etc.) targeted by the lawsuit are any longer in office?
Ridiculous!! :crazy: Or is it just me?
-
Charles Nichols, California Right to [Open] Carry, marks a milestone:
It has been 2,000 days since this case (Baker v Kealoha [that name will have to now be changed... :D]) was filed!
To give you some perspective on just how long that is, if your child was a Freshman in high school when this case was filed he would now be a Sophomore in college.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=1622
What does it say about the "Justice delayed is justice denied" concept when not one single person originally cited as government officers (police chief, attorney general, governor, etc.) targeted by the lawsuit are any longer in office?
Ridiculous!! :crazy: Or is it just me?
One of the criticisms of the 9th Circus after they stopped Trump's immigration suspension said it takes 18 months (540 days) on average to get a decision from them. Adding a new circuit and making 9th smaller might help alleviate that -- so some are saying.
I guess the Baker case and Trump's 1-day EO decision are at opposite ends of the curve?
-
One of the criticisms of the 9th Circus after they stopped Trump's immigration suspension said it takes 18 months (540 days) on average to get a decision from them. Adding a new circuit and making 9th smaller might help alleviate that -- so some are saying.
I guess the Baker case and Trump's 1-day EO decision are at opposite ends of the curve?
Counter on 6th Amendment "just and SPEEDY trial" ? :o
-
Counter on 6th Amendment "just and SPEEDY trial" ? :o
I think that only applies to criminal cases.
-
Baker is done anyway, he no longer has the job he was fighting to get a carry permit for and I just read he doesn't live in Hawaii anymore
-
Baker is done anyway, he no longer has the job he was fighting to get a carry permit for and I just read he doesn't live in Hawaii anymore
Have some faith. Besides I have Young right behind Baker.
-
Thank you, Wolfwood
-
Order issued today, March 10, 2017. Remanded back to District Court.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2017/03/10/12-16258.pdf
-
Baker is done anyway, he no longer has the job he was fighting to get a carry permit for and I just read he doesn't live in Hawaii anymore
This was fairly immaterial. We don't believe someone should have a specific job to carry a firearm. Also, non-residents are not prohibited from carrying in Hawaii (if they have a permit).
That said, it's pretty junk of the court ending it this way, but we already kind of saw what was on the horizon. We need scotus to take a case.. .there have dozens and still yet no relief.
-
Remanded back to district court is far better than losing and having to petition an 8-judge SCOTUS to take the case. Probably the district court will affirm and send it back to the 9th...if you are lucky can you get the same 3 judge panel (referring to the 2 judges who voted to remand)? At that time the SCOTUS should be filled up again so your chances will be much better.
-
What is the chance that we'll get a couple strict constitutionalists?
-
What is the chance that we'll get a couple strict constitutionalists?
[The following is all strictly personal opinion, with no true factual basis in support, especially the math.]
Zero. Okay, almost zero. With Judge O'Scannlain's (who wrote the original three judge panel opinion in Peruta/Richards/Baker) move to "senior" status, the only "strict constitutionalist" remaining on the Ninth is Judge Kozinski.
Not surprisingly, the judicial opinions of the various judges align remarkably well with the political positions of the presidents who appointed them, and here is the breakdown:
Carter 1
Reagan 1 (judge Kozinski)
Clinton 10
GW Bush 6
Obama 7
By appointment alone, that makes it 18-7 for the "progressive" side. If you look at the reality of several of the Bush appointees, it makes more like 20-5 or 21-4.
Assuming that any judge will rule in the manner consistent with the political views of the president who appointed him, the probability of 2 of the three judges being drawn for the panel being appointed by Republican presidents is 1 in 6.67. I'll qualify that by saying that it's been so long since i learned the math of odds and probabilities that that answer could be the same as "made it up". However, I think that even just a "commonsense" look at the numbers of judges and who appointed them (look at the Peruta en banc panel makeup) will lead one to conclude that the draw of the original Peruta three judge panel was a highly improbable "fluke", and that the chances of that happening again, in written words rather than a mathematical formulation, would be "Ain't gonna happen".
-
What is the chance that we'll get a couple strict constitutionalists?
Zero
-
What is the chance that we'll get a couple strict constitutionalists? [In a "random" draw for a three judge panel.]
Okay, here's a "real life" example of the "draw" for an en banc panel that heard Teixeira v. Alameda County yesterday, March 14, 2017 regarding Alameda County's zoning law that amounts to a prohibition on any gun stores operating in the County.
The judges were appointed by:
Carter 1
Clinton 6
GW Bush 2
Obama 2
Hmmm. 9 to 2, Lib to possible Conserv.
Anyone have any doubt about the outcome? And I mean regardless of the arguments and legal precedents.
-
The mandate was issued today. The appeal is now officially over. Quoting one source: "Once the mandate issues then jurisdiction returns to the district court where this case is currently administratively stayed and will remain stayed until one side or the other asks for the stay to be lifted." I'm not sure if there is any time limit within which one or both parties have to ask for the stay to be lifted and the case to be retried in district court. Watch for another update in a few more months. Or tomorrow.
-
This ruling may be over, but we do have "light at the end of the tunnel" as there is the federal reciprocity bill which if passed, will allow concealed carry in Hawaii. H.R.38 which was submitted by Rep. Hudson is written in a way (according to Hudson; I'm not good at "legalese") that it will allow both resident and non-resident carry permits to be valid in ALL states that have a permitting statute, of which Hawaii does (never mind that they don't ever issue to private citizens unless you're a LEO or armored security, etc.) This bill, if passed will allow all Hawaii residents who have permits from other states to be able to carry outside of our homes here, provided your carry permit has your photograph on it (which disqualifies the current AZ permit which does not). Of course, Hawaii may appeal it but if/when it gets to the Supreme Court, the State will lose now that Gorsuch will be the 9th justice on the Court. So, there is hope that this will happen in my lifetime after all. :wave:
-
This ruling may be over, but we do have "light at the end of the tunnel" as there is the federal reciprocity bill which if passed, will allow concealed carry in Hawaii. H.R.38 which was submitted by Rep. Hudson is written in a way (according to Hudson; I'm not good at "legalese") that it will allow both resident and non-resident carry permits to be valid in ALL states that have a permitting statute, of which Hawaii does (never mind that they don't ever issue to private citizens unless you're a LEO or armored security, etc.) This bill, if passed will allow all Hawaii residents who have permits from other states to be able to carry outside of our homes here, provided your carry permit has your photograph on it (which disqualifies the current AZ permit which does not). Of course, Hawaii may appeal it but if/when it gets to the Supreme Court, the State will lose now that Gorsuch will be the 9th justice on the Court. So, there is hope that this will happen in my lifetime after all. :wave:
How old are you now and how long do you expect to live? Perhaps you are expecting one of the almost-daily promised "longevity breakthroughs" that we see in the press. Perhaps I'm "cynical", but I'd scale back the "living to 150" forecasts... ;)
There is a separate thread dedicated to Hudson's HR38. It hasn't been scheduled for a committee hearing yet. There are many opportunities for amendments of various kinds to the bill, including those that would reconcile it with Cornyn's bill (S446) in the Senate which requires that the person have a CCW license/permit from their HOME STATE in order to have national reciprocity in all other jurisdictions. No one knows how, or even if, these bills will be reconciled should they make it out of their respective committees and then pass floor votes in their separate chambers. Even if only Cornyn's version would get signed into law, several states have already indicated they will litigate to prevent it from being implemented in their state, so we are a long long way from carrying legally here in Hawaii. Hope I'm wrong and some weird natural event alters all human brains on the planet to make rational and evidence-based decisions and the next day all restrictions on self-defense (anywhere and in any manner) are abolished.
And then we have to remember our history:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170409/9c47ede2e63f0012b6c19930fc648114.jpg)
In any event, I wonder if we will ever hear another peep re Baker?
-
Hawaii can easily change the law to no issue, then HR 38 would not be valid here. We need a federally mandated national right to carry that has the same standing as paying federal tax. A state does not need to require its residents to pay state taxes, but it cannot pass a law saying you don't have to pay federal taxes. Or like a valid driver license, no state can say another state license is not valid here.
-
Hawaii can easily change the law to no issue, then HR 38 would not be valid here. We need a federally mandated national right to carry that has the same standing as paying federal tax. A state does not need to require its residents to pay state taxes, but it cannot pass a law saying you don't have to pay federal taxes. Or like a valid driver license, no state can say another state license is not valid here.
!. That (no legal provision for CCW or carry in any manner) would violate the SCOTUS McDonald ruling (where Illinois' lack of a provision for CCW was ruled unconstitutional), but would likely/possibly involve another dozen years of (re)litigation.
2. I'm pretty certain that no matter what happens with any federal legislation (no matter how precisely, clearly and unambiguously worded) re our right to legally carry in this state in some manner in some locations, that the state will litigate against it with all the taxpayer dollars they can muster (See: Chin justifies hiring expensive law firm to litigate state case against Trump "travel ban"). Those people (legislators, law enforcement, and executive branch) have no interest at all in people's rights, only in control and top-down imposition of their agenda... and that agenda does not include citizens taking responsibility for their own security and self-defense in any and all locations by any means necessary. That simply won't do. I'm with FBI on this one.
-
I already decided that when I get to the point in my life that I am no longer physically fit or disabled, I will cc regardless of what the law is. But by that time I hope to be living in either UT, NV, or AZ, unless the law in Hawaii changes before then. As we all know, all of us obey the law and the law says we are not allowed to defend ourselves and must flee from our homes if someone breaks in.
-
I already decided that when I get to the point in my life that I am no longer physically fit or disabled, I will cc regardless of what the law is. But by that time I hope to be living in either UT, NV, or AZ, unless the law in Hawaii changes before then. As we all know, all of us obey the law and the law says we are not allowed to defend ourselves and must flee from our homes if someone breaks in.
actually, we do not have to flee
hawaii has castle doctrine
-
actually, we do not have to flee
hawaii has castle doctrine
Hawaii's version includes:
§703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.
* * * * *
So at 3 AM when you confront the person who has broken into your home, theoretically, at least, you'd have to ascertain the "intention" of the criminal (at least a trespasser), in a manner that would lead a jury to conclude that your "belief" was well-founded and thus your self-defense action justified. Perhaps you'd have to ask the person what his intention was... and if he said "To get a drink of water" (Yeah, right...), then you'd have no basis to use force. Does that make sense to anyone here? I like the law in Oklahoma (highlighted in another thread on the forum about a recent case), nicknamed the "Make My Day" law that states that any use of force (including lethal) is justified if some uninvited person breaks into your home while you are there. Why should the resident have to "prove" that he had a "reasonable" or "beyond a reasonable a doubt" belief that there was the potential to be harmed? But, then again, this is Hawaii...
-
Hawaii's version includes:
§703-304 Use of force in self-protection. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.
* * * * *
So at 3 AM when you confront the person who has broken into your home, theoretically, at least, you'd have to ascertain the "intention" of the criminal (at least a trespasser), in a manner that would lead a jury to conclude that your "belief" was well-founded and thus your self-defense action justified. Perhaps you'd have to ask the person what his intention was... and if he said "To get a drink of water" (Yeah, right...), then you'd have no basis to use force. Does that make sense to anyone here? I like the law in Oklahoma (highlighted in another thread on the forum about a recent case), nicknamed the "Make My Day" law that states that any use of force (including lethal) is justified if some uninvited person breaks into your home while you are there. Why should the resident have to "prove" that he had a "reasonable" or "beyond a reasonable a doubt" belief that there was the potential to be harmed? But, then again, this is Hawaii...
I was only responding to his statement that we have to flee...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hawaii can easily change the law to no issue, then HR 38 would not be valid here. We need a federally mandated national right to carry that has the same standing as paying federal tax. A state does not need to require its residents to pay state taxes, but it cannot pass a law saying you don't have to pay federal taxes. Or like a valid driver license, no state can say another state license is not valid here.
This is what I used to think also, that HI would then go "no issue", but then they would again lose in SCOTUS. SCOTUS already ruled in the MacDonald case that it was unconstitutional for Chicago to have a "no issue" law, which is why Illinois is now a "shall issue" state. (Actually, MacDonald should already be a precedent so even the lower courts would have to rule against HI going "no issue".) Frankly, if H.R.38 passes as is (that is allowing both resident & non-resident permits) it would be foolish for HI to not change their law to "shall issue" or at least begin to issue under the "may issue" law since that way the state gets the fees for CC permits, instead of other states that we get them from. You know how it is in HI; ANYTHING for MONEY, especially since the state's finances aren't in the best of shape (thank you Dems). I think what they would do is take Sen. Gabbard's bill, add some requirements and jack up the $10 fee to maybe $200.
-
I was only responding to his statement that we have to flee...
I know. I was only pointing out some of the "limitations" of the Hawaii version of Castle Doctrine. :shaka:
-
Ok, let's say 3 no good 20 something year olds were stealing stuff from my storage shed which is 75 ft from my house and I went to take video of them for LE. They see me and threaten to kick my ass. Do I have to run into my house and have them break in before I can shoot them? Some areas of my property is more than a hundred yards from my house and although I am still climbing trees for a commercial tree company part time, at age 67, I may not be able to outrun a 20 year old. This is a very real scenario in Puna. Couple of houses on my road got broken into last month.
I know what I would do. If there was sufficient distance I would yell, "Stop or I will shoot." If they are too close I would just shoot.
-
Ok, let's say 3 no good 20 something year olds were stealing stuff from my storage shed which is 75 ft from my house and I went to take video of them for LE. They see me and threaten to kick my ass. Do I have to run into my house and have them break in before I can shoot them? Some areas of my property is more than a hundred yards from my house and although I am still climbing trees for a commercial tree company part time, at age 67, I may not be able to outrun a 20 year old. This is a very real scenario in Puna. Couple of houses on my road got broken into last month.
I know what I would do. If there was sufficient distance I would yell, "Stop or I will shoot." If they are too close I would just shoot.
As I understand the law, you can carry anywhere on your property, no matter how large it is. So, if you're shooting video of their faces and their actions and then they threaten to beat you up, you can then draw/show your weapon and tell them you're armed and will not hesitate to shoot so they need to stop and drop to the ground so you can call the cops. If they run towards you and those guys are all physically larger than you (disparity of force due to size and number of assailants) you now have reason to fear for your life. Warning them to stop (and them knowing you are armed) and if they continue towards you, they're now displaying opportunity to cause you harm; before they get within 10 yards of you, you should be able to shoot them to stop their attack. Ordinarily, I would think the other 2 would stop immediately after hearing the shot go off; unless they're on drugs or something. If they keep advancing, keep shooting to stop them, not to kill, but just to stop them. Then, you've fulfilled your obligation and can call 911 for immediate help (how long that would be in Puna is yet another story.)
-
Then, you've fulfilled your obligation and can call 911 for immediate help (how long that would be in Puna is yet another story.)
My neighbor has called police 3 times that I know of, to report suspicious persons or vehicles. Response times were ranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours. We are also our own fire department. We have an unmanned fire station staffed by volunteers. If you have an out of control fire, the volunteers have to be rounded up, go to the fire station to get the truck, and then head to your house. Hopefully your catchment tank is full and your fire insurance is up to date because there is no way your house will be saved.
-
As I understand the law, you can carry anywhere on your property, no matter how large it is. So, if you're shooting video of their faces and their actions and then they threaten to beat you up, you can then draw/show your weapon and tell them you're armed and will not hesitate to shoot so they need to stop and drop to the ground so you can call the cops. If they run towards you and those guys are all physically larger than you (disparity of force due to size and number of assailants) you now have reason to fear for your life. Warning them to stop (and them knowing you are armed) and if they continue towards you, they're now displaying opportunity to cause you harm; before they get within 10 yards of you, you should be able to shoot them to stop their attack. Ordinarily, I would think the other 2 would stop immediately after hearing the shot go off; unless they're on drugs or something. If they keep advancing, keep shooting to stop them, not to kill, but just to stop them. Then, you've fulfilled your obligation and can call 911 for immediate help (how long that would be in Puna is yet another story.)
Three guys charging, possibly in poorly lit conditions, sure woulda been nice if the Hawaii Dems had at least given Gabbard's handgun magazine limit change from 10 to 17 bill a hearing. I'm just sayin'... why do the cops "need" "high capacity magazines" and we're criminals if we have one? :wtf:
In the meantime, wonder if we'll ever hear anything about the plans for Baker, or if there is some strategy in play regarding announcing seeking a new trial?
-
My neighbor has called police 3 times that I know of, to report suspicious persons or vehicles. Response times were ranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours. We are also our own fire department. We have an unmanned fire station staffed by volunteers. If you have an out of control fire, the volunteers have to be rounded up, go to the fire station to get the truck, and then head to your house. Hopefully your catchment tank is full and your fire insurance is up to date because there is no way your house will be saved.
For those not familiar with the situation in Puna re "homeowner fire insurance"... the reason many rural Puna subdivisions now have their own "volunteer fire departments" is because prior to establishing such departments virtually no homeowners could get fire insurance because nearly all those rural homes were "too far" from a fire department station. These volunteer departments meet the insurance company requirements of "near enough" firefighting equipment so they will now issue fire insurance to those within the requisite distance of the "station". The fact that the volunteers need to get a call, get from their homes or location wherever they are when they get the call to the station, suit up, then get the truck to the fire itself, by which time the home will be fully engulfed or beyond... it's the distance that matters to the insurers, not the response time or quality of equipment and/or firefighting training. Gotta love the insurers. They go by the "numbers", even if they pick the wrong numbers to analyze, and thus miss the forest for the trees.
-
Three guys charging, possibly in poorly lit conditions, sure woulda been nice if the Hawaii Dems had at least given Gabbard's handgun magazine limit change from 10 to 17 bill a hearing. I'm just sayin'... why do the cops "need" "high capacity magazines" and we're criminals if we have one? :wtf:
In the meantime, wonder if we'll ever hear anything about the plans for Baker, or if there is some strategy in play regarding announcing seeking a new trial?
Typical Democrats; just like Pelosi & company are against guns yet it's funny their own security has guns. What hypocrites! I don't know about a new trial for Baker; the best would be to just appeal to SCOTUS though I'm not sure how much money that's going to take. With Gorsuch being confirmed, I'm certain they would overturn the 9th Circuit's decision (like they've done on so many times with the 9th).
-
For those not familiar with the situation in Puna re "homeowner fire insurance"... the reason many rural Puna subdivisions now have their own "volunteer fire departments" is because prior to establishing such departments virtually no homeowners could get fire insurance because nearly all those rural homes were "too far" from a fire department station. These volunteer departments meet the insurance company requirements of "near enough" firefighting equipment so they will now issue fire insurance to those within the requisite distance of the "station". The fact that the volunteers need to get a call, get from their homes or location wherever they are when they get the call to the station, suit up, then get the truck to the fire itself, by which time the home will be fully engulfed or beyond... it's the distance that matters to the insurers, not the response time or quality of equipment and/or firefighting training. Gotta love the insurers. They go by the "numbers", even if they pick the wrong numbers to analyze, and thus miss the forest for the trees.
Well we all know that's how corporations (and government for that matter) work. I guess that just proves you can't teach "smart" to "stupids". Just like the left-wing Democrats in our Legislature; absolutely no common sense. For some reason, they think that allowing concealed carry in Hawaii would result in "wild west shootouts" and "blood in the streets", etc. They just don't understand that "law-abiding gun owners" do not behave irrationally and we obey the law. We know how great and serious a responsibility it is to be armed in public (as I've carried in a couple of states on the mainland and NEVER got in a situation that required me to draw my weapon) so we don't do "wild west shootouts" and the like. But, like I said, you can't teach that to "stupids".
-
BTW, I just heard on Fox News that 3 cases are coming before the Court in the coming month, besides the Trinity Lutheran Church issue; they stated that the Peruta vs. San Diego case has been appealed to SCOTUS so that is one they may deal with in the coming months. If they overturn the 9th Circuit's decision, HI will become a "shall issue" state unless HI wants to appeal the SCOTUS ruling (highly unlikely as it will cost them a lot of money and net the same result).
-
Typical Democrats; just like Pelosi & company are against guns yet it's funny their own security has guns. What hypocrites! I don't know about a new trial for Baker; the best would be to just appeal to SCOTUS though I'm not sure how much money that's going to take. With Gorsuch being confirmed, I'm certain they would overturn the 9th Circuit's decision (like they've done on so many times with the 9th).
Well, they'd only be hypocrites if their lives had the same value as ours and they got special dispensation to protect theirs in ways we weren't allowed... but they, and their families, are far more important than you and I, who are mere serfs, and thus don't deserve the same level of self-defense capabilities as they do. They are superior beings, and thus deserve special treatment, and all that talk about "God-given" or "natural" inalienable rights (including to self-defense and the best tools to accomplish that) pre-existing any government and the government's main role is to protect those rights from abuse is simply the jabbering of old dead white guys who had no concept of a changing world and thus those ideas no longer apply to you, bumpkin.
Baker is over, there is no case/decision to appeal to anyone, let alone SCOTUS... unless... either side opts to begin the case again, and I rather doubt the state will do that, so it's up to Baker (and we'd be many years from a final decision if appeals were made). We'll possibly find out next Monday if Peruta (See the Peruta cert thread) is granted cert (heard at the same oral arguments date as Baker and Richards (did not ask for cert from SCOTUS). IF, a very big if, Peruta is granted cert, and IF, an even bigger if, it won, I bet Hawaii would still refuse to adopt "shall issue" and require many more years of litigation to force Hawaii specifically to adopt "shall issue" even though the writing could be clearly on the wall if the Peruta decision were written a certain way about certain issues. I know the Progressive Collectivist Statist legislature, executive and judicial branches are not going to relent without fighting all the way...
-
As I understand the law, you can carry anywhere on your property, no matter how large it is. So, if you're shooting video of their faces and their actions and then they threaten to beat you up, you can then draw/show your weapon and tell them you're armed and will not hesitate to shoot so they need to stop and drop to the ground so you can call the cops. If they run towards you and those guys are all physically larger than you (disparity of force due to size and number of assailants) you now have reason to fear for your life. Warning them to stop (and them knowing you are armed) and if they continue towards you, they're now displaying opportunity to cause you harm; before they get within 10 yards of you, you should be able to shoot them to stop their attack. Ordinarily, I would think the other 2 would stop immediately after hearing the shot go off; unless they're on drugs or something. If they keep advancing, keep shooting to stop them, not to kill, but just to stop them. Then, you've fulfilled your obligation and can call 911 for immediate help (how long that would be in Puna is yet another story.)
The law doesnt define residence. So keep in mind, hawaiis AG will look for reasons to go after someone exercising their 2a right. They may ask, if u knew someone was robbing you, or damaging ur property, why did u go outside to investigate. Ur not the police. U would have been safe inside ur home vs. Going outside.
Its how u articulate why u went outside.
Hawaii has a modified castle law. We have no duty to retreat inside our residence or place of business. But still on the hook for civil liability and proving that deadly force was necessary.
Remember we cant defend our property here. Unlike nevada where u can and cant get sued for exercising castle doctrine.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
When I asked the NRA about any legislation regarding federal reciprocity which includes non-resident permits, I was told that H.R.38 allows non-resident permits. That is FALSE. I got hold of the text of the bill and it clearly states that a "non-resident" (ie. tourist visiting another state) who possesses a concealed carry permit issued by his home state is allowed to carry in all states that have a carry statute. That would eliminate all permit holders who have non-resident permits. I've written to Congressman Hudson (drafter of the bill) to ask that an amendment be put in that allows non-resident permit holders to have the same standing as those who have resident permits issued by their home state. As I've stated many times before (not just here) I have a Utah non-resident permit and the requirements for me to obtain it is the same criteria as a Utah resident. Classroom and range time are identical, so it would be "wrong" for the Utah permit holder to be able to visit Hawaii and carry his weapon but I wouldn't be able to here merely because of the status of the permit, not the training or proficiency requirements of the permit holder. Anyway, once Congress gets done with "healthcare & taxes", hopefully they'll have time to spend on this bill and "fix it" so we here would be able to legally carry here once the amended bill clears Congress and is signed by President Trump.
-
When I asked the NRA about any legislation regarding federal reciprocity which includes non-resident permits, I was told that H.R.38 allows non-resident permits. That is FALSE. I got hold of the text of the bill and it clearly states that a "non-resident" (ie. tourist visiting another state) who possesses a concealed carry permit issued by his home state is allowed to carry in all states that have a carry statute. That would eliminate all permit holders who have non-resident permits. I've written to Congressman Hudson (drafter of the bill) to ask that an amendment be put in that allows non-resident permit holders to have the same standing as those who have resident permits issued by their home state. As I've stated many times before (not just here) I have a Utah non-resident permit and the requirements for me to obtain it is the same criteria as a Utah resident. Classroom and range time are identical, so it would be "wrong" for the Utah permit holder to be able to visit Hawaii and carry his weapon but I wouldn't be able to here merely because of the status of the permit, not the training or proficiency requirements of the permit holder. Anyway, once Congress gets done with "healthcare & taxes", hopefully they'll have time to spend on this bill and "fix it" so we here would be able to legally carry here once the amended bill clears Congress and is signed by President Trump.
This issue with HR38 has been gone over in excruciating detail in the thread dedicated to it: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=25711.0
Read the bill.
The language of the bill was changed in December (prior to submission) and submitted in January to allow for a person with a non-resident permit to carry in their state of residence as long as that state has a process/law for issuing CCW licenses/permits (i.e. CCW is not banned). It does not require that anyone in the state actually has obtained a license/permit, so Hawaii would be included, along with all the other "may issue"/de facto "no issue" states and counties.
-
Read the bill.
The language of the bill was changed in December (prior to submission) and submitted in January to allow for a person with a non-resident permit to carry in their state of residence as long as that state has a process/law for issuing CCW licenses/permits (i.e. CCW is not banned). It does not require that anyone in the state actually has obtained a license/permit, so Hawaii would be included, along with all the other "may issue"/de facto "no issue" states and counties.
Here's the part of the bill submitted in January that I have a problem with:
Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—
“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or
“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
That "in the State in which the person resides" seems to indicate that your permit has to be issued by your state of residence. A lot of people use the "driver license" example where your license is good in all states, but think about it; I'm not aware of us being able to obtain a "non-resident driver's license". They're all issued by your state of residence, so if they're applying the same "standard", wouldn't that suggest the carry permit has to be issued by your home state?
As for people saying that Hawaii could just change their law to "no issue", I don't think that's an issue because it would be unconstitutional. SCOTUS already ruled that "no issue" is unconstitutional in the MacDonald case against Chicago. Anyway, I'm no lawyer so I'll just be happy if HR38 really includes non-resident permits and passes both houses and becomes law so that those of us who have non-resident photo-ID concealed-carry permits will be able to carry here in Hawaii.
-
Here's the part of the bill submitted in January that I have a problem with:
Ҥ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms
“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—
“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or
“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
That "in the State in which the person resides" seems to indicate that your permit has to be issued by your state of residence. A lot of people use the "driver license" example where your license is good in all states, but think about it; I'm not aware of us being able to obtain a "non-resident driver's license". They're all issued by your state of residence, so if they're applying the same "standard", wouldn't that suggest the carry permit has to be issued by your home state?
As for people saying that Hawaii could just change their law to "no issue", I don't think that's an issue because it would be unconstitutional. SCOTUS already ruled that "no issue" is unconstitutional in the MacDonald case against Chicago. Anyway, I'm no lawyer so I'll just be happy if HR38 really includes non-resident permits and passes both houses and becomes law so that those of us who have non-resident photo-ID concealed-carry permits will be able to carry here in Hawaii.
Okay. Had to take a deep breath.
You see that word "or" in there?
"...who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun..."
"Or" means either clause separated by the word "or" is operable/valid.
"a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm" means any license from any state, which obviously, if we can invoke logic, would include a state other than one's state of residence.
OR
"permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides" means a person would have reciprocity if they had a permit from their state of residence.
Get it? "Or"/"either/or"/"either"/"one OR the other".
Hawaii could litigate national reciprocity for, possibly, decades. One strategy would be to limit the places where carry would be banned. As I've presented in other threads, the Hawaii AG's position in legal documents (amicus briefs) submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals state that anywhere/everywhere outside the home where the public may be should be considered a "sensitive place", as per the SCOTUS that CCW/open carry may be banned from "sensitive places" (such as government buildings and schools). Another would be to have onerous financial requirements such as 200 hours of training. Another would be to have "good moral character" requirements that, for whatever reasons, ended up taking two years of investigation to verify. And there are others. If they play these one at a time and they all get appealed all the way to SCOTUS, even if the state loses at SCOTUS they got a good 20 years of stalling in the bank.
One "simple" solution would be for all (or at least a majority) of Hawaii's FUDD gun owners to get off their asses and actually take action at the political level and get other people into office who actually would adhere to rather than violate their oath of office to uphold the constitutions. But we all know that ain't gonna happen, so things will continue as they are now...
-
But we all know that ain't gonna happen, so things will continue as they are now...
OK, I get the "or" part; I was just thinking that libs would say if you fail in either one, that would disqualify you. But, yes, we live in a state that's politically horrible because it's always gone Democrat. Most of the problem seems to be the "immigrants" (different immigrant problem than the mainland) who are here legally and can vote, but they, for some reason, always votes for the "D". They care nothing of the candidate or what the candidate stands for or doesn't stand for; they just keep voting by party. Isn't it any wonder why that even when a candidate is so horrible that the entire country voted for that President, only Hawaii was for the Democrat (Reagan apparently won 49 of 50 states). Even Alaska voted Republican and both Hawaii & Alaska was admitted in the same year into the Union. I guess if we want to be armed outside the home, we may have to just move (I know so many people who were born & raised here that have all moved to Vegas; not that I would ever move there, but there's a lot of other "gun friendly" states with decent weather.) :thumbsup:
BTW, here's a URL to get the current status of the Peruta appeal to SCOTUS: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/
-
BTW, here's a URL to get the current status of the Peruta appeal to SCOTUS: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/perutavsandiego/
Yeah, well Michelle and Associates are as incompetent at maintaining current information at their website as they were/are in litigating Peruta. Their latest listing is for APRIL 12, 2017... So they're just 10 weeks behind the times, which I'd hardly call "current status". Ridiculous.
They do provide a link to the SCOTUS Peruta page (also provided elsewhere in this forum in the Peruta thread) where you can update yourself on what's happened in the past 10 weeks: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
By the way, please note that the legal team of SAF/Gura dropped out of the case (companion to Peruta, Richards v. Prieto) after the Ninth Circuit en banc decision and chose not to appeal to SCOTUS. Who's more likely to understand the merits of the case as presented and argued in the lower courts (and thus worthy or not of appeal to SCOTUS), Gura (litigator for Heller and McDonald) or Michelle and Associates?
Also note that the "fake" open carry case now being brought by Michelle and Associates (having seen that they totally screwed up with Peruta after 8 years) has been scheduled for district court trial on February 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. It's my belief that they've totally screwed up that case as well, but I guess we'll have to wait and see... maybe another 8 years (though I hope either Norman and/or Nichols will before then have been at least accepted by SCOTUS for cert).
-
They do provide a link to the SCOTUS Peruta page (also provided elsewhere in this forum in the Peruta thread) where you can update yourself on what's happened in the past 10 weeks: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
I guess they now think that gun owners have a disease or we are diseased by firearms... used to wonder what the hell CDC has to do with guns, but I guess liberalism permeates all organizations whether governmental or NGOs...
-
I guess they now think that gun owners have a disease or we are diseased by firearms... used to wonder what the hell CDC has to do with guns, but I guess liberalism permeates all organizations whether governmental or NGOs...
That was my error in pasting a wrong link. Not that it isn't interesting reading... but the SCOTUS Peruta page is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm
[Not updated yet to show today's denial of cert.]
-
SCOTUS has spoken. They refused to hear the Peruta case.
-
SCOTUS has spoken. They refused to hear the Peruta case.
Apparently, only Justice Thomas (with Gorsuch supporting) dissented on that decision to not hear the case. I guess the only way SCOTUS will settle it once and for all is if the federal reciprocity bill passes and is singed into law by President Trump, then the anti-gun groups will appeal to SCOTUS. Supposedly, the fact that only Thomas & Gorsuch were "in" on the dissent doesn't necessarily mean 2A would lose such an appeal so there's some hope yet. Of course, Congress would have to get health care and taxes out of the way before they'd even begin to look at the reciprocity bills.
-
I guess nobody really cares since this happened over a month ago, but... Baker officially doesn't exist anymore. It's over. Dead as a doornail. History. Or, as the legal document states: "concluded in toto". Might as well close this thread unless people want to discuss the legal strategy (which the plaintiff explains throughout this thread) and how that worked out.
And, yes, this link to the actual court document is provided free of charge by one of those "open carry idiots who do more to hurt us then [sic] help us"--Surf.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/92-Stipulation-and-Order-Dismissing-Lawsuit-with-Prejudice.pdf
ORDER AND STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL
OF ALL CLAIMS AND PARTIES WITH PREJUDICE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between all of the parties currently remaining in this action, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that all claims be dismissed with prejudice.
No trial is currently set in this matter as the proceedings were stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal.
As a result of this Stipulated Dismissal, this action is concluded in toto. No other claims and/or parties remain.