Post by: Charles Nichols on August 24, 2020, 12:24:19 PM
Post by: Drakiir84 on August 24, 2020, 12:28:32 PM
Post by: 6716J on August 24, 2020, 10:07:24 PM
The wheels of justice move slowly, and in our case, backwards......backwards......
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Post by: Brystont1 on August 30, 2020, 06:03:44 PM
.....backwards......
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Date is set for 9/24/2020 my birthday baby!
Post by: punaperson on August 31, 2020, 08:50:42 AM
For live streaming video, go to this site the morning of the 24th and click the appropriate link:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/live_oral_arguments.php
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 07, 2020, 04:24:07 PM
Over a year and a half ago, I wrote my first Pre-Game Analysis of Young v. Hawaii but the en banc case was stayed pending the decision by SCOTUS in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City. That case was dismissed as moot, which put Young v. Hawaii back into play. My analysis has changed somewhat since then. For one thing, we have over a year and a half of decisions by the judges which have given more insight in how they are likely to vote and we have two potential en banc judges who took senior status. As they were not judges who sat on the Young v. Hawaii three-judge panel, Judges Bybee and Bea are not eligible to sit on the Young v. Hawaii en banc panel.
The final analysis remains the same. Six votes are needed to win.
More -> https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/young-v-hawaii-handgun-open-carry-pre-game-analysis-ii_167628/ (https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/young-v-hawaii-handgun-open-carry-pre-game-analysis-ii_167628/)
Post by: Antithesis on September 08, 2020, 06:04:01 PM
Also, the Youtube video at the bottom was hilarious to watch, particularly watching Young's counsel trying not to laugh while the attorney was getting picked apart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3yOFtgYkfM
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 08, 2020, 07:56:48 PM
When I first watched the oral argument, I was speechless. The irony is that I had filed an unopposed motion (the State of California did not oppose) to argue my California Open Carry appeal before the same three-judge panel that heard Young v. Hawaii. I had no great desire to travel 3,000 miles to go to the beach given that I live near the beach but the California's state's attorney seemed to like the idea of going to Hawaii. The 9th circuit asked the Hawaii state's attorney if he would come to Pasadena instead and argue the appeal before my three-judge panel. He said no.
The irony is that had he said yes then he would have argued his case before three judges far more hostile to the Second Amendment. I don't remember off the top of my head who those three judges were, I just remember looking back and being greatly relieved that the Hawaii attorney said, "No!"
But if my appeal had been heard before the same three-judge panel as Young v. Hawaii then I would now be going through the expense of an en banc rehearing and I would have the same statistically likely to be hostile en banc panel that Young has.
If Young ultimately wins then I win. If he loses then I get to file an en banc petition with a much-improved pool of judges.
Ironic and lucky.
Post by: punaperson on September 13, 2020, 09:47:50 PM
Young v. Hawaii en banc panel to be unveiled tomorrow (Monday) morning by 10:00 AM [7 AM Hawaii time].
I suspect Charles Nichols will post an article or comments within hours of the announcement detailing the past record of the chosen judges re Second Amendment and/or related issues.
https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/?redirect=false (https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/?redirect=false)
Keep your fingers crossed... or something. :shaka:
Post by: punaperson on September 14, 2020, 06:59:24 AM
https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/posts/3252333931516074?__tn__=K-R
(https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/posts/3252333931516074?__tn__=K-R)
My "summary": "No way of "knowing" with the selected panel of judges, but It's likely gonna be close either way."
Post by: zippz on September 14, 2020, 07:30:47 AM
Clifton throws a wrench into that as a republican appointee who previously decided against Young. I didn't know the prior young decision had 3 republican appointees. Guess it maybe up to Democrat appointed Wardlaw to decide. I give it a 40% chance of winning.
Post by: macsak on September 15, 2020, 12:02:04 PM
Post by: groveler on September 15, 2020, 06:42:58 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMVjt4naLFUI was never aware that Democrat judges and Republican judges were supposed to
read the same words and come to different conclusions based on politics alone.
perhaps we need to introduce them to a new word,
"Sturmgewehr".
They keep it up, legislating from the bench, and even if they don't
know German they will figure it out, soon.
Especially if Biden get elected.
Post by: robtmc on September 15, 2020, 07:20:05 PM
I was never aware that Democrat judges and Republican judges were supposed toThe treacherous SC justus Rogers hilariously claimed there were no "political" judges.
read the same words and come to different conclusions based on politics alone.
That must have come as a shock for all those liberal causes that have to shop for politically sympathetic judges.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 20, 2020, 03:26:21 AM
@Armed Scholar - How is it you know about the Baird v. Becerra lawsuit, filed last year and now has to start over, and yet you make no mention of my California Open Carry lawsuit Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al, filed in 2011? My appeal is already fully briefed and argued on appeal. If the Young v. Hawaii en banc panel holds that the Second Amendment extends outside the doors to our home, and even if it decides the state can require a heightened need for a license to carry a handgun then I win my Open Carry lawsuit and the Baird v. Becerra lawsuit becomes moot.
Post by: tillamook on September 21, 2020, 10:51:42 AM
^ Thank you for sharing your article. That was a good read.
Also, the Youtube video at the bottom was hilarious to watch, particularly watching Young's counsel trying not to laugh while the attorney was getting picked apart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3yOFtgYkfM
Thanks for that. After watching the department of health self destruct its nice to have confirmation that absolutely no one in this state's government is competent. I'm going to go figure out what I'm going to spent my state taxes on instead of paying them.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 22, 2020, 03:06:46 PM
Also, the plaintiff's attorney limited her opening statement to two minutes. The government's attorney spoke for 4 1/2 minutes without interruption in his opening statement.
Post by: zippz on September 22, 2020, 03:17:58 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX71KI_VR14
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 22, 2020, 09:34:04 PM
^ Thank you for sharing your article. That was a good read.
Also, the Youtube video at the bottom was hilarious to watch, particularly watching Young's counsel trying not to laugh while the attorney was getting picked apart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3yOFtgYkfM
This was a very interesting watch. Good to see the judges really challange the state.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 23, 2020, 12:31:13 PM
https://youtu.be/YX71KI_VR14 (https://youtu.be/YX71KI_VR14)
Post by: punaperson on September 24, 2020, 07:56:28 AM
Post by: punaperson on September 24, 2020, 11:26:54 AM
Post by: Drakiir84 on September 24, 2020, 11:27:44 AM
Post by: rpoL98 on September 24, 2020, 11:34:16 AM
"equipoise", sheesh.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 24, 2020, 11:37:20 AM
Okay... well, I'm kinda nauseous... anyone else?
Well......um....I.....um.......I mean......um.......well........um.......if I.......um.......*barf* :wacko:
Post by: zippz on September 24, 2020, 12:05:01 PM
Judges had their minds made up before the hearing. The hearing can only sway them a little or change the focus in minor ways.
Alan is a good man and has a good heart, he took the case for Mr Young when no one else did and when hardly anyone knew about it. I can relate with him as I my public speaking skills are bad. We're always analyzing so we can't focus on speaking.
Post by: rpoL98 on September 24, 2020, 12:13:41 PM
Braddah Alan should look into getting his sinuses fixed.Braddah Alan should make more of an investment into live-stream audio equipment. I mean, come on, man, Twitch live-streamers spend more on mic's and cam's than what we saw today. Same applies to some of the judges, who apparently don't take this work-from-home situation seriously.
Gee whiz, there's a fuck-ton of rights at stake here, bring the A-game. yeah, i know, costs money, limited resources, Wayne LaPierre's thousand-dollar suits and all.
ETA: what i mean, is, our 2A money would be better spent helping Braddah Alan out, rather than clothing Wayne LaPierre.
Post by: zippz on September 24, 2020, 12:21:15 PM
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 24, 2020, 01:00:12 PM
Okay... well, I'm kinda nauseous... anyone else?
Alan Beck did an impressive job of arguing his case. The panel he drew was not his fault. If he loses then it is the fault of the judges, not because of his oral argument.
Neither Beck nor I is an orator like Richard Burton. What is important in an oral argument is what one says, and just importantly, what one does not say. Beck said what he needed to say and didn't say anything the panel ccould take as a concession. That doesn't mean that the panel won't put words in his mouth or rewrite the facts of his case in favor of the state but that, once again, that is not his fault.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 24, 2020, 01:02:14 PM
About 5 organizations helped Alan prepare for this hearing, including the NRA.
What five organizations would that be? How do you know that they helped him prepare for his hearing? It certainly wasn't the NRA helping him to prepare. Chuck "strap on" Michel criticized back within the last week or so.
Post by: Brystont1 on September 24, 2020, 01:26:27 PM
Post by: dwela on September 24, 2020, 01:59:42 PM
Post by: zippz on September 24, 2020, 02:21:29 PM
What five organizations would that be? How do you know that they helped him prepare for his hearing? It certainly wasn't the NRA helping him to prepare. Chuck "strap on" Michel criticized back within the last week or so.
NRA did it not of want, but of need. Other was heritage or federalist society. Forgot what the others were. It was a big group effort behind the scenes.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 24, 2020, 03:01:51 PM
NRA did it not of want, but of need. Other was heritage or federalist society. Forgot what the others were. It was a big group effort behind the scenes.
Where did you hear of this? Neither Beck nor his partner made any mention of it to me. Granted I hear more often from his partner than from Beck but it seems to me his partner would have been kept in the loop.
In any event, I think Beck did very well. And if you knew how critical I had been of him in the past then that might just count for something.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 24, 2020, 03:33:24 PM
NRA did it not of want, but of need. Other was heritage or federalist society. Forgot what the others were. It was a big group effort behind the scenes.
Four hours ago, the NRA lawyer, Chuck "strap on" Michel took a dump on Alan Beck for arguing the Young case out of "ego and pride." Either you are misinformed about the NRA coaching Mr. Beck or Michel has been cut out of the loop.
Post by: pj_benn on September 25, 2020, 11:34:32 AM
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 25, 2020, 01:18:21 PM
Is there a time limit for the decision?
No time limit.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 25, 2020, 03:06:19 PM
Post by: RSN172 on September 25, 2020, 03:13:02 PM
No time limit.Ha, I can see them taking 2 or more years. Congress needs to make a law requiring decisions to be made in 6 months or less.That should be more than adequate.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 25, 2020, 03:21:55 PM
Ha, I can see them taking 2 or more years. Congress needs to make a law requiring decisions to be made in 6 months or less.That should be more than adequate.
They won't take 2 or more years. If they take a year, Beck can file a writ of mandamus with SCOTUS asking that the 9th circuit issue its opinion. I would have to recheck the law but I am pretty sure he can file a cert petition with SCOTUS before the 9th circuit issues its opinion. There is an informal rule that these petitions take five votes to grant but if SCOTUS nominates the right person and she is confirmed then Beck may very well have the fifth vote he needs to grant his petition, and the five votes he needs to win.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 25, 2020, 03:28:35 PM
https://www.kitv.com/story/42683650/attorney-argues-hawaii-law-is-a-ban-on-carrying-guns
“Hawaii’s carry law is the most restrictive in the country,” Beck told The Associated Press. “Hawaii is the only place in the country where it’s effectively impossible to get a permit.”
Certainly true in regards to "carry" permits but the general public cannot obtain a handgun Open Carry permit in California counties with a population of 200,000 or more people because they are prohibited by law. There is a lawsuit in the district court that was filed last year that alleges that no handgun Open Carry licenses are granted in those counties and there never has been.
Although licensing is secondary in my California Open Carry lawsuit, now on appeal, I did ask for both an application and a handgun Open Carry license but was denied both. Not because I don't have "good cause" or for any other reason than sheriffs and police chiefs are prohibited by law from issuing them to people in counties of 200,000 or more people.
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 27, 2020, 07:33:58 PM
Young v. Hawaii Handgun Open Carry – Post-Game Analysis - https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/young-v-hawaii-handgun-open-carry-post-game-analysis_168087/
Hawaii Stabbed California in the Back in Handgun Open Carry Lawsuit - https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/hawaii-stabs-california-in-the-back-in-handgun-open-carry-lawsuit_168131/
Post by: macsak on September 27, 2020, 08:45:56 PM
I wrote a couple of articles on the Young v. Hawaii en banc oral argument that dive deeper than the shallow coverage it has been given to date.
Young v. Hawaii Handgun Open Carry – Post-Game Analysis - https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/young-v-hawaii-handgun-open-carry-post-game-analysis_168087/
Hawaii Stabbed California in the Back in Handgun Open Carry Lawsuit - https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/hawaii-stabs-california-in-the-back-in-handgun-open-carry-lawsuit_168131/
clickbait...
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 27, 2020, 10:08:21 PM
clickbait...
And yet the links to other articles posted here aren't clickbait?
Are you Christopher Baker by chance?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 27, 2020, 11:29:14 PM
And yet the links to other articles posted here aren't clickbait?
The,"Two wrongs make a right" argument.
I can tell you went to law school. :thumbsup: :shaka:
Post by: macsak on September 28, 2020, 07:20:09 AM
And yet the links to other articles posted here aren't clickbait?
Are you Christopher Baker by chance?
no, they aren't
would it make any difference if I was?
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 28, 2020, 09:50:05 AM
no, they aren't
would it make any difference if I was?
I found out who you are.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 28, 2020, 10:32:07 AM
I found out who you are.
Good for you.
:popcorn:
Post by: macsak on September 28, 2020, 12:16:34 PM
I found out who you are.
it's not a secret
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 28, 2020, 12:40:00 PM
it's not a secret
I don't ask and you don't tell.
Post by: macsak on September 28, 2020, 01:01:05 PM
I don't ask and you don't tell.
heads
Post by: hvybarrels on September 29, 2020, 10:58:32 AM
it's not a secret
It would be kind of funny if someone pulled off your mask like a scoobydoo villain to reveal Chris Baker underneath. Da da DAAAAAA!
Post by: Bota-CS1 on September 29, 2020, 11:31:45 AM
I don't ask and you don't tell.
It's like he's stuck in a closet or something....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFosUj6A22c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFosUj6A22c)
Post by: zippz on September 29, 2020, 12:03:59 PM
I recognize that Nichols has some faults and it's difficult to want to support him, but he has made major ontributions to the effort in filing his own lawsuit just as Young did and teaching others the intricacies of what's going on.
Post by: macsak on September 29, 2020, 12:32:52 PM
It would be kind of funny if someone pulled off your mask like a scoobydoo villain to reveal Chris Baker underneath. Da da DAAAAAA!
I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 30, 2020, 08:42:12 AM
Nichols summary of the case looks good and there's several ways this could go. Half of me wants to win it now, the other half wants to take the chance and win it in SCOTUS.
I recognize that Nichols has some faults and it's difficult to want to support him, but he has made major ontributions to the effort in filing his own lawsuit just as Young did and teaching others the intricacies of what's going on.
I think even if Young wins, HI will take it to SCOTUS. Pretty sure if we win, states like NY will be telling HI to take 1 for the team and don't pursue any further.
Post by: punaperson on September 30, 2020, 10:35:29 AM
I think even if Young wins, HI will take it to SCOTUS. Pretty sure if we win, states like NY will be telling HI to take 1 for the team and don't pursue any further.Especially if by that time Trump will have replaced Breyer and maybe even the obese latina diabetic.
Post by: 6716J on September 30, 2020, 01:40:11 PM
I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0617/7485/products/meddlingkidsnewsticker_590x.jpg?v=1596333560)