2aHawaii

General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: wolfwood on May 05, 2013, 05:08:22 AM

Title: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on May 05, 2013, 05:08:22 AM
Here is the Young thread. 

All the documents can be found here.

http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: spanner1751 on May 05, 2013, 06:14:12 AM
Thank you for your efforts on this.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Heavies on May 05, 2013, 07:06:43 AM
 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Lihikai on May 05, 2013, 10:23:43 AM
Thank you for your efforts on this.

+1
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: michalebsdad on May 05, 2013, 11:00:00 AM
Thank you for your efforts on this.

  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: pastordennis on May 05, 2013, 11:44:46 AM
Thank you patriot. May God Bless your efforts with a complete win in favor of -F-R-E-E-D-O-M.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: OldFaithful on May 05, 2013, 11:54:49 AM
This is great!!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on May 05, 2013, 04:44:24 PM
thank you for the kind words

My mentor Richard Holcomb and I are litigating Baker v. Kealoha all of our work is pro bono
which challenges 134-9, the baton carry ban and the Taser ban

and I filed a amicus brief in Fisher v. Kealoha which turned the case into a constitutional challenge to overturn HRS 134-2  and if we are very lucky 134-7 along with this document called a notice of unconstitutionality

Filed Amicus Fisher (http://www.scribd.com/doc/139644022/Filed-Amicus-Fisher#)
Notice of Uncon Fisher (http://www.scribd.com/doc/127020223/Notice-of-Uncon-Fisher#)


Mr. Baker is going to find appropriate counsel to argue this since I live on the mainland.

I am really hoping this is the year my auntie can finally get a CCW since she works late hours at a hospital in Oahu


Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: new guy on May 05, 2013, 05:14:57 PM
.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on May 05, 2013, 05:18:35 PM
Honestly I have no idea. They'll have to rewrite the laws and then maybe I can answer that.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Bunker on May 05, 2013, 06:36:02 PM
Thank you for your efforts on this.
My sentiments as well...thank you, Chris and everyone involved for all of your hard work, dedication and continued persistance! :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on May 24, 2013, 04:14:47 PM
filed today I have 14 days to respond
Young Answering Brief (http://www.scribd.com/doc/143500674/Young-Answering-Brief#)

we are in good shape to say the least guys
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: bass monkey on May 24, 2013, 04:23:37 PM
Thank you for the update. Great work you guys are doing.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on May 24, 2013, 05:42:45 PM
BTW since I am online here is a article Burton wrote for me.
https://jkdunlimited.com/articles/by-burton-richardson/knife-drawing-speed-comparison-switch-blade-butterfly-knife-spyderco-cold-steel-common-pocket-knife/
Knife Drawing Speed Comparison
Switch Blade, Butterfly Knife, Spyderco,
Cold Steel, Common Pocket Knife

I live in Hawaii where there is a ban on switch blades and butterfly (Filipino balisong) knives. Apparently, the reasoning behind these bans is that these types of knives are inherently more dangerous than other legal folding knives due to their rapid, one-hand deployment. I wondered if this distinction was accurate, so I tested the speed of presentation of five different blades: a Benchmade switch blade, a butterfly knife, a Spyderco Delica 4, a Cold Steel “Espada”, and a common pocket knife. The switch blade was legally owned by a military officer. The butterfly knife was a legal, dull-edged training version, while the others are legal to carry in Hawaii.

To deploy a folding knife, one must first pull the blade from a pocket or carrying system before unfolding the knife. The old argument is that a switch blade or balisong is too dangerous to be entrusted to the public because a citizen can pull and quickly open the blade with one hand. But do these two actually have a decisive advantage on speed of deployment? To test the speeds, I started with the knife in my pocket and my hand grasping the knife in a manner conducive to opening. The person timing gave the command “draw” while pushing the start button on the stopwatch. The timer hit stop after the blade clicked into the locked position. In reality, a little extra time would be required to achieve a functional grip, but just timing until the locked position was empirically more accurate since the timer would have to visually judge when a proper grip was achieved. Please note that there is certainly some variance due to the impossibility of having the exact same draw stroke each time, but that variance is minimal. I did only did four draws for each knife as I found that the difference per draw was very slight. Also, I did not go at absolute full speed. I did smooth, efficient draw.

Here are the draw times for each knife, starting in the pocket with my hand on the knife and ending when the blade was open and locked in place:

Switch Blade                 0.9, 1.0, 0.9, 1.0  Average = 0.95 seconds

Butterfly knife              1.3, 1.4. 1.2, 1.5  Average = 1.35 seconds

Spyderco                         0.9, 0.9, 1.0, 0.9  Average = 0.925 seconds

Cold Steel “Espada”   0.5, 0.7, 0.6, 0.6  Average = 0.6 seconds

Pocket Knife                  1.0, 0.9, 1.0, 0.9  Average = 0.95

The Cold Steel “Espada” was by far the fastest. This was due to the “thumb plate” that can catch on the pocket hem so that the blade opens as the knife is pulled. Very quick and legal.

The Spyderco was second fastest. It has a ring at the top of the blade which is grasped between the thumb and forefinger. As soon as the knife clears the pocket a snap of the wrist locks open the blade. Very fast and legal.

Interesting to me is that the switch blade and the pocket knife tied for third. The pocket knife I used did have a stud in the blade so that one can push the blade open with thumb as the blade clears. The switch blade needs to be taken all the way out of the pocket before depressing  the button to pop open the knife.

Slowest by far is the much-maligned butterfly knife. I started with the lock open and pinched between my thumb and forefinger for the quickest type of butterfly knife draw. I drew the knife, snapped down and up, the handle swung out and upward into my hand so I ended with a reverse grip. This is quicker than the more common 3-count opening that most people use. For fun, I timed the 3-count opening and got an average of 1.45 seconds.

So why are butterfly knives and switch blades illegal? It clearly doesn’t have anything to do with superior quickness of deployment. I suppose the lawmakers watched a few too many action flicks where the switch blades and butterfly knives were in the hands of the bad guys.

Burton Richardson
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Funtimes on May 25, 2013, 05:35:18 PM
I'm betting the Espada is same speed as my Emerson.  Emerson has their opening mechanism which is designed to catch the pocket and flip open.  Gotta be careful opening in the car or you might stab the seat lol.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: hnl.flyboy on May 27, 2013, 11:31:09 AM
So why are butterfly knives and switch blades illegal? It clearly doesn’t have anything to do with superior quickness of deployment. I suppose the lawmakers watched a few too many action flicks where the switch blades and butterfly knives were in the hands of the bad guys.

Simple...The same reason we have a law against "Assault Pistols."

They look scary.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: GZire on May 28, 2013, 11:06:53 AM
..............So why are butterfly knives and switch blades illegal? It clearly doesn’t have anything to do with superior quickness of deployment. I suppose the lawmakers watched a few too many action flicks where the switch blades and butterfly knives were in the hands of the bad guys.

Burton Richardson


Illegal because people in Hawaii are stoopid and scared easily.  God forbid someone actually pulls out a kitchen knife which, I think, may actually deploy faster......
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: MisterEd on May 28, 2013, 06:40:06 PM
One sentence in the 'Response to Motion to Strike' really stood out for me....

"Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights."

Something for all of us to keep in mind.

  aloha,
    Mr. Ed
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on June 01, 2013, 08:40:15 PM
reply brief
Filed George Young Reply Brief (http://www.scribd.com/doc/145198545/Filed-George-Young-Reply-Brief#)

briefing is complete
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: hnl.flyboy on June 01, 2013, 09:12:09 PM
reply brief
Filed George Young Reply Brief (http://www.scribd.com/doc/145198545/Filed-George-Young-Reply-Brief#)

briefing is complete

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Dregs on June 05, 2013, 08:19:38 AM
I can't access scribd at work!....can anyone nutshell what the George young reply says?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: FATMANWA on June 06, 2013, 02:47:27 PM
So from what I understand the Judges ruling is all these laws should be struck down? Sounds pretty good to me. I am assuming the state will have the chance to appeal it before it takes affect, correct?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: FATMANWA on June 09, 2013, 07:54:19 PM
Any news??
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Funtimes on June 11, 2013, 01:45:43 PM
Any news??

Check back in a year.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: FATMANWA on June 11, 2013, 04:28:39 PM
Check back in a year.

Not surprising, sadly I will no longer be in Hawaii.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: MisterEd on June 11, 2013, 06:54:20 PM
Glad to see you're still such an optimist, Funtimes.
 :)
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on March 28, 2015, 09:59:45 PM
Glad to see you're still such an optimist, Funtimes.
 :)
It's been 22 months since Chris posted his "Check back in a year" message. That year wait looks awfully good right now. Young is held up indefinitely (apparently) while Peruta/Richards/Baker continue to be stonewalled and delayed for years be addressed in a timely manner by the judicial system. Too bad, because Young would/could strike some deep blows against Hawaii's unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. At this point I'm tempted to say "Wait two years", but that might be unrealistically overly optimistic.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Funtimes on March 29, 2015, 08:58:30 PM
It's been 22 months since Chris posted his "Check back in a year" message. That year wait looks awfully good right now. Young is held up indefinitely (apparently) while Peruta/Richards/Baker continue to be stonewalled and delayed for years be addressed in a timely manner by the judicial system. Too bad, because Young would/could strike some deep blows against Hawaii's unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. At this point I'm tempted to say "Wait two years", but that might be unrealistically overly optimistic.

I'll help you out.  Check back when I am retired =P  :shaka:  only 22 years to go!
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on May 09, 2017, 06:27:25 AM
It's been 22 months since Chris posted his "Check back in a year" message. That year wait looks awfully good right now. Young is held up indefinitely (apparently) while Peruta/Richards/Baker continue to be stonewalled and delayed for years be addressed in a timely manner by the judicial system. Too bad, because Young would/could strike some deep blows against Hawaii's unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment. At this point I'm tempted to say "Wait two years", but that might be unrealistically overly optimistic.
Well, quoting myself above, I was "unrealistically overly optimistic", as we are more than two years down the road and things are still "in limbo", though at least Peruta is nearing some finality (of some kind in it's quest for cert at SCOTUS). I'd have to say that at this point I have no idea when anything will happen with this case that would be "definitive" (i.e. a dismissal or actual oral arguments before the Ninth, etc.), but "years" is (unfortunately) likely the proper unit of measurement.

A "Supplemental authority" regarding the Fisher v. Kealoha decision was just filed (quoting the same portions of judge Kozinski's dissent/"rumination" that I posted on the Fisher v Kealoha thread).

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/105-1-Young-v-Hawaii-FRAP28j.pdf
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on June 28, 2017, 07:44:06 AM
Well, here is some (sorta) news, as something (sorta) has happened that could (sorta) possibly mean that something could (sorta) happen with this case.

[TLDR: the legal pathway is now free to schedule orals/decision in Young, and if orals are scheduled Nichols will ask that his open carry case be heard simultaneously.]

From Charles Nichols who has his open carry case on appeals before the Ninth CCA, which was stayed pending the now-finally-totally-defunct Peruta case.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=846

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 27,  2017 – This appeal was stayed pending the disposition of Baker v. Kealoha.  Baker v. Kealoha was remanded back to the district court thereby terminating the stay.  Nevertheless, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion to lift the stay (which was no longer in effect).  Today, the Clerk of the Court entered an Order (on behalf of the Court) lifting the stay.  The Clerk also said that ” This appeal shall be placed on the next available calendar.”

103 – Order lifting stay of appeal – Young v Hawaii – Filed June 27, 2017  http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/103-Order-lifting-stay-of-appeal-Young-v-Hawaii.pdf

If this appeal is scheduled for oral arguments then you should not be surprised to see a motion from me asking for my appeal to be heard at the same time, before the same panel.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: drck1000 on June 28, 2017, 08:07:04 AM
Catching up on all of this.  Let me see if I got most of what's going on now SCOTUS essentially did an "I'm not touching that".

Essentially a number of cases were pending decisions on Peruta.  So some are going to now be moving forward?  I also assumed that now that Peruta is, or at least seems dead in the water, that many cases would also be of similar fate.  I assume each case can be pursued based on it's own merits, just that I recall a number of cases being sort of put on pause pending Peruta. 

As I understand it, SCOTUS saying "they're not touching" Peruta basically means things need to get dealt with at lower levels.  On one hand, that's not that promising considering our district/area and seems like cases that could normally get elevated to SCOTUS probably would suffer the same fate. However, maybe some start breaking through as lower courts get filled with hopefully more conservative judges. 
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on June 28, 2017, 08:42:19 AM
I'm just making wild speculative guesses here...

Catching up on all of this.  Let me see if I got most of what's going on now SCOTUS essentially did an "I'm not touching that".

SCOTUS let stand the Ninth CCA ruling that "There is no constitutional right to bear arms concealed in public". I.e. Concealed Carry is a "privilege", not a "right", and states may regulate in any manner they choose, including ban it (i.e. what we de facto have in Hawaii...  perfectly legal and constitutional according the the Ninth CCA).

Essentially a number of cases were pending decisions on Peruta.  So some are going to now be moving forward? 

Yes. A number of cases were "stayed", i.e. not allowed to progress in the decision-making process because the issues they raised would (likely) be effected by the eventual outcome of Peruta. First up, and both raising questions of "open carry", are Young and Nichols.

I also assumed that now that Peruta is, or at least seems dead in the water, that many cases would also be of similar fate. 

Peruta is OVER. There are no further options to litigate it. There may be an option akin to "please please please change your mind SCOTUS and reconsider cert", but what, justices are going to change their mind after they just voted? Any case in the Ninth CCA arguing anything based upon a claim there is a constitutional right to bear arms concealed is public would be dead in the water. Though if that was not the exclusive claim, it could still be alive on the other claims.

I assume each case can be pursued based on it's own merits, just that I recall a number of cases being sort of put on pause pending Peruta. 

As I understand it, SCOTUS saying "they're not touching" Peruta basically means things need to get dealt with at lower levels.  On one hand, that's not that promising considering our district/area and seems like cases that could normally get elevated to SCOTUS probably would suffer the same fate.

It's unquestionably clear that the vast majority of the judges sitting on the Ninth CCA oppose bearing arms in public, certainly concealed, so any such cases are pretty doomed to failure in the Ninth. Thomas suggested in his dissent that some members of SCOTUS want a "cleaner" case than Peruta, which raises a single question more clearly, which would render a more precise legal decision. So they might still take a case (Norman, Nichols, Grace, etc.), but no one knows if or which one would meet the criteria of the hesitant justices.

However, maybe some start breaking through as lower courts get filled with hopefully more conservative judges.

The balance of judges changing is going to be a long long process, and likely only get to an "even" level of "conservative"/"liberal" if Republicans controlled the White House for a dozen years or more, AND made consistently "good" appointments, unlike those of the Bushes.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 07, 2017, 04:46:25 PM
On July 4, 2017 Mr. Nichols filed the paperwork mentioned above to have his case heard at the same time Young is heard before the three-judge panel (as Peruta, Richards, and Baker were all heard before the same panel due to close similarity in subject matter). The likely earliest date Young might be scheduled is October, 2017.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/82-Plaintiff-Appellant-Nichols-Motion-to-Schedule-Oral-Argument-With-Related-Case.pdf

If the court takes Young separately, the court could stay Nichols (as Young and Nichols were stayed pending a final decision in Peruta) because some of the same issues are raised, thus delaying Nichols' case by at least a year if not two or more (assuming further appeals on the inevitable "loss" before the Ninth). While the seeming "delay" tactics have been prominent with the Second Amendment cases before the Ninth up to this point, some people think that due to the likelihood that Trump will be appointing at least one more Justice to SCOTUS prior to the end of his first term, that the Ninth judges might be re-thinking the delay strategy, as the longer the delay, the more likely the makeup of SCOTUS justices will be swinging to the Second Amendment advocates side. Time will tell. Of course I may no longer around by then... (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/oji.gif) but I'm hoping for the best!
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on July 11, 2017, 03:42:12 PM
the Court asked if I available the week of Nov 6th for oral argument in Pasadena.

I said yes. County of Hawaii said they were not wiling to fly to the mainland though so it might get delayed.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 11, 2017, 04:17:24 PM
the Court asked if I available the week of Nov 6th for oral argument in Pasadena.

I said yes. County of Hawaii said they were not wiling to fly to the mainland though so it might get delayed.
Can any attorneys, or only government attorneys tell the Ninth Circuit they are "not willing" to appear at the location of a scheduled court proceeding? What is the "solution"? Move the orals to Hilo? Have the court pay airfare for the county attorneys? Just say "Ah, you guys win anyway, no need to show up"?

Not that I'm very familiar with the legal world, but I've never heard of this one before...
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on July 11, 2017, 04:27:08 PM
Can any attorneys, or only government attorneys tell the Ninth Circuit they are "not willing" to appear at the location of a scheduled court proceeding? What is the "solution"? Move the orals to Hilo? Have the court pay airfare for the county attorneys? Just say "Ah, you guys win anyway, no need to show up"?

Not that I'm very familiar with the legal world, but I've never heard of this one before...

They want it moved to Oahu. Let's just say it is a bolder approach than I would take. Normally you have to have a reason for why you can't show up and not wanting to fly typically is not a good enough reason.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on July 11, 2017, 04:32:41 PM
They want it moved to Oahu. Let's just say it is a bolder approach than I would take. Normally you have to have a reason for why you can't show up and not wanting to fly typically is not a good enough reason.

They dont have the money, they spent it all fighting trumps travel ban lol
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 11, 2017, 04:39:46 PM
They want it moved to Oahu. Let's just say it is a bolder approach than I would take. Normally you have to have a reason for why you can't show up and not wanting to fly typically is not a good enough reason.
Thank you for the update/information. They're (County of Hawaii) willing to fly to Oahu? I guess that means the "reason" is not "airsickness" or "fear of flying". Are they claiming "financial hardship" or what? Not that you would know, but the whole thing kinda "smells" to me. But what do I know?  :shaka:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 11, 2017, 04:42:28 PM
They dont have the money, they spent it all fighting trumps travel ban lol
It's probably my fault... if they hadn't spent all the time, money and resources on my 30 letters and two Office of Information Practices Act (OIPA) requests and appeals in the past two years they probably could have flown first class...  :rofl:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 11, 2017, 05:03:34 PM
I certainly don't "know" if this is true, but have heard:

"9th circuit rules require that Young be heard in Hawaii unless there is some other case which, in the interest of judicial economy, supports relocating the oral arguments to another courthouse."

IF that is true, it could mean that the court is seriously considering consolidating the oral arguments of Young and Nichols...as per Nichols' request mentioned above.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on July 11, 2017, 05:22:35 PM
I certainly don't "know" if this is true, but have heard:

"9th circuit rules require that Young be heard in Hawaii unless there is some other case which, in the interest of judicial economy, supports relocating the oral arguments to another courthouse."

IF that is true, it could mean that the court is seriously considering consolidating the oral arguments of Young and Nichols...as per Nichols' request mentioned above.

That is why they were thinking about doing it in Pasadena. Because of Nichols motion.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 11, 2017, 07:08:11 PM
I certainly don't "know" if this is true, but have heard:

"9th circuit rules require that Young be heard in Hawaii unless there is some other case which, in the interest of judicial economy, supports relocating the oral arguments to another courthouse."

IF that is true, it could mean that the court is seriously considering consolidating the oral arguments of Young and Nichols...as per Nichols' request mentioned above.
I have to correct my own post, above. I misused the term "consolidated" which apparently has the legal meaning of the cases being legally combined in such a manner that  both cases are combined and treated as one single case so that only one decision is rendered. I meant, as I stated earlier in the thread, that the oral arguments for both separate and individual cases would be scheduled/heard at the same time before the same three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit (because of the similarity of the issues being argued) and then separate decisions would be rendered for each separate case. This is exactly what took place previously with the Peruta, Richards, and Baker cases. While Young and Nichols have some similar issues involved, they are different in various ways, including that they challenge (obviously different) laws in different states.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 12, 2017, 07:09:11 PM
That is why they were thinking about doing it in Pasadena. Because of Nichols motion.
Wolfwood, could you please let us know here if you get any definitive (or even not-so-definitive) information on the date and location of the orals? At this point do you have any idea when you will be informed about that? Mahalo.  :shaka:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 26, 2017, 10:58:07 AM
Nothing yet from Wolfwood re Young being scheduled, so...

The final scheduling of possible cases to be heard in Hawaii by the Ninth Circuit is for October 10-13, 2017. The next possible scheduling would likely be in February 2018, if the scheduling repeats the patterns of 2016 and 2017 (Honolulu scheduled in February, June, and October). http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/calendar/sitdates_2017.pdf

The way the "Oral Argument Dates & Locations" (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/) seems to be working is that each Monday the calendar is updated with the locations/cases/times approximately 10 weeks in the future. Since last Monday they listed the cases to be heard in the first week of October, I'm wildly guessing that they will next Monday list the cases to be heard the second week of October (which would be the Honolulu scheduled sessions). So maybe we'll know next Monday if Young will be heard in Hawaii at that time.

If not scheduled in the October 10-13 window, and the court wants to accommodate the Hawaii County/state attorneys who apparently don't want to go to the mainland to defend their laws, it would likely be scheduled for February 2018 window. It's also possible that the court could hold the hearings on the mainland, either with or without holding the simultaneous hearing for Nichols, and the Hawaii County/state attorneys would then have the choice to either show up or not. There's no rule that requires them to be present and make and/or respond to oral arguments.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 30, 2017, 09:07:11 PM
The Ninth Circuit (surprisingly to me) updated their oral arguments calendar today, Sunday. It now includes the Hawaii schedule for October 10-13. The Young case is not listed. The next Hawaii orals will be in February 2018. Unless the October schedule is amended at a later date and the Young case added for the October 10-13 dates, or the Young case is scheduled for a mainland courthouse after the first two weeks of October, Young will likely not be heard until February. Likely have a wait of two or three weeks to see if Nichols is on the early November calendar for Pasadena.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on July 30, 2017, 11:00:57 PM
We gun folks are patient people.  We waited for what, about 8 years for Peruta? 
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on July 31, 2017, 07:00:09 AM
We gun folks are patient people.  We waited for what, about 8 years for Peruta?
Yes, we have become masters of patiently losing exceedingly lengthy (incompetently litigated?) lawsuits (Not that anyone could win a Second Amendment rights lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit, but some might have a strategically and tactically better chance than others).

I did notice at the top of the calendar page: "Note: Calendar entries may change up until the hearing date." I doubt though that they could suddenly schedule an orals without enough lead time for the attorneys to be prepared and make all travel/scheduling arrangements, which is why they normally give the 10-12 weeks lead time.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on August 15, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
I have heard absolutely nothing regarding Young.  I will post something when I hear from the Court.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 15, 2017, 10:10:58 PM
I am not a lawyer so excuse me if this is a basic question, but what would happen if everyone filed a suit on the same or similar grounds over CCW. Can the courts just refuse them based on some higher court ruling or do they have to hear each and every one?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 16, 2017, 09:25:02 AM
I am not a lawyer so excuse me if this is a basic question, but what would happen if everyone filed a suit on the same or similar grounds over CCW. Can the courts just refuse them based on some higher court ruling or do they have to hear each and every one?

If it cost me 0 dollars then I would file also.  I would represent myself so no attorney to be paid.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on August 16, 2017, 10:22:10 AM
I am not a lawyer so excuse me if this is a basic question, but what would happen if everyone filed a suit on the same or similar grounds over CCW. Can the courts just refuse them based on some higher court ruling or do they have to hear each and every one?

Guessing here, if all of the cases are the same then the cases will most likely be dismissed quickly and judges will base it on the 9th appeals court decision.  You'll have to appeal to the 9th appeals court for the eventual dismissal.  Only way to win is to have a good case and have it heard by the Supreme court .  All of this will be costly and you'll have to front the money because the lawyers know you will lose.

Nothing to gain by doing everything at the same time.  You need time to pass while the appeals and supreme court justices are changed through attrition.  Or have a different case and challenge it on different grounds.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on October 10, 2017, 09:37:43 AM
Oral arguments in Hawaii Feb. 12-18 2018

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: rklapp on October 10, 2017, 11:01:16 AM
I am not a lawyer so excuse me if this is a basic question, but what would happen if everyone filed a suit on the same or similar grounds over CCW. Can the courts just refuse them based on some higher court ruling or do they have to hear each and every one?
I believe the courts can decide if the cases should be combined if they're similar enough. The prosecuting will have a stronger case. In a civil case, it could become a class action suit and a larger damage claim.

On a side note, my adult son has been leaning more and more toward gun control laws and I've been arguing against it. The SCOTUS has declared that reasonable gun laws are allowed but not outright bans. He maintains that the NRA can somehow lobby the judges to decide against gun laws. I said that judges have been impeached for less.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on December 03, 2017, 05:17:20 AM
As per Wolfwood's unofficial announcement above, Young was today officially scheduled for oral argument in Hawaii.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view.php?hearing=February%20-%20Honolulu%20Bankruptcy%20Courthouse%20Hawaii&dates=12,13,%2015,16&year=2018

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Calendar for Honolulu Bankruptcy Courthouse Hawaii

February 12

2018-02-12  9:00 am  Courtroom 250L, Honolulu Bankruptcy Courthouse Hawaii

12-17808   George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii - George Young appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action challenging under the Second Amendment provisions of Hawaii law pertaining to the issuance of permits to carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon. [1:12-cv-00336-HG-BMK]   Civil   HI   15 min

Three days later Nichols v Brown will be heard by the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena:

2018-02-15  9:00 am  Courtroom 3, Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals, Pasadena

14-55873   Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr. - Charles Nichols appeals pro se from the district court's judgment on the pleadings in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a set of California state laws regulating the open carry of firearms in public places. [2:11-cv-09916-SJO-SS]
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 05, 2018, 06:27:42 AM
One week to orals! I hope some of you on Oahu will attend and lend support to Mr. Young. 2018-02-12  9:00 am  Courtroom 250L, Honolulu Bankruptcy Courthouse Hawaii

Some potentially good news this morning! I'm trying not to get too over the top, but...

The court today announced the three judge panel: O'SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA. https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view.php?caseno=12-17808

Of course judge O'Scannlain was the author of the original Peruta panel decision (reversed en banc) that strongly advocated that there is a right to bear arms, including specifically concealed as Peruta was contesting denial of CCW permit from San Diego sheriff based upon the "good cause" requirement of California being interpreted to not include "self defense" as as good cause). The other two judges were appointed by G.W. Bush, which doesn't mean anything in particular, except that there is a probability that they will be more sympathetic to Second Amendment claims than those appointed by Clinton or Obama, whom make up the majority of the Ninth Circuit judges. Super lucky draw!

Good luck to George Young and his attorney Alan Beck!  :shaka:

Young can check here on Friday to see if the orals will be broadcast live: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/live_oral_arguments.php Otherwise the video of the orals will be posted later on the Ninth site. https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on February 05, 2018, 07:48:19 AM
Me and london808 will be there.  Fyi were not sure exactly when the session starts and it'll be only 15 min long to deteemine if the case should continue on.  We're also planning to meet with the attorney after the session is over.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 05, 2018, 08:28:06 AM
Me and london808 will be there.  Fyi were not sure exactly when the session starts and it'll be only 15 min long to deteemine if the case should continue on.  We're also planning to meet with the attorney after the session is over.
My understanding is that each side has 15 minutes.The decision by the panel will be mostly based upon the extensive written filings but the orals can provide an opportunity for the judges to ask questions based upon those filings and for counsel for both sides to emphasize or clarify particular points or counter arguments. I'm hoping, of course, that O'Scannlain shreds some of the preposterous claims by the state/county.  :shaka:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on February 06, 2018, 02:58:39 PM
I look forward to meeting those that will be attending.  I will be in town the Saturday before through the Sunday after.
Based on our panel I strongly believe we will win this round.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 10, 2018, 08:03:38 PM
Just a reminder, the Young case will be heard before the Ninth Circuit this coming Monday morning as per the above notice at 9 AM.

The notice of live video feed is also posted:

Live Video Streaming of Oral Arguments and Events

Honolulu CR250L 9:00 AM Monday 2/12

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000012993

Young is scheduled to be the second of three cases heard, the first allowing 10 minutes for each side to present their arguments.

GOOD LUCK!  :shaka: We need some wins, because the only way Hawaii will ever restore the ability for us to lawfully exercise many of our rights is by having it imposed on the state/legislature/police chiefs by court decisions.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 10, 2018, 08:49:47 PM
Gotta work. Shucks. I wanna show up to court more.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 11, 2018, 05:55:35 AM
(https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20180212T09&p0=103&msg=Young+v+Hawaii+Ninth+Circuit+Oral+Arguments+&font=cursive)
Here is the YouTube link for the same live video feed:

https://youtu.be/t7seg8g6KKA
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 12, 2018, 09:54:29 AM
WTF?!?! The attorney for the county claimed that "engaged in the protection of life or property" applies to ordinary citizens, not just security guards! And he said since anyone is engaged in protection of themselves they are eligible for an open carry license!

Exactly the opposite of the facts. Even the state forms for counties submitting the statistics re firearms, including concealed and open carry applications and dispensations, notes the open carry license material not as "open carry", but as "security". I wish Beck had made that point. I sent him that stuff and made that point.

The good news: All the judges seemed to want to limit the case to open carry, and seemed to have "a problem" with the current legal structure and the fact that there is a de facto ban for ordinary citizens. We can only hope...
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: bass monkey on February 12, 2018, 12:14:24 PM
What's the next step after this hearing?
The judges make a ruling?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 12, 2018, 12:23:26 PM
What's the next step after this hearing?
The judges make a ruling?
Yes, the three judge panel will issue a ruling, if Peruta and other firearms rights cases in the Ninth Circuit are any example, it may take a year or more for that decision to "come down". Then, I suspect it's highly likely that the losing side will ask for an en banc hearing (larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges like the one that overturned the original Peruta three-judge-panel decision), that could take many months to get scheduled, if granted, and then it might take another year for that decision to be rendered, and then an unknown amount of time (but relatively short) for the losing side there to possibly ask SCOTUS to grant cert and hear the case (SCOTUS takes less than 1% of the cases that ask for cert). So... years and years and years.  :crazy:  :wtf:  :shaka:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 12, 2018, 12:32:00 PM
Yes, the three judge panel will issue a ruling, if Peruta and other firearms rights cases in the Ninth Circuit are any example, it may take a year or more for that decision to "come down". Then, I suspect it's highly likely that the losing side will ask for an en banc hearing (larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges like the one that overturned the original Peruta three-judge-panel decision), that could take many months to get scheduled, if granted, and then it might take another year for that decision to be rendered, and then an unknown amount of time (but relatively short) for the losing side there to possibly ask SCOTUS to grant cert and hear the case (SCOTUS takes less than 1% of the cases that ask for cert). So... years and years and years.  :crazy:  :wtf:  :shaka:

So don't buy my sling for open carry yet.  Thanks for the updates.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 12, 2018, 01:50:47 PM
So don't buy my sling for open carry yet.  Thanks for the updates.
Nah. Though maybe you'd want to "break it in"... but with the likely time frame I'd guess it'd be more likely you'll just break it. My suggestion if you intend to lawfully carry openly in Hawaii is to eat a relatively low saturated fat, low calorie, high fiber diet, get lots of exercise, avoid dangerous activities (sky diving, traveling to third world countries, dishing any dirt on the Clintons, etc.), and have long-lived parents. It might be a while.  :geekdanc:

Plus, even if SCOTUS were to issue a generic ruling about the necessity of granting ordinary citizens the right to bear arms outside their home openly and/or concealed in a "shall issue" manner, the legislature and bureaucracy will drag their feet for years as they "fine tune" the "training requirement", fee schedule, etc. (See: Washington, D.C. and their concealed carry law (hurdles) reiterations despite court orders...).
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on February 13, 2018, 08:07:07 AM
Pics of the legal team from yesterday.  And +1.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180213/9beafa2ffdbf027cf2b7aa23a8ef43d9.jpg)

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180213/0d1fbf656d1c64dd0bde5d7db48aebb2.jpg)

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 13, 2018, 08:10:42 AM
Here is the archived video of just the Young v Hawaii portion of yesterday's oral arguments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=podPuHnX698
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: hvybarrels on February 13, 2018, 11:21:41 AM
Interesting how the State's case completely fell apart, as if they expected that it wasn't necessary to show up with compelling arguments and could just skate through. That guy almost seemed surprised when they would ask him tough questions and his "that's the way we do things" responses weren't working.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 13, 2018, 11:34:58 AM
I didn't have time to watch the entire video, but seems like the judges asked the state some good questions which they didn't have an answer to.

And that Young's atty, wasn't reading from a note sheet, looked like he was well prepared and memorized everything.  I didn't see him look down.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 13, 2018, 11:46:22 AM
Just for a point of clarity, the County of Hawaii was arguing against Young, not the state. The original lawsuit (2012!!!) did include the state as well as the county, but the state claimed 'immunity" (etc.) and was deleted from the suit.

So even if by some miracle Young were to get a positive ruling, it would be against the County of Hawaii and be in terms of imposing some kind of "shall issue" standard against the Hawaii County Police Department. It would have no effect on the state law itself which would continue to read the same "exceptional case" for CCW and "engaged in the protection of life or property" for open carry, and be subject to "interpretation" by the PDs of the other islands, and there's no reason to believe those other PDs would adopt "shall issue" just to be nice.

I could be completely wrong about all of the above.

Plus, I can't see any panel of the Ninth ruling that open carry is the right and must be legally recognized and a "reasonable" option exist to exercise that right (and they've already ruled there is no right to CCW).

I could be completely wrong about that too.

Whatever happens, it's not going to be "over" for at least a few more years...  :crazy:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on February 13, 2018, 12:06:19 PM
Just for a point of clarity, the County of Hawaii was arguing against Young, not the state. The original lawsuit (2012!!!) did include the state as well as the county, but the state claimed 'immunity" (etc.) and was deleted from the suit.

So even if by some miracle Young were to get a positive ruling, it would be against the County of Hawaii and be in terms of imposing some kind of "shall issue" standard against the Hawaii County Police Department. It would have no effect on the state law itself which would continue to read the same "exceptional case" for CCW and "engaged in the protection of life or property" for open carry, and be subject to "interpretation" by the PDs of the other islands, and there's no reason to believe those other PDs would adopt "shall issue" just to be nice.

I could be completely wrong about all of the above.

Plus, I can't see any panel of the Ninth ruling that open carry is the right and must be legally recognized and a "reasonable" option exist to exercise that right (and they've already ruled there is no right to CCW).

I could be completely wrong about that too.

Whatever happens, it's not going to be "over" for at least a few more years...  :crazy:

I'll ask them when we have our meeting this week.

If the law is ruled unconstitutional, then it should change across the state.  Or at least make it a lot easier to sue the other counties.

Since it's the 9th circuit court of appeals, it would also set precedent in the western region so it could be used in other ban counties in other states.

Wouldn't hold your breath though cause it'll be many years before this is settled.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on February 13, 2018, 01:00:22 PM
Just for a point of clarity, the County of Hawaii was arguing against Young, not the state. The original lawsuit (2012!!!) did include the state as well as the county, but the state claimed 'immunity" (etc.) and was deleted from the suit.

The state did submit something (a breif) and it is mentioned a few times by the county and by the judges, 13:20 ish in the video.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 13, 2018, 02:56:18 PM
The state did submit something (a breif) and it is mentioned a few times by the county and by the judges, 13:20 ish in the video.
The state filed an amicus curiae brief. If you haven't read it, I suggest you plow through it. Warning: It will raise your blood pressure! The lies and deception, as well as specious arguments, are ever present. The state's position, clearly stated, is that a BAN on all public carry of firearms is warranted by the facts, but they graciously allowed one person in the past 17 years to have a full license in 2006 (to a judge, which they forgot to mention) (the one issued in 2013 was valid for 13 DAYS). It really is unbelievable... I hadn't read it for a long time and now I remember why.  :wtf:

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Young-v.-Hawaii_Amicus-Curiae-Brief-of-the-State-of-Hawaii-In-Support-of-County-of-Hawaii-Appellants-35.pdf

 Footnote 1 on page 10 notes the dismissall of the state from the lawsuit:

1 The State of Hawaii (and Governor and Attorney General), as party defendants,
were dismissed below on immunity grounds, Clerk’s Record (CR) 42 at 9-14, and
plaintiff does not appeal that dismissal.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 13, 2018, 03:00:52 PM
I'll ask them when we have our meeting this week.

If the law is ruled unconstitutional, then it should change across the state.  Or at least make it a lot easier to sue the other counties.

Since it's the 9th circuit court of appeals, it would also set precedent in the western region so it could be used in other ban counties in other states.

Wouldn't hold your breath though cause it'll be many years before this is settled.
I doubt they'll rule the state law unconstitutional, but rather issue a much narrower ruling, if they even decide in "our" favor. They aren't going to want to create any more widespread a ripple effect than the need to, so they can simply rule that Hawaii County PD must expand the narrow tailoring of their interpretation to allow at least a couple of non-security personnel to carry in public in some manner, or at least publish documentation of specifically what the criteria are for issuing a license (they won't do that now... I've tried several times and ways to get them to). That would provide a basis for lawsuits against the other county PDs, but again, we're talking more and more years...
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on February 13, 2018, 03:33:08 PM
1908 passed with nay from McDermott and amendmended from a request.

Nevermind, wrong place.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: macsak on February 13, 2018, 03:34:26 PM
1908 passed with nay from McDermott and amendmended from a request.

?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on February 14, 2018, 10:58:53 AM
The Court can rule that 134-9 is unconstitutional despite the Court not being a party.  The only requirement is the state be noticed of the case. 
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 14, 2018, 11:11:57 AM
The Court can rule that 134-9 is unconstitutional despite the Court not being a party.  The only requirement is the state be noticed of the case.
Thanks Wolfwood, good to know.  :shaka:

Given that possibility, is the decision of the state not to participate in a lawsuit that could render state law unconstitutional a "tactical" move that would give them some kind of greater leverage in appealing and/or delaying implementation of a decision that the law is unconstitutional?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 27, 2018, 05:05:56 PM
Update this afternoon from Charles Nichols re a motion by California re Nichols v. Brown that has a bearing on Young v. Hawaii.

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

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

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

EDIT: This is potentially a good thing.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on February 28, 2018, 05:03:52 PM
Update this afternoon from Charles Nichols re a motion by California re Nichols v. Brown that has a bearing on Young v. Hawaii.

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

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

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

EDIT: This is potentially a good thing.
Hoping for good news!!!!
Thoughts, prayers, crossed fingers and sacrificial chickens.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on March 04, 2018, 07:55:07 PM
New article by Charles Nichols about Young v. Hawaii and his Nichols v. Brown lawsuits recently argued before the Ninth Circuit. It gets a bit "into the weeds" of legal details, but for those interested in where we are, why we're where we are, and what may happen, it's necessary reading. Plus has links to all the relevant portions of both the Young and Nichols oral arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

For the most part, you would be wrong.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on July 24, 2018, 07:29:41 AM
Update this afternoon from Charles Nichols re a motion by California re Nichols v. Brown that has a bearing on Young v. Hawaii.

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

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

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

EDIT: This is potentially a good thing.


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

I won
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 24, 2018, 07:34:18 AM
Yippeee!!!!

(https://media.giphy.com/media/rl0FOxdz7CcxO/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Direjackalope on July 24, 2018, 07:53:03 AM
I read the brief but got bogged down in the language . Can someone give us a summary?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: drck1000 on July 24, 2018, 08:02:54 AM
I read the brief but got bogged down in the language . Can someone give us a summary?
Me too.

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

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

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

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

Probably not that simple, but still a good and hard fought win.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Soleyobo on July 24, 2018, 08:51:40 AM
 :shaka:

I just saw it on the news this morning.  That mean open carry is a go?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Direjackalope on July 24, 2018, 08:56:01 AM
So what’s next?  Does the state appeal or do they request time to put a legal framework in place? 
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: macsak on July 24, 2018, 09:02:35 AM
So what’s next?  Does the state appeal or do they request time to put a legal framework in place?

order goes back to the state court
they can appeal to the whole 9th circuit (en banc) if they choose
then the 9th circuit must decide whether to hear or not
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: macsak on July 24, 2018, 09:03:22 AM
:shaka:

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

do not open carry
do not pass go
do not collect $200
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on July 24, 2018, 09:04:48 AM
Good news, but still probably take another year or two before we can actually open carry legally in Hawaii.  Even then most businesses in Hawaii would have NO GUNS ALLOWED or GUN FREE ZONE signs posted. 
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 24, 2018, 09:08:39 AM
Good chance it wont go to en banc.
Next carry case in line for SCOTUS.
Good chance SCOTUS will take the case and rule for it.
Still would need to apply for a carry permit.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: michaelkih on July 24, 2018, 09:53:23 AM
Yes it's your right damn it!  Join most of the rest of the country already.  I'm glad to finally hear a slight hope for actual good gun laws in Hawaii.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: michaelkih on July 24, 2018, 09:55:39 AM
Open carry for civilians is retarded though and purely for show.  I remember when open carry passed in Texas, we all still conceal carry.  The point is for someone not to know you are armed.  The only people open carrying there now...........well.......when you see them, they are usually interesting.

Regardless, this is great news.  I hope we see some progress on this.  Any way that us regular citizens can get involved with this?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 24, 2018, 10:14:32 AM
Open carry for civilians is retarded though and purely for show.  I remember when open carry passed in Texas, we all still conceal carry.  The point is for someone not to know you are armed.  The only people open carrying there now...........well.......when you see them, they are usually interesting.

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

I agree, but open carry will lead to CCW.  So it's a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 24, 2018, 10:14:59 AM
Good chance it wont go to en banc.
Next carry case in line for SCOTUS.
Good chance SCOTUS will take the case and rule for it.
Still would need to apply for a carry permit.

They will change the law to "may issue" carry permit and screw us all again.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 24, 2018, 10:27:29 AM
Any way that us regular citizens can get involved with this?

Come down to the next 2a activism meeting next month.  Tentatively august 11 or 18th.  Ill post it here.    Looking for people that will be active and put in the hard work.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 24, 2018, 10:28:41 AM
They will change the law to "may issue" carry permit and screw us all again.

The whole case is about may issue being unconstitutional. So it will have to be a shall issue permit.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 24, 2018, 10:40:01 AM
The whole case is about may issue being unconstitutional. So it will have to be a shall issue permit.

Just got hard again!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: PalisadesKid on July 24, 2018, 10:41:07 AM
I just don’t see how the Liberal 9th can justify CONCEALED CARRY as outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Perhaps they know that generally most gun owners are more comfortable with concealed carry versus open carry.

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

But seriously.. what the hell?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: PalisadesKid on July 24, 2018, 10:44:42 AM
Yes it's your right damn it!  Join most of the rest of the country already.  I'm glad to finally hear a slight hope for actual good gun laws in Hawaii.

Legislative Session 2019 they fire back with another failed attempt at an assault weapons ban just to spite us all. LOL  ;D
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: SOLEsource684 on July 24, 2018, 10:52:48 AM
So whats next? Can I rock out w/ my Glock out?  :shaka: :shaka:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Drakiir84 on July 24, 2018, 11:11:15 AM
So whats next? Can I rock out w/ my Glock out?  :shaka: :shaka:

Definitely not.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 24, 2018, 11:12:02 AM
How can I donate money to help with attorneys fees?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: rklapp on July 24, 2018, 11:16:06 AM
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/get_out_of_jail_free.jpg)
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 24, 2018, 11:18:58 AM
How can I donate money to help with attorneys fees?

Ill add you to our facebook activism group.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on July 24, 2018, 11:33:55 AM
Ill add you to our facebook activism group.

Whats the page?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on July 24, 2018, 11:38:22 AM

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

I won

Yes you did! And so did the rest of us with your victory.

Copy of decision: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on July 24, 2018, 11:38:46 AM
This is hiliarious, the panel called out hawaii's policy of being a concealed carry state, and denying all permit applications.


While the County’s police chief purportedly awaits an
“exceptional case” to grant a concealed carry license, section 134-9 is
effectively a ban on the concealed carry of firearms. As counsel for the
County openly admitted at oral argument, not a single concealed carry
license has ever been granted by the County. Nor have concealed carry
applicants in other counties fared much better: Hawaii counties appear
to have issued only four concealed carry licenses in the past eighteen
years.

...............
Thus, even if the State and County remain free to accommodate the right to bear arms with concealed carry
after Peruta II, an issue we do not decide, section 134-9 does not offer a
realistic opportunity for a concealed carry license
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on July 24, 2018, 12:11:47 PM
Wow....

Just read through the entire decision. I am truly amazed at the depth and breadth the court went to in reaching it's (rightful) decision. To quote portions and sections of the decision would require just posting the entire document. There are too many great reasonings to share individually. In reading the dissent, it is equally the opposite in shallowness. It is the judicial equivalent of toddler speak for "because I said so".

This is truly a landmark decision that will and should be a basis of decisions forward.  I would hope that the 9th en banc would agree not to hear hear it and the State would just let things go and move forward with removing onerous and burdensome regulations from the law.

To the plaintiffs and barristers I raise a glass for you today! Skol!

If you haven't read the entire decision, you should. The legalese is a pain, but once you get through it, you will love it.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/24/12-17808.pdf

Mahalo to all that have gone before to make this possible
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 24, 2018, 12:26:30 PM
Fyi, Young initially filed the case and represented himself with little legal experience.  The gun organizations didnt want to help him.  That takes a lot of courage.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on July 24, 2018, 12:42:04 PM
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/07/24/breaking-news/9th-circuit-court-rules-2nd-amendment-allows-right-to-carry-guns-in-public/

anti-gun fanatics wringing their hands and bleating about their safety because potentially law abiding citizens will exercise their 2nd amendment rights.  its hilarious.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: ptanabe on July 24, 2018, 12:45:49 PM
I read the brief but got bogged down in the language . Can someone give us a summary?
This reminds me of the wise words of democrat congressman John Conyers
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill’........... Wh...What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 24, 2018, 01:09:31 PM
Whats the page?

Ill get you signed up at the next meeting.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: P3w_P3w! on July 24, 2018, 02:16:49 PM
I too would like to donate.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Bunker on July 24, 2018, 02:35:28 PM
The Republicans have quietly been filling judge vacancies across the nation with conservatives and the 9th Circus is high on their radar because they are probably, if not, the most liberal court in the nation. They did suffer a setback last week when the White House withdrew the nomination of Ryan Bounds for the Ninth Circuit after realizing it did not have the necessary support in the Senate, but that vacancy will be filled with a Trumpster conservative judge. Hopefully a few more in the 9th Circuit will vacant and the Republicans on Trump's coattails can reshape the 9th, and then we'll have a fighting chance on future cases!
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: drck1000 on July 24, 2018, 02:48:29 PM
9th Circuit Court Makeup (Active Judges)

Nixon - 2
Carter - 4
Reagan - 3
Clinton - 16
Bush - 9
Obama - 7
Trump - 1

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_seniority_list.php?pk_id=0000000035 (https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_seniority_list.php?pk_id=0000000035)

Wow!  Clinton appointed a bunch of judges (16!).  And there are some old judges.  One was appointed in 1971! Alfred Goodwin is 95 years old!  That's going to be a lot to change the tide. 
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Aloha808 on July 24, 2018, 05:05:14 PM
Good news.  It's either the 9th circuit accepts it and permits must be issued or they reject it and it goes to scotus. And there are already previous rulings that ruled permits must be issued, so we know what scotus will say. Itll take a bit more time, but looks good to go. Still keep your fingers crossed
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on July 24, 2018, 06:03:57 PM
The process for an en banc review....http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5b57f6908480f/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Flowchart.pdf.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/5b57f6908480f/Ninth-Circuit-En-Banc-Procedure-Flowchart.pdf.pdf)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on July 24, 2018, 06:05:40 PM
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/07/24/breaking-news/9th-circuit-court-rules-2nd-amendment-allows-right-to-carry-guns-in-public/

anti-gun fanatics wringing their hands and bleating about their safety because potentially law abiding citizens will exercise their 2nd amendment rights.  its hilarious.

Yes.  Watching the local evening news about this decision is fun stuff.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: newowner on July 24, 2018, 06:33:11 PM
So, if Hawaii State law is unconstitutional in regards to the regulation of open carry, what other law besides the Hawaii State Constitution would regulate open carry?  I see some people trying to be funny about saying "Don't do it," but why can't we open carry?  I skimmed through the ruling, but I didn't see anything about the ruling not taking effect.

A sincere and informed answer would be much appreciated!

Much Mahalo!  :shaka:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: rklapp on July 24, 2018, 06:45:54 PM
There will probably be an appeal and restriction. I guess you could try if you want to be on the news tonight.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 24, 2018, 06:47:13 PM
So, if Hawaii State law is unconstitutional in regards to the regulation of open carry, what other law besides the Hawaii State Constitution would regulate open carry?  I see some people trying to be funny about saying "Don't do it," but why can't we open carry?  I skimmed through the ruling, but I didn't see anything about the ruling not taking effect.

A sincere and informed answer would be much appreciated!

Much Mahalo!  :shaka:

I didn't read the whole thing, but did the ruling say anything like issuing an injunction against HI law re: open carry?  If not, then the law still applies until the state responds.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: newowner on July 24, 2018, 06:51:09 PM
According to Charles Nichols of CA Right to Carry:

"Because Mr. Young did not challenge the license requirement and because he did not adequately raise a challenge to the long gun Open Carry bans, you will need a license to openly carry a handgun, and only a handgun, in Hawaii once the Mandate in Young v. Hawaii issues.  When, and if, the Mandate issues depends entirely on whether or not the decision is reheard before an en banc court."

I sent an email to him and he responded quickly.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=846
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on July 24, 2018, 06:54:19 PM
It's been remanded back to the county so it is still in effect until the State drops the case, appeals it or the 9th goes on it's own for a full panel hearing

I didn't read the whole thing, but did the ruling say anything like issuing an injunction against HI law re: open carry?  If not, then the law still applies until the stat responds.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180725/381a871ca0ee7350883f2d928ba54adc.jpg)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Aloha808 on July 24, 2018, 07:09:52 PM
Right to carry and mag ban lifted. It's a good week
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: macsak on July 24, 2018, 07:14:31 PM
I see some people trying to be funny about saying "Don't do it

we weren't saying it to be funny...
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: mauiblue on July 24, 2018, 07:44:41 PM
So if things work out and Hawaii's law abiding citizens will be able to carry, there is going to be a need trainers that will certify potential permit applicants. One of Maui County requirements for carry permit applicants is being certified by a gun safety trainer. I couldn't find any trainer on the island that could aid me cover that criteria. Too bad we just couldn't just cut to the chase and have constitutional carry plain and simple. Ha!

Sent from my coconut frond hut using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 24, 2018, 08:36:35 PM
So if things work out and Hawaii's law abiding citizens will be able to carry, there is going to be a need trainers that will certify potential permit applicants. One of Maui County requirements for carry permit applicants is being certified by a gun safety trainer. I couldn't find any trainer on the island that could aid me cover that criteria. Too bad we just couldn't just cut to the chase and have constitutional carry plain and simple. Ha!

Sent from my coconut frond hut using Tapatalk
Would the handgun safety course not be enough?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Direjackalope on July 24, 2018, 09:03:15 PM
Right to carry and mag ban lifted. It's a good week

Mag ban lifted?!  What did I miss?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 24, 2018, 09:08:11 PM
Mag ban lifted?!  What did I miss?

It wasn't lifted.

CA passed a law to ban all > 10 rd mags, but a judge put a hold on the law taking effect until the case challenging it is decided. 

So, the law still exists, but on hold until further notice.

If that ban gets quashed, it could be the basis for HI's 10 rd mag restrictions being quashed as well.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: xer 21 on July 24, 2018, 09:08:36 PM
Right to carry and mag ban lifted. It's a good week

EDIT:  nevermind, just saw the post above me.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on July 24, 2018, 10:17:21 PM
So, if Hawaii State law is unconstitutional in regards to the regulation of open carry, what other law besides the Hawaii State Constitution would regulate open carry?  I see some people trying to be funny about saying "Don't do it," but why can't we open carry?  I skimmed through the ruling, but I didn't see anything about the ruling not taking effect.

A sincere and informed answer would be much appreciated!

Much Mahalo!  :shaka:

The state is still responsible for the permitting process. 

If you did something like that, you'd pretty much be going out as a gun owner "martyr" that way because you will be charged, likely with a felony of some sort, and lose your firearm rights in the process.  But you will be on the news, probably national news if you manage to drum up enough attention and it goes viral.

A better approach might be to apply for an open carry license, citing this ruling, and keeping the media and gun rights organizations apprised of the situation.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on July 25, 2018, 06:10:43 AM
Good news, but still probably take another year or two before we can actually open carry legally in Hawaii.  Even then most businesses in Hawaii would have NO GUNS ALLOWED or GUN FREE ZONE signs posted.

But then wouldn't that be unconstitutional discrimination conduct on the part of businesses?
 ???
So, if I had a business doing sales to the general public:

I could not refuse black people (or, white people, or yellow people for that matter);
I could not not serve the gays and trannies;
I could not refuse sales based on age, sex, etc etc etc...

But I COULD deny service to Trump supporters and gun owners... :wacko:

 :wtf:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on July 25, 2018, 06:14:28 AM
...Join most of the rest of the country already...

C'mon, man, get real. Leftists only want to cite doing things the way other people do (mainly, Europe and East Asia) when it's socialist/commie stuff. They don't want to point to others as examples if the others happen to be western, or constitutionalism, or capitalism....
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on July 25, 2018, 06:33:19 AM
Okay, at risk of beating the dead horse, let me see if I understand the effect of the result of this case:

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CHANGES.

So, this ruling wasn't a "win" at all, it was a "go back to the low court and argue some more".

If I am wrong, and this is in fact a win, then WHEN (WHEN?!) will it take practical effect? And how will we know? 6'oclock new story? ?

What is the actual path to freedom from this decision?

This win > re-argue at lower court > win/lose > more appeals at 9th?
or
This win > State appeals en banc and loses > then freedom?
or
This win > State appeals en banc and wins > Young/Beck goes to SCOTUS > probably win?
or
some other convoluted path?

signed,
Confused About Why Are We All Happy About Something That Didn't Actually Change Anything After A Lot Of Lawyers Talking At Length Parenthesis I Still Cannot Carry Either Open Or Concealed Close Parenthesis Question Mark
 :crazy:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on July 25, 2018, 07:05:57 AM
But then wouldn't that be unconstitutional discrimination conduct on the part of businesses?
 ???
So, if I had a business doing sales to the general public:

I could not refuse black people (or, white people, or yellow people for that matter);
I could not not serve the gays and trannies;
I could not refuse sales based on age, sex, etc etc etc...

But I COULD deny service to Trump supporters and gun owners... :wacko:

 :wtf:

A privately owned business has the right to ask you to leave your guns outside.  Buffalo Wild Wings in Vegas has a prominent sign by the entry that says No Guns Allowed.  I carry my concealed weapon in there anyway as no one can see it and the sign does not have the force of law.  However, if I was open carrying or someone noticed my CCW and I was asked to leave because of it, I would have to comply or get arrested for trespassing.  This was the NV law as explained in the CCW class I took at Front Sight and that is the law in all other states as far as I know.  Much like a business cannot refuse service because you are black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female or whatever, but they can do the no shirt, no shoes, no service thing.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 25, 2018, 07:14:24 AM
Dallas TX no guns sign have the force of law.  You'll get arrested if you go into a store with a no guns sign.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: stangzilla on July 25, 2018, 08:27:48 AM
where is this case going, supreme court?
how long will it take to get a final ruling?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on July 25, 2018, 08:40:57 AM
where is this case going, supreme court?
how long will it take to get a final ruling?
The way our judicial system moves, 3 years if lucky, 7 years if not is my guess.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: P3w_P3w! on July 25, 2018, 08:51:25 AM
Quote
Dallas TX no guns sign have the force of law.  You'll get arrested if you go into a store with a no guns sign.

Depends on what you mean my "no gun sign". In TX if a business does not want to allow concealed/open carriers they must display Texas Statue 30.06 (no pun intended) for conceal carry, and/or 30.07 for open carry in a conspicuous manner with minimum 1 1/2" tall lettering. Normally they are printed on the doors of the business.

"“PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL
CODE (TRESPASS BY LICENSE
HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED
HANDGUN), A PERSON LICENSED
UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411,
GOVERNMENT CODE (HANDGUN LICENSING
LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH
A CONCEALED HANDGUN” "

"“PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.07, PENAL
CODE (TRESPASS BY LICENSE
HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED
HANDGUN), A PERSON LICENSED
UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411,
GOVERNMENT CODE (HANDGUN LICENSING
LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH
A HANDGUN THAT IS CARRIED OPENLY”


The little gun-buster sticker(alone) on a door doesn't count.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: TooFewPews on July 25, 2018, 09:01:08 AM
there is some confusion and misinformation here so i'll try to sum it up.

Quote
§134-9  Licenses to carry.
(a)  In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more or to a duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation of the age of twenty-one years or more to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.

Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant of good moral character who is a citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years or more, is engaged in the protection of life and property, and is not prohibited under section 134-7 from the ownership or possession of a firearm, a license to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted.

The chief of police of the appropriate county, or the chief's designated representative, shall perform an inquiry on an applicant by using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, to include a check of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement databases where the applicant is not a citizen of the United States, before any determination to grant a license is made.  Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0009.htm


i copy-pasted subsection (a) from the statute at issue.  i split subsection (a) into different lines so you can see how it is constructed.  i also bolded and underlined the important areas of the subsection.  the first sentence has to do with the application for concealed carry licenses.  the second sentence has to do with application for open carry licenses.  this case deals with the second sentence.

the main holding of the case is that the phrase "is engaged in the protection of life and property" is unconstitutional since it places a limitation on citizens (non-law enforcement, and non-security guards) who apply for open carry licenses.

so what does this mean?  this means that citizens (non-law enforcement, and non-security guards) can apply for an open carry license and will not be denied based solely upon the fact that they are not "engaged in the protection of life and property".  citizens will still need to show that there is "urgency" or a sufficient "need".
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 25, 2018, 09:24:48 AM
where is this case going, supreme court?
how long will it take to get a final ruling?

3 months to 3 years depending what the state does.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on July 25, 2018, 09:46:19 AM
3 months to 3 years depending what the state does.

knowing our state, they'll probably attempt to drag it out as long as possible.  Just like they're dragging out preventing the public from carrying.  It's  kinda ironic though, by stalling, they're actually weakening their position with the supreme court, which is swinging more conservative. 
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 25, 2018, 10:54:03 AM
A privately owned business has the right to ask you to leave your guns outside.  Buffalo Wild Wings in Vegas has a prominent sign by the entry that says No Guns Allowed.  I carry my concealed weapon in there anyway as no one can see it and the sign does not have the force of law.  However, if I was open carrying or someone noticed my CCW and I was asked to leave because of it, I would have to comply or get arrested for trespassing.  This was the NV law as explained in the CCW class I took at Front Sight and that is the law in all other states as far as I know.  Much like a business cannot refuse service because you are black, white, Asian, Hispanic, male, female or whatever, but they can do the no shirt, no shoes, no service thing.

^^^This, in NV, no gun signs don't have the weight of the law.  Even in casinos.  They can ask you to disarm/check firearm.  Then ask you to leave if you refuse.  Then call PD if you refuse to leave and trespass you.

The bill of rights is so the government can't censor you.  Private companies can do as they wish.  Like if you told someone to leave your home because they were armed, or protesting something.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on July 25, 2018, 12:53:08 PM
Agreeing with TooFewPews here...I guess the question will be what does regulated mean? Will they modify the law enough and just remove the portion pertaining to engaged in? What is the definition of urgency or need? Even the term "engaged in the protection of life and property" is ambiguous. Aren't we all in that profession every day? It's OUR life and OUR property we actively engage in protecting everyday when we wake up. Or will they just make open carry legal in all aspects? Who knows? We can only hope for the best and the State is held to the 1st portion of the second paragraph below.

"We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, which the State of Hawaii “has understandably sought to fight . . . with every legal tool at its disposal.” Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 667. We see nothing in our opinion that would prevent the State from regulating the right to bear arms, for the Second Amendment leaves the State “a variety of tools for combatting [the problem of gun violence], including some measures regulating handguns.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 636.
But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. We would thus flout the Constitution if we were to hold that, “in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of [the State] has no other limit than its own discretion.” Reid, 1 Ala. at 616. While many respectable scholars and activists might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the right to a privileged few, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 636.""


While still a major victory for the rights of the people, it will still be a long uphill battle. The State has many lawyers and legislators and can drag this out as long as they want to arguing semantics. So until the SCOTUS drops the hammer and says "ISSUE!", we are still a May Issue State at the discretion of the local PD chief  :(
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on July 25, 2018, 08:53:00 PM
...but they can do the no shirt, no shoes, no service thing.

Ah, I see. Good point.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2018, 10:29:34 AM
https://youtu.be/XRKkUTYbP60
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 26, 2018, 12:42:28 PM
https://youtu.be/XRKkUTYbP60

Illegal to use staws in CA, but legal to knowingly give someone HIV.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2018, 01:18:26 PM
Illegal to use staws in CA, but legal to knowingly give someone HIV.

Actually, having sex without disclosing you have HIV used to be a felony until about a year ago.

Now, it's still illegal to do, but the penalty is the SAME as giving a customer a plastic straw.



Knowingly giving someone AIDS/HIV == Giving someone a plastic straw

 :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 26, 2018, 01:29:00 PM
Actually, having sex without disclosing you have HIV used to be a felony until about a year ago.

Now, it's still illegal to do, but the penalty is the SAME as giving a customer a plastic straw.



Knowingly giving someone AIDS/HIV == Giving someone a plastic straw

 :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

So will they give them a ticket?  Like jaywalking?
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2018, 01:34:06 PM
So will they give them a ticket?  Like jaywalking?

Giving someone a plastic straw has max penalties of 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

That's PER STRAW.

My mother had major problems with arthritis in her hands. She found using a cup/glass extremely painful. Using a straw at public restaurants was not just a convenience.

I'm waiting for this law to be challenged as discriminating against people with physical disabilities.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2018, 01:45:38 PM
I'm waiting to see if an illegal immigrant handing out plastic straws gets immunity under "sanctuary."
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 26, 2018, 01:50:06 PM
I'm waiting to see if an illegal immigrant handing out plastic straws gets immunity under "sanctuary."

That's the loop hole.  We will see them slapping straws making sounds on the side walk (like Vegas hooker cards).

Or my straw identifies as a clarinet.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: aieahound on July 26, 2018, 05:48:43 PM
How did a meaningful thread like Update Young v. State (County) of Hawaii turn into this...straws and AIDS in California

Same way Dana Loesch got drawn into the conversation...

As Mac would say...."Focus"
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on July 26, 2018, 06:04:21 PM
Giving someone a plastic straw has max penalties of 6 months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

That's PER STRAW.

My mother had major problems with arthritis in her hands. She found using a cup/glass extremely painful. Using a straw at public restaurants was not just a convenience.

I'm waiting for this law to be challenged as discriminating against people with physical disabilities.

Does a restaurant have to provide any other medical equipment to its customers ??
There will be no challenge to this law as it dosnet ban straws, only a straw mad of plastic, People are welcome to bring either their own reusable straw OR the restaurant if it chooses to do so can provide a non plastic alternative.

 :stopjack:


Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2018, 07:22:41 PM
Does a restaurant have to provide any other medical equipment to its customers ??
There will be no challenge to this law as it dosnet ban straws, only a straw mad of plastic, People are welcome to bring either their own reusable straw OR the restaurant if it chooses to do so can provide a non plastic alternative.

 :stopjack:

The comment is not about being forced to provide straws or other items to accommodate people with disabilities.  It's about punishing them if they make the decision to do so. Exact opposites.

I read a couple more articles about this, and one stated the rule-makers added a physical disability exception after it was brought to their attention.

How to turn a stupid law into a complicated, stupid law.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 26, 2018, 07:24:20 PM
How did a meaningful thread like Update Young v. State (County) of Hawaii turn into this...straws and AIDS in California

Same way Dana Loesch got drawn into the conversation...

As Mac would say...."Focus"

If you watched the video, you'd know the answer to both questions.

The first part of the video was on topic.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: ren on July 26, 2018, 07:25:44 PM
^^^This, in NV, no gun signs don't have the weight of the law.  Even in casinos.  They can ask you to disarm/check firearm.  Then ask you to leave if you refuse.  Then call PD if you refuse to leave and trespass you.

The bill of rights is so the government can't censor you.  Private companies can do as they wish.  Like if you told someone to leave your home because they were armed, or protesting something.

but a baker has to bake anyone a cake
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: aieahound on July 26, 2018, 08:10:40 PM
The first part of the video was on topic.
Exactly.
Just like this thread.
The first part ... was on topic.
I gotta say sincerely
Good job Wolfwood!  :thumbsup:
Onward and upward.

Gotta hope Young wins his civil award or where do we send our donations.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on July 26, 2018, 09:26:05 PM
but a baker has to bake anyone a cake

Not anymore.  SCOTUS ruled in the baker's favor, overturning the appeals court decision.  He had no problem selling them anything else, except for a wedding cake because he felt a wedding should be only between a man and a woman. 
 :stopjack:
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: michaelkih on July 27, 2018, 01:12:17 AM
I live in Texas half the year, and have spent most of my life there before moving back to Kauai recently.  No one follows those signs.  The punishment is a misdemeanor.  Same as a speeding ticket.  It was a recent change to make it less of a crime which is awesome.  Many places there have signs on the doors welcoming people to carry guns and just asking you to shoot properly if you need to use your gun.

Depends on what you mean my "no gun sign". In TX if a business does not want to allow concealed/open carriers they must display Texas Statue 30.06 (no pun intended) for conceal carry, and/or 30.07 for open carry in a conspicuous manner with minimum 1 1/2" tall lettering. Normally they are printed on the doors of the business.

"“PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL
CODE (TRESPASS BY LICENSE
HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED
HANDGUN), A PERSON LICENSED
UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411,
GOVERNMENT CODE (HANDGUN LICENSING
LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH
A CONCEALED HANDGUN” "

"“PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.07, PENAL
CODE (TRESPASS BY LICENSE
HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED
HANDGUN), A PERSON LICENSED
UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411,
GOVERNMENT CODE (HANDGUN LICENSING
LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH
A HANDGUN THAT IS CARRIED OPENLY”


The little gun-buster sticker(alone) on a door doesn't count.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on July 27, 2018, 07:40:59 AM
John Lott seems to write a good opinion piece but how on the mark is it? The opening sentence infers that as of Tuesday we can just go on out strapped whenever we like. Maybe I missed it in the thread somewhere, but HOW is it going to work here in Hawaii? Fo'realz? Is the entire section regarding open carry effectively stripped from the law or....? I read the decision in it's entirety, but with all the legalese and such, it's still hard to determine what it really means, other than REMANDED back to the lower court.

"Tuesday’s decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals means that people in the western U.S. will now be able to openly carry a handgun in public. The decision only applies to districts under the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, but it will likely soon affect the rest of the country. It is a huge ruling that strikes down existing state prohibitions in Hawaii and California."

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnrlottjr/2018/07/27/9th-circuit-decision-n2504266
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on July 27, 2018, 08:27:40 AM
You will be arrested walking around in public with a gun in Hawaii.  As my manong friend would say, "For real, I promise.".
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2018, 08:46:43 AM
If someone is feeling froggy, it might be reasonable to apply for a CCW permit now.  If (ha ha ha ... when) denied, since open carry is also forbidden, you'd have a good case for violation of your constitutional rights.

The ruling says concealed carry isn't a protected right, but if they  deny that AND open carry, it's a violation.

"In a 2-1 decision on Tuesday, the panel found Hawaii infringed on the rights of plaintiff George Young
when it twice denied him a permit the state requires to openly carry a gun in public."

Whether or not the state wants to change the laws or appeal the ruling is irrelevant. They can't ignore the current ruling.  If the law offers the option for the state to issue a CCW permit, I think they have to do it or face a lawsuit.

Just my non-lawyer reading of the situation.
Title: Re: Update Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2018, 08:49:24 AM
but a baker has to bake anyone a cake

Depends if it's Chris Baker.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on July 27, 2018, 09:23:11 AM
If someone is feeling froggy, it might be reasonable to apply for a CCW permit now.  If (ha ha ha ... when) denied, since open carry is also forbidden, you'd have a good case for violation of your constitutional rights.

The ruling says concealed carry isn't a protected right, but if they  deny that AND open carry, it's a violation.

"In a 2-1 decision on Tuesday, the panel found Hawaii infringed on the rights of plaintiff George Young
when it twice denied him a permit the state requires to openly carry a gun in public."

Whether or not the state wants to change the laws or appeal the ruling is irrelevant. They can't ignore the current ruling.  If the law offers the option for the state to issue a CCW permit, I think they have to do it or face a lawsuit.

Just my non-lawyer reading of the situation.

in that case, wouldn't it be better to apply for a open and concealed carry?  they'd have to approve one or the other?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2018, 09:27:31 AM
in that case, wouldn't it be better to apply for a open and concealed carry?  they'd have to approve one or the other?

Might as well since you're there already.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2018, 09:36:34 AM
Might as well since you're there already.

There is no process in Hawaii for issuing an open carry permit AFAIK. Open carry is only allowed for special exceptions, like security guards.

Concealed carry permits exist for everyone else at the police chief's discretion. They'd have to create a new permit for the public to open carry to make that an option.

"to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefor concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted."
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: robtmc on July 27, 2018, 12:23:18 PM
Of course, off duty cops may carry concealed all they want.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2018, 12:32:11 PM
Of course, off duty cops may carry concealed all they want.

Even recruits after a certain point.  My friend showed me his and he never graduated.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 27, 2018, 01:10:18 PM
https://youtu.be/dhjLHTSqX7E
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2018, 01:44:36 PM
Thanks for the video.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on July 27, 2018, 01:59:20 PM
The way I've heard it described is that it's a win-win for us no matter what happens at en banc.

 In the past, the states have opted for en banc, and won those cases.     If hawaii loses  en banc, they won't appeal to the SCOTUS.  They'll "take one for the team" to possible avoid wider 2nd amendment implications handed down at the federal level, and CA and HI gets open carry.    On the other hand, if the 9th circuit overturns the ruling, (presumably) young will appeal to SCOTUS and get a nationwide rulling on carry, which could be very unfavorable to gun opponents because of the shifting composition of the supreme court. 

Assuming Hawaii loses en banc, following the ruling, Hawaii should find it in their best interest to go to "shall issue" concealed carry.  The ruling says that there needs to be either open or concealed carry available to the law abiding masses.  They don't want the massive headaches and police calls as fear grips people's liberal hearts if they allowed open carry. It is in both gun advocate and opponents best interest if people is concealed carrying.  So they will keep open carry banned, and allow concealed carry on a shall issue basis.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on July 27, 2018, 02:47:33 PM
I am pretty sure the current ruling by the panel will get overturned en banc. I personally would like to see it go to SCOTUS to settle this thing once and for all.  At least we will have a conservative court for quite a while, especially if Trump wins another term and the Repubs hold at least 50 seats in the Senate.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on July 27, 2018, 03:23:03 PM
I am pretty sure the current ruling by the panel will get overturned en banc. I personally would like to see it go to SCOTUS to settle this thing once and for all.  At least we will have a conservative court for quite a while, especially if Trump wins another term and the Repubs hold at least 50 seats in the Senate.

The smarter play for anti 2a fanatics might be to let hawaii just bite the bullet and allow open carry or start issuing concealed carry on a "shall issue" basis instead of going to SCOTUS which would issue a ruling that much more far reaching.  But states like HI and CA are such rabid liberal states, that they'll never allow for such a compromise to occur and fight to the bitter end.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: ren on July 27, 2018, 03:35:42 PM
Even recruits after a certain point.  My friend showed me his and he never graduated.

Really? Times have changed.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 27, 2018, 04:41:58 PM
Even recruits after a certain point.  My friend showed me his and he never graduated.

Was he legally carrying or illegally carrying.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on July 27, 2018, 05:11:27 PM
Was he legally carrying or illegally carrying.
It was just the permit that was expired.

So not carrying, but forgot to clean out his wallet.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 27, 2018, 06:57:22 PM
It was just the permit that was expired.

So not carrying, but forgot to clean out his wallet.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

It was probably his firearms qualification card.  For HPD you get that after you complete your weapons qualification before they graduate.  They still can't carry a gun yet cause they don't have law enforcement powers until they graduate.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: michaelkih on July 29, 2018, 11:19:27 PM
Does this smake all the people who already just carry guns on them regardless of the laws legal now?  haha
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: eyeeatingfish on July 30, 2018, 09:58:40 PM
Does this smake all the people who already just carry guns on them regardless of the laws legal now?  haha

I don't know ow how those technicalities work but I sure won't be the first one to try!
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on July 31, 2018, 04:52:19 PM
they filed a motion to extend time
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 31, 2018, 05:18:08 PM
Perhaps they need more time to find a better attorney.

Hahahahaha I knew it.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: illmatic37 on July 31, 2018, 06:16:24 PM
they filed a motion to extend time

So they're asking for 45 more days, until 9/15? If that motion gets granted, what does that mean exactly?
The Hawaii court has to rehear the case by 9/15? Sorry, not trying to be ignorant, but legal jargon and procedure confuses me. 
Lol, trying to not get my hopes up but at the same time I'd like to know what's happening, what's ahead, timeframes ( hopefully not another 6 years), etc.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on July 31, 2018, 06:53:27 PM
So they're asking for 45 more days, until 9/15? If that motion gets granted, what does that mean exactly?
The Hawaii court has to rehear the case by 9/15? Sorry, not trying to be ignorant, but legal jargon and procedure confuses me. 
Lol, trying to not get my hopes up but at the same time I'd like to know what's happening, what's ahead, timeframes ( hopefully not another 6 years), etc.

County is asking until Sept 15 to file a new brief asking the full court to rehear the case
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on July 31, 2018, 09:17:27 PM
2a activism meeting on August 18th.  Learn how you can help this case.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=31972.0
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on August 02, 2018, 07:46:50 AM
More derp from our judges.  They assume the NRA is behind this case because the attorneys are from the mainland.  They dont know the attorney is originally from Hawaii and the NRA ignored the Young case.

Hawaii’s limits on open carry of guns won’t change soon, former justice says

....“It looks to me like an NRA (National Rifle Association) project,” he said. “I don’t know if it is or isn’t,” but he noted the lawyers representing plaintiffs in this and another pending case before the 9th Circuit Court regarding civilians carrying Tasers are from the mainland.

....“As a judge I was a great fan of our gun control laws,” he said. “I don’t want to see Tombstone, Arizona, and Dodge City, Kansas, under Wyatt Earp anymore, but that’s the way it is in a lot of states. Ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court will tell us.”


http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/08/02/hawaii-news/hawaiis-limits-on-open-carry-of-guns-wont-change-soon-former-justice-says/?HSA=a2338a946ec4e95586ef10a1e5e0e55908b896ab
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on August 02, 2018, 07:53:25 AM
As a judge, his job is to make rulings on what is constitutionally right, not make laws based on his personal feelings.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: drck1000 on August 02, 2018, 08:11:30 AM
What difference does it make it if it's an "NRA Project" or not.  Sounds like ignorance at first glace, but I'm betting it's getting the NRA name out there to mobilize those who are rabidly anti-NRA, anti-Trump, etc. 
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on August 02, 2018, 01:08:07 PM
the court granted a sept 14 extension

and to confirm I have nothing to do with the NRA
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: robtmc on August 02, 2018, 07:36:20 PM
As a judge, his job is to make rulings on what is constitutionally right, not make laws based on his personal feelings.
Stop it, you're killing me...........
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: SOLEsource684 on August 04, 2018, 03:19:23 AM
So there going to request an En Banc hearing? So possibly 2+ more years.  :shaka:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on August 04, 2018, 03:51:09 AM
I stand by my prediction stated earlier, 3 to 7 years.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: drck1000 on August 08, 2018, 04:54:48 PM
Pretty cool article about Young and Beck.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-hawaii/unlikely-pair-could-usher-gun-rights-case-to-u-s-supreme-court-idUSKBN1KT13B
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: GlockNewb on August 08, 2018, 05:32:58 PM
Wow, got coverage by The Gun Collective

https://youtu.be/vZeI6gXv90c
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Wake27 on August 11, 2018, 07:58:43 AM
Another good video:

https://youtu.be/6UFIGbguQXI
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on August 15, 2018, 07:05:44 PM
new free beacon article
"George is a good man," he said. "The federal court system isn't just for big businesses. It should be for everyone. I feel strongly he at least needed to be allowed to be heard, especially over something like the Second Amendment. You know, he's complaining about his constitutional rights, and they're not even letting him show up."
https://freebeacon.com/politics/meet-native-hawaiian-army-veteran-just-won-major-gun-carry-case/
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 21, 2018, 06:49:32 AM
Charles Nichols 8-minute podcast on Young v Hawaii, including how it has been binding precedent since the day it was published and still no attorney has filed for a TRO/Preliminary Injunction that would force the filed-against attorneys general of any state in the Ninth Circuit to conform to the open carry requirement of the decision.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=8372

I've written SAF, NRA, and GOA asking why they have not filed such actions. Only got a response from SAF, which hinted, after first wrongly claiming that Young has been appealed en banc, that they have some "double secret probation" strategy in the works. Sure they do. Let me guess. Amicus brief? They won't tell me. Since all those "gun rights organizations" oppose open carry (see their actual filings and oral arguments in Peruta and Richards), maybe they'll file an amicus for the defense?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 23, 2018, 06:42:50 AM
Charles Nichols podcast #2, almost 16 minutes focusing again on Young v Hawaii with detailed consideration of the possibilities regarding en banc petition. Yeah, 16 minutes. Only for weed dwellers and revelers (the "legal details", not "cannabis"  ;)). But makes clear why the petition for en banc is not a "done deal", as some of the possible negative outcomes for the appellees (state and county, et al) are outlined. Also mentioned that there are four other similar cases in other circuits where things actually get done in a timely manner that could easily get to SCOTUS before Young (and thus before Nichols) which would stay Young/Nichols pending the SCOTUS decision in one of those cases (were any of them granted cert of course).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Snc0f4R_xNg&feature=share
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 24, 2018, 09:12:02 AM
Charles Nichols' podcasts are now on SoundCloud.

Here is his new one (#3) today, in which he explains how and why a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction could be filed in any jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit having any sort of (de facto) ban on public open carry for self-defense under the currently precedent Young v Hawaii published decision. I hope you will all write the organizations at the addresses below and ask them the question (why haven't they filed for TRO/PI), and have better luck than I did getting an answer. Please let us know what they tell you.  :shaka:

https://soundcloud.com/user-758103830/podcast-3-the-gun-rights-groups-hate-open-carry-08242018?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

Episode #3 – 08/24/2018 – The so called Gun rights Groups Hate Open Carry

Contact the so-called gun-rights groups and ask them why they didn't file for a TRO-Preliminary Injunction against California's and Hawaii's Open Carry bans after the Young v. Hawaii decision was published on July 24, 2018?

And ask them why they filed lawsuits seeking to uphold California's Open Carry bans?

NRA - contact.nra.org/contact-us.aspx
CRPA (NRA State Organization) - www.crpa.org/contact-us/
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) - www.saf.org/contact-us-2/
The CalGuns Foundation - www.calgunsfoundation.org/con...

My Podcasts page at my website - blog.californiarighttocarry.org
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 24, 2018, 12:29:11 PM
Charles Nichols 8-minute podcast on Young v Hawaii, including how it has been binding precedent since the day it was published and still no attorney has filed for a TRO/Preliminary Injunction that would force the filed-against attorneys general of any state in the Ninth Circuit to conform to the open carry requirement of the decision.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=8372

I've written SAF, NRA, and GOA asking why they have not filed such actions. Only got a response from SAF, which hinted, after first wrongly claiming that Young has been appealed en banc, that they have some "double secret probation" strategy in the works. Sure they do. Let me guess. Amicus brief? They won't tell me. Since all those "gun rights organizations" oppose open carry (see their actual filings and oral arguments in Peruta and Richards), maybe they'll file an amicus for the defense?
From an unverified third party: "The response I received from Andrew [sic] Gottlieb at SAF - "A TRO would be thrown out by a judge. We are filing an amicus brief for that case.""

You mean like all the judges up through SCOTUS "threw out" SAF's concealed carry Richards v. Prieto? IF there is a petition for en banc, AND it is granted, THEN, given the history of SAF lawsuits disparaging open carry I hope Young counsel is allowed to read the amicus before assenting to it's submission. SAF might not be doing open carry any favors. I wouldn't be surprised. And the NRA? They helped legislators write California's open carry ban, so I can only imagine their amicus "help".
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on August 24, 2018, 02:10:23 PM
Charles Nichols' podcasts are now on SoundCloud.

Here is his new one (#3) today, in which he explains how and why a TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction could be filed in any jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit having any sort of (de facto) ban on public open carry for self-defense under the currently precedent Young v Hawaii published decision. I hope you will all write the organizations at the addresses below and ask them the question (why haven't they filed for TRO/PI), and have better luck than I did getting an answer. Please let us know what they tell you.  :shaka:

https://soundcloud.com/user-758103830/podcast-3-the-gun-rights-groups-hate-open-carry-08242018?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

Episode #3 – 08/24/2018 – The so called Gun rights Groups Hate Open Carry

Contact the so-called gun-rights groups and ask them why they didn't file for a TRO-Preliminary Injunction against California's and Hawaii's Open Carry bans after the Young v. Hawaii decision was published on July 24, 2018?

And ask them why they filed lawsuits seeking to uphold California's Open Carry bans?

NRA - contact.nra.org/contact-us.aspx
CRPA (NRA State Organization) - www.crpa.org/contact-us/
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) - www.saf.org/contact-us-2/
The CalGuns Foundation - www.calgunsfoundation.org/con...

My Podcasts page at my website - blog.californiarighttocarry.org

Ever though about filing the TRO or PI yourself ?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 24, 2018, 05:18:40 PM
Ever though about filing the TRO or PI yourself ?
Sure. Over the past several years I've thought of filing dozens of lawsuits on various issues (Mostly when my OIPA requests for documents are denied or ignored even on appeal, and the only remaining option is litigation. The ACLU has refused to help, and Judicial Watch has other fish to fry.) There are two problems. 1. I am not a lawyer. The chances of me being successful in navigating the many "traps" for those of little to no knowledge of the intricacies of state and federal court rules and procedures are slim and none. 2. It costs $400 to file for the TRO, which is relatively simple, but wouldn't last for more than, at most 10-14 days. The PI would last much longer, but is also a more complex filing, which amount to mine fields for someone with no legal system knowledge. If one judge were to deny the request it can be "shopped around" to other judges, but it costs $400 each time (is my understanding). That is chump change to the national "gun rights organizations", whereas to me, unfortunately, it's money I don't have to gamble with. Remember, SAF hired Gura [EDIT: My mistake, it was the NRA that hired Clement] at about $2,000 an hour to litigate Peruta, likely flew him first class to California for the orals and likely had him staying at some kind of quality hotel. And he LOST, BIGLY. They obviously have plenty of money. The $400 or $800 or $1200 or whatever it would be is not the issue. They won't do it for some other reason... and it can't be that "a judge will throw it out"... because that is the result they got from Peruta and many other lost lawsuits where they have tried to argue, against Scalia's very clear words in Heller, that concealed carry is a right.

George Young asked 17 attorneys in Hawaii to take his case, and none would. That's when he committed to spending literally thousands of hours studying law and his pro se cases were still thrown out of court without ever getting an actual hearing/presentation of evidence in a courtroom... but merely dismissed on essentially procedural grounds. Only with the assistance of an attorney was his case able to actually start to get a fair hearing. The deck is completely stacked against any non-lawyer who attempts to enter the realm of the lawyers (which includes the judges of course). It is extremely ironic, or perhaps and indication of the grandiose incompetence of the "national gun rights organizations" that the only three major cases in the Ninth Circuit to win an overturning of ban type laws (now Young, and previously the NMI cases of Radich v. Deleon Guerrero, and Murphy v. Deleon Guerrero) were by pro se individuals, who either plead the cases themselves, or started by themselves and then got pro bono legal aid. I'm just sayin'...

The purpose of getting the TRO/PI would be to then attempt to receive an open carry license in conformance with the Young ruling, which would be in effect, and then upon denial have grounds to sue for not conforming to the precedent in effect. So the TRO/PI is only the first step, and the succeeding steps would be much more complex. Any takers?

I've looked for and asked attorneys for help in the past, and no one wants to volunteer for the pro bono, that's for sure.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on August 25, 2018, 06:24:19 AM
Sure. Over the past several years I've thought of filing dozens of lawsuits on various issues (Mostly when my OIPA requests for documents are denied or ignored even on appeal, and the only remaining option is litigation. The ACLU has refused to help, and Judicial Watch has other fish to fry.) There are two problems. 1. I am not a lawyer. The chances of me being successful in navigating the many "traps" for those of little to no knowledge of the intricacies of state and federal court rules and procedures are slim and none. 2. It costs $400 to file for the TRO, which is relatively simple, but wouldn't last for more than, at most 10-14 days. The PI would last much longer, but is also a more complex filing, which amount to mine fields for someone with no legal system knowledge. If one judge were to deny the request it can be "shopped around" to other judges, but it costs $400 each time (is my understanding). That is chump change to the national "gun rights organizations", whereas to me, unfortunately, it's money I don't have to gamble with. Remember, SAF hired Gura [EDIT: My mistake, it was the NRA that hired Clement] at about $2,000 an hour to litigate Peruta, likely flew him first class to California for the orals and likely had him staying at some kind of quality hotel. And he LOST, BIGLY. They obviously have plenty of money. The $400 or $800 or $1200 or whatever it would be is not the issue. They won't do it for some other reason... and it can't be that "a judge will throw it out"... because that is the result they got from Peruta and many other lost lawsuits where they have tried to argue, against Scalia's very clear words in Heller, that concealed carry is a right.

George Young asked 17 attorneys in Hawaii to take his case, and none would. That's when he committed to spending literally thousands of hours studying law and his pro se cases were still thrown out of court without ever getting an actual hearing/presentation of evidence in a courtroom... but merely dismissed on essentially procedural grounds. Only with the assistance of an attorney was his case able to actually start to get a fair hearing. The deck is completely stacked against any non-lawyer who attempts to enter the realm of the lawyers (which includes the judges of course). It is extremely ironic, or perhaps and indication of the grandiose incompetence of the "national gun rights organizations" that the only three major cases in the Ninth Circuit to win an overturning of ban type laws (now Young, and previously the NMI cases of Radich v. Deleon Guerrero, and Murphy v. Deleon Guerrero) were by pro se individuals, who either plead the cases themselves, or started by themselves and then got pro bono legal aid. I'm just sayin'...

The purpose of getting the TRO/PI would be to then attempt to receive an open carry license in conformance with the Young ruling, which would be in effect, and then upon denial have grounds to sue for not conforming to the precedent in effect. So the TRO/PI is only the first step, and the succeeding steps would be much more complex. Any takers?

I've looked for and asked attorneys for help in the past, and no one wants to volunteer for the pro bono, that's for sure.

Just to clarify.  Radich was ligated by attorney David Sigale.  Murphy was done by a pro se person. 

Also Fotoudis v. City of Honolulu 54 F. Supp. 3d 1136 (D. Haw. 2014)  overturned Hawaii's ban on green card holders. and that was litigated by me and Richard Holcomb

Also Andrew Roberts v. City & County of Honolulu removed City and County of Honolulu's restrictions that were put in place after the  Fotoudis case again done by Rick and I.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 27, 2018, 09:53:29 AM
Charles Nichols' latest podcast, which is primarily about the NRA's Flanagan v Becerra, but touches once again on Young v Hawaii and how the door is still open to a TRO/PI.

https://soundcloud.com/californiaopencarry/podcast-4-the-national-rifle-associations-fake-open-carry-lawsuit-flanagan-v-becerra?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook

And speaking of a TRO/PI, and why I don't file for one myself, here is an example of such a filing, as posted by SAF re a suit they have going in California. You can see it's 91 pages long and thus far beyond the scope of what any ordinary non-lawyer citizen would be capable of writing with any hope of success.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/4636/attachments/original/1534296748/sharp-mpi.pdf?1534296748
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 29, 2018, 07:07:10 AM
I'm taking the liberty of reposting "wolfwood"'s (aka Alan Beck) post this morning to the Young thread on CalGuns so those readers here that don't follow that thread may be fully informed (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=22053175&postcount=565) Motion of state to intervene DENIED, BUT... :

Somewhat interesting order came down

Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and SANDRA S. IKUTA): The State of Hawaii’s motion to intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b), filed on August 16, 2018, is DENIED as unnecessary. The State of Hawaii is, and remains, a party to this appeal during the pendency of any en banc proceedings, since Young filed a notice of appeal with respect to the district court’s dismissal of his claims against both the State and the County. While we dismissed the appeal against the State, such dismissal is not effective until the mandate issues in this case. See Fed. R. App. P. 41. We sua sponte extend the time for the State of Hawaii to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc until September 14, 2018—the current deadline for the County of Hawaii to file any such petition. Judge Clifton dissents from the denial of the unopposed motion to intervene. He would grant it. [10993822] (AF)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 29, 2018, 08:25:36 AM
Can you break this down in dummy terms?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 29, 2018, 10:30:20 AM
Can you break this down in dummy terms?
The state of Hawaii is recognized as an official party to the case, and thus may file motions, etc.

The state of Hawaii asked for intervenor status (i.e. they wanted to be an official legal party (can file motions, argue at orals, etc.) to the appeal, which they themselves had declined a role in the original appeal before the three judge panel, where they only filed an amicus brief (which states someone's opinion about the case, but isn't a submission by an official party to the case)). The three judge panel today DENIED granting intervenor status as requested by the state, BUT they denied it on grounds that it was UNNECESSARY because the state was already a party to the case prior to the appeals court proceedings, at the district court level, and they had not requested nor been granted exemption from being a party at that level, and thus the state still has the legal ability to file any legal motions in the current appeal level proceedings.

The state has fired five Washington D.C.-based attorneys just for this case. They have the legal ability to file any motions re the case. They have until September 14 (unless they ask for another extension of time) to file for rehearing or rehearing en banc. If they do file for either of those, and either is granted, the three judge panel decision in favor of Young is vacated pending the outcome of of the rehearing/rehearing en banc, and the window is immediately closed re the filing of a TRO/preliminary injunction, which has been open for 36 days now with no takers. I've read other people claiming to have called attorneys and none will take up the offer to file, even when they are offered payment, and one person has an open forum post saying he will pay the filing fee of $400... and, in case you aren't following the case closely, none of the "gun rights" groups have filed such a motion.

New podcast from Charles Nichols going into the details of the en banc process: https://soundcloud.com/californiaopencarry/podcast-5-why-is-a-decision-reheard-en-banc-in-the-9th-circuit-and-what-happens-if-it-isnt-08282018?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on August 29, 2018, 12:54:42 PM
I was going to apply for an open carry permit and file for an injunction this week but heard it would be too late.

The State is spending big bucks on this case.  Your bucks.  Its going into the millions of dollars if it gets to SCOTUS.  And other states like New York and Maryland want to make sure it doesnt pass.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on August 29, 2018, 12:56:50 PM
I was going to apply for an open carry permit and file for an injunction this week but heard it would be too late.

The State is spending big bucks on this case.  Your bucks.  Its going into the millions of dollars if it gets to SCOTUS.  And other states like New York and Maryland want to make sure it doesnt pass.

Ain't that a bitch.  My tax dollars are being spent so I can deny my own right.  That's like paying someone to rob you.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 29, 2018, 02:23:12 PM
I was going to apply for an open carry permit and file for an injunction this week but heard it would be too late.

The State is spending big bucks on this case.  Your bucks.  Its going into the millions of dollars if it gets to SCOTUS.  And other states like New York and Maryland want to make sure it doesnt pass.
Who'd you hear that from? My understanding is until it's been motioned for AND ACCEPTED for rehearing or rehearing en banc Young is binding precedent in the Ninth and thus amenable to TRO/PI.

File for the TRO/PI immediately. Or tomorrow morning. As soon as it is granted, then go turn in your application for open carry.

Some knowledgeable attorney please chime in.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on August 29, 2018, 05:27:56 PM
Punaperson,
Are you saying or is it your understanding that.....

Since Mr Young had filed for open carry and won the case, does that mean he can now oc?  Or does he need to wait?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on August 29, 2018, 06:33:06 PM
Who'd you hear that from? My understanding is until it's been motioned for AND ACCEPTED for rehearing or rehearing en banc Young is binding precedent in the Ninth and thus amenable to TRO/PI.

File for the TRO/PI immediately. Or tomorrow morning. As soon as it is granted, then go turn in your application for open carry.

Some knowledgeable attorney please chime in.

Inwould have to apply for the permit, wait to get denied, file the injunction, and get a court date.  But theres only a week or two to do all that.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 29, 2018, 09:10:41 PM
Punaperson,
Are you saying or is it your understanding that.....

Since Mr Young had filed for open carry and won the case, does that mean he can now oc?  Or does he need to wait?
No. No one, including Mr. Young can lawfully open carry. The "win" is that the law, as applied, and maybe facially, is unconstitutional. His case was remanded back to district court for a trial (unless an en banc motion or sua sponte call is accepted prior to the mandate issuing). In the meantime that ruling is in effect, in the sense that people cannot be categorically denied an open carry license because they are not security guards. Mr. Young (and Mr. Nichols, who's case is stayed pending resolution of Young [See EDIT/CORRECTION below]) are the only two people who cannot file for a TRO/PI.  A person would not even have to be a resident of the Ninth Circuit to file, certainly in Hawaii where Hawaii residency is not a requirement for a license being issued.

We all need to wait... and likely for a long time, even if Young were to win, one way or another, all the way up to SCOTUS. In the meantime, Hawaii will continue to deny us the ability to lawfully exercise our rights without threat of imprisonment. In other words, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

EDIT/CORRECTION from Mr. Nichols:

My appeal is not stayed.

12 days after I argued my appeal and it was taken under submission for a decision, my panel vacated the submission pending a decision in Young.  That is not a stay.  Also, the duration of the vacated submission was limited.  The vacating of the submission of my appeal for a decision ended on July 24th, the moment the Young v. Hawaii decision was published.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on August 29, 2018, 09:14:01 PM
Inwould have to apply for the permit, wait to get denied, file the injunction, and get a court date.  But theres only a week or two to do all that.
"groveler" applied after the decision was rendered and has his denial letter. File in his name. With his permission of course.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on August 30, 2018, 06:47:22 AM

We all need to wait... and likely for a long time, even if Young were to win, one way or another, all the way up to SCOTUS. In the meantime, Hawaii will continue to deny us the ability to lawfully exercise our rights without threat of imprisonment. In other words, same as it ever was, same as it ever was


You have reinforced my original belief that it will take 3 to 7 years, except now I am adding, if we are lucky. 
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on September 03, 2018, 10:41:47 PM
This is an interesting article.  Two law professors say Mr. Young's attorney, Alan Beck, made major mistakes and may have lost the case after winning by saying states can ban open carry for concealed carry.  SCOTUS already said concealed carry is not a right under the 2A. 
https://newsblaze.com/usnews/politics/professors-of-law-say-9th-circuit-open-carry-decision-is-now-the-law-young-v-hawaii-lawyer-says-it-isnt_138979/
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 04, 2018, 06:00:29 PM
A TRO requires the judge to look at 4 factors before issuing a TRO. IF what Charles nicles was saying was true about a PI or TRO, he would be eligible to file for either as the 9th circuits court case (according to him) would be binding. He claims that he cant because he lost his case at the district court. That would not be the case as the lower court has now received new case law/direction that would allow him to refile. Just as Young had to wait to file his case (2 extra times after being denied) in the Hawaii district court.




Though considerations may vary from state to state, generally courts consider four factors before issuing an injunction,

Irreparable harm—Courts con­sider the significance of threat to the requesting party if the injunction is not granted.

Balance—Next, courts consider the effects of issuing, or not issuing, the injunction on both parties. While the requesting party may be harmed if the court does not issue the injunction, the other party may be harmed if the court grants the injunction.

Likelihood of success—Courts consider whether or not the party requesting the injunction has a poten­tially successful case—that is, one that is likely to “succeed on the merits” at the end of litigation.

Public interest—Finally, courts consider the injunction’s possible effect on the public interest.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 04, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
I dont know where you find that Beck has said that CC means they can ban OC and as such he can lose, I dont even see anywhere where the 2 law professors imply that. I cant find any where where Alan has concede that open carry is not a right.
\

What i do see looking at this and other writings by Nichole's is that he has some sort of hardon for Alan.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 04, 2018, 09:47:12 PM
Intetesting how kamala harris tweeted how kavanaugh didnt shake the MSD father, whos daughter was killed. Something like if he wont even shake a hand, he wont hear them in court.

U mean like how young was denied a hearing from hawaii for his 2nd amendment right? I wish i had twitter so i could respond.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on September 04, 2018, 09:59:15 PM
First I want to say I applaud Mr Beck for taking the time to argue this very difficult case, especially pro bono.
I have nothing but praise for him, but this article is disturbing.  Did you read the whole article?  Below I have some excerpts from it.


I dont know where you find that Beck has said that CC means they can ban OC and as such he can lose, I dont even see anywhere where the 2 law professors imply that. I cant find any where where Alan has concede that open carry is not a right.
\

The article stated,

During oral argument in Young v. Hawaii, Mr. Beck’s legal argument was that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.

he told the three-judge panel assigned to his appeal in Young v. Hawaii that the panel is not bound by the US Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald when he said that states can ban Open Carry.

And since lawyers are bound by the concessions they make during oral argument, Mr. Young would lose his appeal not because there isn’t a Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm in public but because Mr. Young, through his attorney Alan Beck, has “conceded” that there is no Second Amendment right to Open Carry and “Presto,” “Whamo,” Mr. Young loses his en banc appeal without the en banc panel having to ever decide the Second Amendment Open Carry question because that question was not directly before it.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on September 04, 2018, 11:03:36 PM
The article stated,
During oral argument in Young v. Hawaii, Mr. Beck’s legal argument was that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.

he told the three-judge panel assigned to his appeal in Young v. Hawaii that the panel is not bound by the US Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald when he said that states can ban Open Carry.

And since lawyers are bound by the concessions they make during oral argument, Mr. Young would lose his appeal not because there isn’t a Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm in public but because Mr. Young, through his attorney Alan Beck, has “conceded” that there is no Second Amendment right to Open Carry and “Presto,” “Whamo,” Mr. Young loses his en banc appeal without the en banc panel having to ever decide the Second Amendment Open Carry question because that question was not directly before it.

In the argument, Beck said that open carry is allowed by strict scrutiny.  The judges wanted him to analyze it under intermediate scrutiny where Beck said  the court still has to find open carry legal because the Peruta case said CCW was not a right so an alternative method must be allowed under intermediate scrutiny, which is open carry.  So basically under the worst case losing scenario, the court still has to allow one form of carry.

Also, I thought Heller never mentioned anything about open carry?  I didn't hear Beck mention anything about SCOTUS saying states can ban open carry, unless it was in reference the intermediate scrutiny reference that states must allow one form of carry so can ban open carry if they allow
CCW.

The case could've been done better, but I think Beck did okay.  The article sounded exaggerated, emotional, and biased as if the author has a grudge against Beck for some reason, maybe because it's competing with his case?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 04, 2018, 11:31:57 PM
First I want to say I applaud Mr Beck for taking the time to argue this very difficult case, especially pro bono.
I have nothing but praise for him, but this article is disturbing.  Did you read the whole article?  Below I have some excerpts from it.

The article stated,

During oral argument in Young v. Hawaii, Mr. Beck’s legal argument was that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.

he told the three-judge panel assigned to his appeal in Young v. Hawaii that the panel is not bound by the US Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald when he said that states can ban Open Carry.

And since lawyers are bound by the concessions they make during oral argument, Mr. Young would lose his appeal not because there isn’t a Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm in public but because Mr. Young, through his attorney Alan Beck, has “conceded” that there is no Second Amendment right to Open Carry and “Presto,” “Whamo,” Mr. Young loses his en banc appeal without the en banc panel having to ever decide the Second Amendment Open Carry question because that question was not directly before it.

If you go and look at any of Nichols wrings about Alan beck he has constently made bold claims and attacks, over and over again. what you have to remember is that if Alan wins Nicholas fight dies, he won’t get any fame or limelight. So it’s in his best interest (because IMO that’s why he’s doing this) to try and defame and/or sabotage Alan’s work.

what he is forgoing the fact that Young asked for both open and concealed carry. This means he is asking for the right to bear arms outside of the home in some form. Therefore saying that if one way was granted it would for fill the right, does not conceal that the other is not a right. Mearly that a right to bear arms could be forfilled outside of the home in some way shape of form.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on September 04, 2018, 11:35:58 PM
There are 2 sides to every story.  I am merely posting what the article said.  What actually happened I do not know.  It does appear that the author of that article does not like Mr Beck.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on September 08, 2018, 05:24:07 PM
Big Island News....


http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2018/09/08/video-testimony-divided-on-funding-open-carry-lawsuit-fight/

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 08, 2018, 05:52:54 PM
Big Island News....


http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2018/09/08/video-testimony-divided-on-funding-open-carry-lawsuit-fight/

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Dosnt matter what they say. The state is a party to the lawsuit they can and will file an appeal even if the BI says no.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 09, 2018, 06:44:30 AM
Dosnt matter what they say. The state is a party to the lawsuit they can and will file an appeal even if the BI says no.
The state is not a party to the lawsuit yet. The have filed a motion to intervene, but that motion has not been granted. The motion was unopposed by Young counsel. There is a high probability, based upon past such motions, that it will be granted.

The point wasn't that the Hawaii County Council could stop the state from taking whatever actions it plans to take if it is granted intervenor status, the point is that the responsible agents of Hawaii county (police chief, mayor, Office of Corporation Counsel) ought to ethically be held directly responsible for their many years of decisions to violate our rights, independent of whatever the state does, and not be given the easy out of saying "Okay, you guys from D.C. take care of us, because we now admit we don't know what we are or have been doing making shit up all these years", which is what they are saying when they claim they don't have the "legal expertise" to defend themselves.

Plus, I'd love to see Horowitz at orals again, this time in front of the Ninth en banc eleven judges or even more so in front of SCOTUS. I'd pay for that.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 09, 2018, 07:05:49 AM
If you go and look at any of Nichols wrings about Alan beck he has constently made bold claims and attacks, over and over again. what you have to remember is that if Alan wins Nicholas fight dies, he won’t get any fame or limelight. So it’s in his best interest (because IMO that’s why he’s doing this) to try and defame and/or sabotage Alan’s work.

what he is forgoing the fact that Young asked for both open and concealed carry. This means he is asking for the right to bear arms outside of the home in some form. Therefore saying that if one way was granted it would for fill the right, does not conceal that the other is not a right. Mearly that a right to bear arms could be forfilled outside of the home in some way shape of form.
No, Nichols' case does not "die", whether Young wins or loses. What happens is that the Young decision becomes binding on the three judge panel deciding Nichols. Nichols challenges California laws, and is vastly broader than the Young challenges, so other issues will  be decided completely independent of whatever is decided in Young. I find it curious, at best, that you characterize Nichols' communications to and about Young counsel as "sabotage", as they could more accurately be read as suggestions as to how to more successfully litigate the case. We'll never know whether any of that "advice" was accurate or not, because those things didn't happen.

As for the assertion that Young somehow is a call for "some" manner of carry (open or concealed), it's NOT in the Ninth Circuit, where it has already been clearly decided (en banc in Peruta, cert denied at SCOTUS) that concealed carry is entirely outside the scope of the Second Amendment and thus may be regulated in whatever manner a state sees fit, including a complete outright ban, or the de facto outright ban as in Hawaii. So that is "off the table" as judge Ikuda put it during orals and judge O'Scannlain was equally clear in his opinion.

Are you suggesting that IF Young is eventually appealed to SCOTUS and IF SCOTUS grants cert that they MAY issue an opinion that says "some" manner of carry MUST be made available to "typical law-abiding persons", and that manner could be or include "concealed"? If so, what is your basis of making that claim? There have been at least four challenges to concealed carry "over regulation" apply for cert to SCOTUS in the past 5 years, and all have been denied cert. In one or two cases ONE justice (Thomas) wrote a dissent to denial of cert, and in one of those was joined by one other justice (Gorsuch). You need four justices to grant cert, and five to win. Two seems like a low number. If any more justices at SCOTUS think concealed carry is a right they don't seem to be speaking up when given the chance to comment on it. Maybe you have some "inside information". I'd like to hear it.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 09, 2018, 12:39:07 PM
No, Nichols' case does not "die", whether Young wins or loses. What happens is that the Young decision becomes binding on the three judge panel deciding Nichols. Nichols challenges California laws, and is vastly broader than the Young challenges, so other issues will  be decided completely independent of whatever is decided in Young. I find it curious, at best, that you characterize Nichols' communications to and about Young counsel as "sabotage", as they could more accurately be read as suggestions as to how to more successfully litigate the case. We'll never know whether any of that "advice" was accurate or not, because those things didn't happen.

As for the assertion that Young somehow is a call for "some" manner of carry (open or concealed), it's NOT in the Ninth Circuit, where it has already been clearly decided (en banc in Peruta, cert denied at SCOTUS) that concealed carry is entirely outside the scope of the Second Amendment and thus may be regulated in whatever manner a state sees fit, including a complete outright ban, or the de facto outright ban as in Hawaii. So that is "off the table" as judge Ikuda put it during orals and judge O'Scannlain was equally clear in his opinion.

Are you suggesting that IF Young is eventually appealed to SCOTUS and IF SCOTUS grants cert that they MAY issue an opinion that says "some" manner of carry MUST be made available to "typical law-abiding persons", and that manner could be or include "concealed"? If so, what is your basis of making that claim? There have been at least four challenges to concealed carry "over regulation" apply for cert to SCOTUS in the past 5 years, and all have been denied cert. In one or two cases ONE justice (Thomas) wrote a dissent to denial of cert, and in one of those was joined by one other justice (Gorsuch). You need four justices to grant cert, and five to win. Two seems like a low number. If any more justices at SCOTUS think concealed carry is a right they don't seem to be speaking up when given the chance to comment on it. Maybe you have some "inside information". I'd like to hear it.

When Young is won, his case becomes (mostly) irelevant and as such he doesn’t get what he wants (his name in lights). This the constant picking at what is going on in young.

Nichole’s is asserting that Alan saying that the state may forfill the right to bear arms (openly) outside of the home could be forfilled with a CCW permit (which as far as I know was never said in court) would cause him to lose this case. What I’m saying so that’s not true as the original young case actually asked for both open ad concealed. That being said is open carry is found to be a right, the state/city could argue that it can/will forfill that right by issuing CCW permits instead of open.

The chances of SCOTUS taking up an open carry case is increased because if Lost at the 9th will creat a split circuit. With regards to this allowing CCW see above

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on September 09, 2018, 12:53:52 PM
There's a better chance of Young being taken up by SCOTUS this time since Kavanagh will most likely join Thomas and Gorsuch to take on this case.  Pluss the added pressure for one of the two other conservative judges to join them due to the circuit split.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on September 09, 2018, 01:26:49 PM
So in 3 to 7 years........
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 09, 2018, 01:51:08 PM
There's a better chance of Young being taken up by SCOTUS this time since Kavanagh will most likely join Thomas and Gorsuch to take on this case.  Pluss the added pressure for one of the two other conservative judges to join them due to the circuit split.
Hold that thought for three or four years and we'll see what happens... assuming that should Young stand after an en banc review that various civilian disarmament  AGs from the other authoritarian infringing states won't successfully attempt to influence Hawaii to NOT ask for cert at SCOTUS like they did with D.C. for fear of losing at SCOTUS. Wake me when we get there.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 09, 2018, 02:19:16 PM
When Young is won, his case becomes (mostly) irelevant and as such he doesn’t get what he wants (his name in lights). This the constant picking at what is going on in young.

The only useful thing about folks like you is that you are walking, talking billboards as to why concealed carry should be banned.  Do tell us more about what I want.  FYI, California's Open Carry bans remain in place even if the Young v. Hawaii decision survives unless and until someone files a lawsuit challenging California's Open Carry bans.  The California Loaded Open Carry ban was enacted in July of 1967.  I am the first and only person who has challenged that ban in court, state or Federal.  Likewise with the more recent bans on Unloaded Open Carry.  I am also the first and only person who has challenged the restrictions on issuing handgun Open Carry licenses to counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people.

What I want is what I said in my lawsuit in the district court and repeated on appeal, to vindicate my Second Amendment right to openly carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense and for other lawful purposes.

What I don't want is some lawyer screwing the Second Amendment by making the same failed argument the NRA, SAF, CalGuns.nuts lawyers made in their concealed carry lawsuits, that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry, in the hopes that they might let him sit at their table.

Nichole’s is asserting that Alan saying that the state may forfill the right to bear arms (openly) outside of the home could be forfilled with a CCW permit (which as far as I know was never said in court) would cause him to lose this case. What I’m saying so that’s not true as the original young case actually asked for both open ad concealed. That being said is open carry is found to be a right, the state/city could argue that it can/will forfill that right by issuing CCW permits instead of open.

Lawyers are bound by the concessions they make in oral argument, regardless of what is said in the Complaint.  You would have known this even if the Young v. Hawaii decision had been the only decision you have ever read.  But since you did not know this then it is safe to assume that you haven't even read the Young decision.  And, of course, you did not watch Mr. Beck's oral argument which is precluded by the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego.  Concealed carry is not a right under the binding precedent in this circuit (as well as the binding precedents in Heller and McDonald).

Mr. Beck had only one line regarding the right to carry outside of the home and he blew it.  "Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and concealed carry is not a right."

Any argument that the state might make about the Second Amendment right being satisfied with concealed carry permits is likewise precluded by the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego as well as the US Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald.

The chances of SCOTUS taking up an open carry case is increased because if Lost at the 9th will creat a split circuit. With regards to this allowing CCW see above

The Young v. Hawaii decision did not create a split with regards to concealed carry.  Judge O'Scannlain opined that he was bound by the Peruta en banc decision (which he is) and therefore limited his holding to Open Carry.  The Young v. Hawaii decision as it stands today does not create a split with any Federal circuit.  But feel free to demonstrate your legal acumen by listing all of the splits and why they are splits.  You can't?  So sad.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 09, 2018, 02:22:07 PM
[My reply was written prior to Mr. Nichols posting...]

When Young is won, his case becomes (mostly) irelevant and as such he doesn’t get what he wants (his name in lights). This the constant picking at what is going on in young.

Okay, those are your judgments. Here are mine: You are completely wrong. Not the least of which is that Nichols v Brown becomes "mostly irelevant (sic)". Nichols v Brown challenges all kinds of things never mentioned in Young, including the entire licensing scheme per se, "gun free school zones", etc.  Those issues will all be ruled upon in Nichols v Brown no matter what happens at any level with Young. Young doesn't challenge the entire licensing scheme. Young could "win" with a judicial order that "typical law-abiding persons" may be issued licenses under the current de facto "security guards only" language (which is what the current ruling dictates must be done when the case is remanded to circuit court). The county (or state) could then interpret the other, unchallenged, language in that statute to require all kinds of necessary "qualifications" to be issued the license, since it will be "may issue" and not "shall issue". Extensive, time-consuming, expensive training, perhaps a mental health evaluation, interviews with family/co-workers, etc., virtually anything and everything they can think of to make it "possible" to get an open carry license if you are not a security guard, but highly unlikely. Maybe issue a few to former law enforcement and/or some "friends" to "prove" that they issue them.

Nichole’s is asserting that Alan saying that the state may forfill the right to bear arms (openly) outside of the home could be forfilled with a CCW permit (which as far as I know was never said in court) would cause him to lose this case. What I’m saying so that’s not true as the original young case actually asked for both open ad concealed. That being said is open carry is found to be a right, the state/city could argue that it can/will forfill that right by issuing CCW permits instead of open.

Certainly the state or county can make any policy they desire. And at any time. They don't have to wait for any court decision in any case to change their policies or laws. Sure, they could say that they will now make CCW, rather than open carry, "available" under whatever conditions they set (see above), but no one would have any right to challenge those criteria under any kind of Second Amendment challenge because concealed carry has already been ruled (in the Ninth Circuit) outside the scope of the Second Amendment. What good would that do? It's exactly where we are now. No open carry, no concealed carry except to perhaps a few people who can (afford to) jump through all the hoops. It's clear that the plan from the state is to never issue any kind of license to anyone that would allow them to bear a firearm outside their home. They have a virtually unlimited number of possibilities and time to be able to keep their current obviously infringing scheme in place in one form or another.

The chances of SCOTUS taking up an open carry case is increased because if Lost at the 9th will creat a split circuit. With regards to this allowing CCW see above
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on September 09, 2018, 03:47:44 PM
I think regardless of what was said previously at court, SCOTUS will answer the question is carrying in public a 2a right, and what are some restrictions that can be imposed.

From what I've observed from past cases, it seems SCOTUS judges do their own thing versus following a strict set of rules.

There will definitely be more restrictions and challenges in the future no doubt.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 09, 2018, 04:12:09 PM
Your doing the same thing here that you did in front of the 9th, Circular arguments. You have nothing to input other then what you believe to be true.

The only court has ruled on your legal throey is the Florida supreme court expressly found that because Florida is SHALL ISSUE on concealed carry, they can BAN open carry.  (Norman vs State).
IF the right to open carry is affirmed by the courts on the basis that you have a constitutional right to bear arms outside of the home. WHAT I AM SAYING is : It would be reasonable for them to issue permits to Concealed carry to for fill that need using the premises of legal fiction.

https://youtu.be/Oi51IzlJMCI


Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 09, 2018, 04:12:46 PM
Also on another point.

Alan won at the 9th circuit If he fucked it up as you say : How did he win >?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 09, 2018, 04:18:06 PM
Your doing the same thing here that you did in front of the 9th, Circular arguments. You have nothing to input other then what you believe to be true.

My arguing Stare Decisis is not a "circular argument," which just goes to show you don't know what either means.

The only court has ruled on your legal throey is the Florida supreme court expressly found that because Florida is SHALL ISSUE on concealed carry, they can BAN open carry.  (Norman vs State).
IF the right to open carry is affirmed by the courts on the basis that you have a constitutional right to bear arms outside of the home. WHAT I AM SAYING is : It would be reasonable for them to issue permits to Concealed carry to for fill that need using the premises of legal fiction.

And what you are saying is pure nonsense. Sadly, the 1st Amendment protects your right to say stupid things.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 09, 2018, 04:20:16 PM
Also on another point.

Alan won at the 9th circuit If he fucked it up as you say : How did he win >?

I did not say he "fucked it up."  I wrote that he could fuck it up, as it were, if he makes the same argument before an en banc court for the reason I wrote in my article.

Do try to improve on your reading comprehension before posting again.  The only people you are impressing are your fellow illiterate morons. 
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 09, 2018, 04:21:00 PM
And what you are saying is pure nonsense. Sadly, the 1st Amendment protects your right to say stupid things.

DO TELL
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 09, 2018, 04:26:17 PM
Judge Kavanaugh stated a couple of times during the confirmation hearings that concealed carry is not a Second Amendment right as per the Heller decision.  And yet there are still some fools out there who say that governments get to choose concealed carry over Open Carry.  So sad.

Concealed Carry is Not a Second Amendment Right
Judge Kavanaugh explains to Senator Feinstein that certain things, including concealed carry, fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment right.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4748320/concealed-carry-amendment (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4748320/concealed-carry-amendment)
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4748320/concealed-carry-amendment
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 09, 2018, 04:35:31 PM
Why did the Florida supreme court rule the way they did ? " We can ban open carry BECAUSE we have must issue CCW"

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 09, 2018, 05:14:56 PM
Why did the Florida supreme court rule the way they did ? " We can ban open carry BECAUSE we have must issue CCW"

Did you not read the decision?  The Florida Supreme Court said its decision conflicted with Heller.  And then said that Florida could substitute concealed carry because concealed carry does not "substantially burden" the Second Amendment right, which also conflicts with Heller.

But more importantly, the Florida State Supreme Court is not the United States Supreme Court, the latter having the last word on Federal law.

And of course the NRA lawyer who wrote the Norman cert petition wrote a petition which did not conform to SCOTUS Rule 10 despite Justice Scalia's and Thomas' dissent in Jackson v. San Francisco.  For the benefit of those of you, like London808 who are unfamiliar with SCOTUS Rule 10, it says that the purpose of SCOTUS is NOT to correct the errors of the lower courts.  The purpose of SCOTUS is to resolve splits on Federal law.

Any proponent of the Second Amendment who lets a so-called gun-rights lawyer write his petitions and briefs is like a Black man asking a Grand Dragon of the KKK to represent him in court.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on September 09, 2018, 06:00:45 PM
The fundamental 2a right would be to have the gun readily accessible for self defense purposes.

To me the method of carry, open or concealed, wouldnt make a difference in most historical circumstances.  Main thing is access to a weapon.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 09, 2018, 08:39:03 PM
The fundamental 2a right would be to have the gun readily accessible for self defense purposes.

To me the method of carry, open or concealed, wouldn't make a difference in most historical circumstances.  Main thing is access to a weapon.
Right. Now... how are you going to get the legislative, executive, and/or judicial branches of Hawaii government to conform to your belief? You aren't going to be able to do that, as we have seen. Every year the legislature and AG present and support even more, not fewer, draconian restrictions and infringements on our rights. The Hawaii district courts dismissed Young's three cases without ever even hearing them at trial. Young's only (temporary) relief came from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. Now, how does that court work? They are required to follow precedent of their own circuit, and the precedent of SCOTUS. Both the Ninth Circuit and SCOTUS have ruled that concealed carry is not a right protected by the Second Amendment. So far every effort by the NRA and SAF, et. al. to get the Ninth Circuit and SCOTUS to reverse their previous decisions, which are now precedent, on concealed carry has failed. People may "like" or "prefer" concealed carry, or even think it is their "right", but that is not the view of the courts, and they are the only avenue of relief.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 10, 2018, 07:08:31 AM
Did you not read the decision?  The Florida Supreme Court said its decision conflicted with Heller.  And then said that Florida could substitute concealed carry because concealed carry does not "substantially burden" the Second Amendment right, which also conflicts with Heller.

So your saying that the Florida court ruled against SCOTUS and openly said so ? Im having trouble finding that can you point it out to me ?





Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 10, 2018, 07:09:24 AM
But more importantly, the Florida State Supreme Court is not the United States Supreme Court, the latter having the last word on Federal law.

And of course the NRA lawyer who wrote the Norman cert petition wrote a petition which did not conform to SCOTUS Rule 10 despite Justice Scalia's and Thomas' dissent in Jackson v. San Francisco.  For the benefit of those of you, like London808 who are unfamiliar with SCOTUS Rule 10, it says that the purpose of SCOTUS is NOT to correct the errors of the lower courts.  The purpose of SCOTUS is to resolve splits on Federal law.

Caetano v. Massachusetts : Scotus hear a case that the MA state Supreme court GOT WRONG and corrected the court.............. Why wouldn't they do the same with FL ?

Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:

(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 10, 2018, 07:19:08 AM
And of course the NRA lawyer who wrote the Norman cert petition wrote a petition which did not conform to SCOTUS Rule 10 despite Justice Scalia's and Thomas' dissent in Jackson v. San Francisco.  For the benefit of those of you, like London808 who are unfamiliar with SCOTUS Rule 10, it says that the purpose of SCOTUS is NOT to correct the errors of the lower courts.  The purpose of SCOTUS is to resolve splits on Federal law.

Why is it you think the NRA's lawyer (Stephen Halbrook)  thats won 3 times in front of SCOTUS would of messed up on this one ?


Any proponent of the Second Amendment who lets a so-called gun-rights lawyer write his petitions and briefs is like a Black man asking a Grand Dragon of the KKK to represent him in court.

As the saying goes The Man Who Represents Himself Has a Fool For a Client :  Im beginning to see why you couldnet get an actually have a lawyer represent you.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 10, 2018, 07:31:18 AM
Caetano v. Massachusetts : Scotus hear a case that the MA state Supreme court GOT WRONG and corrected the court.............. Why wouldn't they do the same with FL ?
Actually SCOTUS did NOT "hear" Caetano, they did not grant cert. They issued a unanimous per curiam in which they sent the case back to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to be decided within the guidelines provided by the per curiam.(The state of Massachussetts then dismissed the charges against Ms. Caetano rather than retry the case.)

According to your implied argument (as bolded in your Rule 10 quotation) the question isn't "Why wouldn't they...", but, obviously, "Why DIDN'T they?" Because IF your argument is "true" that correcting a lower court error is sufficient grounds for SCOTUS to grant cert, AND the Florida State Supreme Court "erred", AND SCOTUS didn't grant cert (which they didn't)... then what is the reason for denial of cert?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 10, 2018, 07:58:52 AM
Why is it you think the NRA's lawyer (Stephen Halbrook)  thats won 3 times in front of SCOTUS would of messed up on this one ?

Bottom line: Did SCOTUS grant cert or not?

No, they didn't. Case closed.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 10, 2018, 08:25:52 AM
Bottom line: Did SCOTUS grant cert or not?

No, they didn't. Case closed.

But they did. They voted 9-0 and because the infringement was so obvious they did not hear oral arguments. The courts ruling is binding and sets legal precedent that can be cited to.

Mar 21 2016 - Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-10078.htm
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 10, 2018, 08:58:08 AM
But they did. They voted 9-0 and because the infringement was so obvious they did not hear oral arguments. The courts ruling is binding and sets legal precedent that can be cited to.

Mar 21 2016 - Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-10078.htm
Look again at the post you are responding to. That's my response to your statement about Halbrook and the NRA (the Norman v State case)... neither of whom had anything to do with Caetano.

Quote from: London808 on Today at 07:19:08 AM
Why is it you think the NRA's lawyer (Stephen Halbrook)  thats won 3 times in front of SCOTUS would of messed up on this one ?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 10, 2018, 09:00:58 AM
Look again at the post you are responding to. That's my response to your statement about Halbrook and the NRA (the Norman v State case)... neither of whom had anything to do with Caetano.

Quote from: London808 on Today at 07:19:08 AM
Why is it you think the NRA's lawyer (Stephen Halbrook)  thats won 3 times in front of SCOTUS would of messed up on this one ?

My bad
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 10, 2018, 09:04:13 AM
Bottom line: Did SCOTUS grant cert or not?

No, they didn't. Case closed.

They can grant cert they don’t have to grant cert. it’s a vote system with regards to what cases they take and as things stand these choices are based more on the political before off certain court members then the right or wrong of things.

No holes is implying that they could not take it because it’s not within the scope of rule 10. But it is and that’s what I’m demonstrating with caetano 

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 10, 2018, 09:47:20 AM
They can grant cert they don’t have to grant cert. it’s a vote system with regards to what cases they take and as things stand these choices are based more on the political before off certain court members then the right or wrong of things.

No holes is implying that they could not take it because it’s not within the scope of rule 10. But it is and that’s what I’m demonstrating with caetano
Not sure I can make sense of at least part of what you write there, but how do you explain the denial of cert in Kachalsky, Woollard, Drake, Peruta, etc., all concealed carry cases? "Political"?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 10, 2018, 10:06:54 AM
Not sure I can make sense of at least part of what you write there, but how do you explain the denial of cert in Kachalsky, Woollard, Drake, Peruta, etc., all concealed carry cases? "Political"?

Sorry when I post from my phone it autocorrects me a lot .

Yes I would say it’s political, same reason they won’t hear magazine and assulat weapons. The court knows that if heard they would have to find that there is indeed a second ammednet protection for Carry outside the home, magazines and assulat weapons.

You would need a very defined split circuit for them to be forced to take any of the above. But even then they may still bow to political pressure/ideology
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 10, 2018, 11:25:15 AM
It's as simple as this, which is evidently too complicated for simple minds like London808 to comprehend.  The Heller decision said there are limitations to the Second Amendment right and gave a non exhaustive list.  The first on that list was concealed carry, followed by felons and the mentally ill.  The list closed with "sensitive places" and the commercial sale of arms.

All four dissenting justices in Heller agreed with the majority that concealed carry is not a right.  This should not be surprising given that the four justices in the minority would have upheld D.C.'s ban on the mere possession of handguns in the home.

Judge Kavanaugh has explained to the world in his confirmation hearings that there are limitations on the Second Amendment right and repeated the Heller decision's holding that concealed carry is not a right.  He also reminded the world that the McDonald decision likewise cited that section from the Heller decision which limited the scope of the Second Amendment.

Anyone who still claims that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry falls into the category of persons who fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment right listed in Heller, the mentally ill.   
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 12, 2018, 07:50:14 AM
TWO DAYS!
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 12, 2018, 10:40:04 AM
Is there a reason that no firearms org helped Beck?  Like the NRA-ILA and stuff.  Seems like this is a huge deal.   

Or if they're going to step in and help now since we all know Hawaii is bringing in million dollar teams of attorney's.  Granted maybe they don't want to take the case away from Beck because he did work hard to win, but provide their attorney's for assistance or help if needed.  Seems like the deck will be stacked in the states favor.

Wolf-please don't take this the wrong way.  I'm not calling you a bad attorney, just more help the better.  I appreciate you even taking on this case and so does my wife.  I was surprised when she actually watched the entire video of the briefing.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on September 12, 2018, 11:16:48 AM
Is there a reason that no firearms org helped Beck?  Like the NRA-ILA and stuff.  Seems like this is a huge deal.   

There are issues.  Come out to our next meeting.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 12, 2018, 11:21:21 AM
Is there a reason that no firearms org helped Beck?  Like the NRA-ILA and stuff.  Seems like this is a huge deal.   

Or if they're going to step in and help now since we all know Hawaii is bringing in million dollar teams of attorney's.  Granted maybe they don't want to take the case away from Beck because he did work hard to win, but provide their attorney's for assistance or help if needed.  Seems like the deck will be stacked in the states favor.

Wolf-please don't take this the wrong way.  I'm not calling you a bad attorney, just more help the better.  I appreciate you even taking on this case and so does my wife.  I was surprised when she actually watched the entire video of the briefing.
Why don't you ask the NRA/NRA-ILA and/or SAF and/or GOA and/or Calguns.org etc. etc. etc. Maybe they will give you an answer. They haven't answered me for literally YEARS as to why they wouldn't help (as all their concealed carry cases failed one after the other... and now they continue on with Flanagan arguing the same thing about concealed carry!). And now, SAF says they will submit an amicus brief. Can't wait for that.

Be sure to look up the history of the NRA's role in Heller (I). They tried to derail it. Just sayin'...
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on September 12, 2018, 11:38:51 AM
Yea NRA, SAF and other groups are kinda like politics.  Agendas, backroom deals, rivalries, etc.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on September 13, 2018, 01:46:07 PM
Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22292/categoryId/118/AG-Opinion-Hawaii-Gun-Laws-Not-as-Restrictive-as-they-Seem.aspx
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 13, 2018, 01:55:33 PM
Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22292/categoryId/118/AG-Opinion-Hawaii-Gun-Laws-Not-as-Restrictive-as-they-Seem.aspx

So, basically, they can still deny the open-carry license on the same arbitrary, discretionary police chief's decision as they do concealed carry licenses.

Looks like they are trying to pretend that reluctance to issue open-carry licenses is better than reluctance to issue concealed carry licenses, even though it was established in the hearing that Hawaii's rejection of 100% of applications is equivalent to a ban regardless of what the statute says.

Also, if the police chief feels you have sufficient justification for open carry, there's no reason the chief would not also feel you have sufficient justification for concealed carry.  The same rules are being applied to both types of carry, so where is the dividing line between unconcealed and concealed carry?

More legal maneuvering.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 13, 2018, 02:30:47 PM
The problem is the letter gives examples which are all along the lines of you know who the person threatening your life is (credible threat).  So is someone who lives in another state threatening you via social media because of your political beliefs a credible threat?  I'm betting HPD will deny.

Having a firearm is in case someone threatens your life.  So we will be back at almost the same starting point of denying lots applicants who want to exercise a right, not a privilege.  I shouldn't need a reason why I want to exercise my 2a right.

At least TRO's and stalking victims would be able to open carry (mainly women).

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 13, 2018, 02:48:56 PM
Suzuki is a fucking liar. He talks about the reports from the county police chiefs as compiled by the AG office:

Although the Department of the Attorney General has
published statistics on firearm license applications, those
reports date back only to the year 2000...  those reports, starting
in 2004, state only the number of private individuals who applied
for (and were granted or denied) a concealed_carry license; they
do not state the number of private individuals who applied for
(and were granted or denied) an unconcealed_carry license.

His whole argument that any private citizen at any time has been and is eligible for an "unconcealed carry" license is pure bullshit. He fails to mention that the very forms used by his office that require the monthly reporting from the county police chiefs describe and annotate the types of licenses to carry firearms into two categories, and those categories are NOT "unconcealed" and "concealed", they are: "SECURITY" OR "CITIZEN". He's a fucking liar, and he knows it. What a fucking asshole. I hate these people.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 13, 2018, 03:03:30 PM
Plus, Horowitz tried to say the exact same thing (as Suzuki claims in the letter that "Well, everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own.") at orals and O'Scannlain (I'd characterize his tone as disdainful, if not angry) immediately challenged him as to the preposterousness of such a claim.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 13, 2018, 03:32:10 PM
Plus, Horowitz tried to say the exact same thing (as Suzuki claims in the letter that "Well, everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own.") at orals and O'Scannlain (I'd characterize his tone as disdainful, if not angry) immediately challenged him as to the preposterousness of such a claim.

If "everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own", then that satisfies the NEED clause.

How realistic is it to only allow people with hard evidence of threats to carry, while others may only get a verbal "better watch your back" comment or similar? No way to prove you're in danger unless the threat is considerate enough to implicate himself.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 13, 2018, 03:49:58 PM
If "everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own", then that satisfies the NEED clause.

How realistic is it to only allow people with hard evidence of threats to carry, while others may only get a verbal "better watch your back" comment or similar? No way to prove you're in danger unless the threat is considerate enough to implicate himself.
Dude! This is Hawaii, "realistic" doesn't enter into any political consideration, nor much else really. I doubt they even know what that is. The two anecdotes I've heard here are, one, to a small general store that wanted a couple of employees to be granted licenses for protection when they took the deposit to the night deposit box at the bank after 2 AM when the store closed and were told "Hire armored car service", and two, woman who reported a stalker making verbal threats: "Move". That's what the cops here consider "realistic".

These politicians don't have the slightest thread of integrity. They just lie right to everyone's face, including the courts. I really hope Suzuki gets a chance to lie to SCOTUS (of course he would just hire people at taxpayer expense to do the job he's too incompetent to do), especially if Ginsburg and/or Breyer have been replaced by Trump nominees. Suzuki, and all his predecessors along with the police chiefs, mayors and county attorneys, should be imprisoned for violating our constitutional rights.

As I've pointed out before, there is approximately the same danger of being in a car accident as being the victim of a crime of personal confrontation (rape, assault, robbery, etc.... where a firearm for self defense might prove capable of preventing victimization), and in the first case the state mandates under penalty of law that one have car insurance, while in the second it mandates, under penalty of law, that one NOT have insurance (in the form a the most effective self-defense tools). Equal risk of injury, completely opposite treatment by the law re protecting yourself from those equally potential injuries. They don't care about "public safety". They don't care about "personal safety". They care about something else.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 14, 2018, 08:22:15 AM
8:19 AM

Have they filed yet?

8:20 AM

Have they filed yet?

8:21 AM

Have they filed yet?

Or do I have to wait until 4:59 PM?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 14, 2018, 09:02:37 AM
8:19 AM

Have they filed yet?

8:20 AM

Have they filed yet?

8:21 AM

Have they filed yet?

Or do I have to wait until 4:59 PM?

$20 says another extention
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 14, 2018, 02:13:18 PM
The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is posted at my website.  You might want to consider subscribing to my site for updates.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=846 (http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=846)

The petition is 114 pages long which means that you should download it to your local computer before trying to view it.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on September 14, 2018, 03:45:47 PM
The problem is the letter gives examples which are all along the lines of you know who the person threatening your life is (credible threat).  So is someone who lives in another state threatening you via social media because of your political beliefs a credible threat?  I'm betting HPD will deny.

Having a firearm is in case someone threatens your life.  So we will be back at almost the same starting point of denying lots applicants who want to exercise a right, not a privilege.  I shouldn't need a reason why I want to exercise my 2a right.

At least TRO's and stalking victims would be able to open carry (mainly women).

actually they wont because nothing has changed.  Accepting or denying applications is still at the whim of the police chiefs.  status quo.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on September 14, 2018, 03:50:08 PM
Dude! This is Hawaii, "realistic" doesn't enter into any political consideration, nor much else really. I doubt they even know what that is. The two anecdotes I've heard here are, one, to a small general store that wanted a couple of employees to be granted licenses for protection when they took the deposit to the night deposit box at the bank after 2 AM when the store closed and were told "Hire armored car service", and two, woman who reported a stalker making verbal threats: "Move". That's what the cops here consider "realistic".

These politicians don't have the slightest thread of integrity. They just lie right to everyone's face, including the courts. I really hope Suzuki gets a chance to lie to SCOTUS (of course he would just hire people at taxpayer expense to do the job he's too incompetent to do), especially if Ginsburg and/or Breyer have been replaced by Trump nominees. Suzuki, and all his predecessors along with the police chiefs, mayors and county attorneys, should be imprisoned for violating our constitutional rights.

As I've pointed out before, there is approximately the same danger of being in a car accident as being the victim of a crime of personal confrontation (rape, assault, robbery, etc.... where a firearm for self defense might prove capable of preventing victimization), and in the first case the state mandates under penalty of law that one have car insurance, while in the second it mandates, under penalty of law, that one NOT have insurance (in the form a the most effective self-defense tools). Equal risk of injury, completely opposite treatment by the law re protecting yourself from those equally potential injuries. They don't care about "public safety". They don't care about "personal safety". They care about something else.

i actually wonder how some of these people sleep at night.  they deny any and all applications regardless of "need".  So say someone is being stalked or threatened, and they would carry if they could legally.  They end up getting assaulted or killed.  The fact that they are now injured or dead is on these politicians and cops that denied them the right to protect themselves. 
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 14, 2018, 04:49:34 PM
i actually wonder how some of these people sleep at night. they deny any and all applications regardless of "need".  So say someone is being stalked or threatened, and they would carry if they could legally.  They end up getting assaulted or killed.  The fact that they are now injured or dead is on these politicians and cops that denied them the right to protect themselves.
I bet Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. all slept well at night (well, maybe not Hitler when he knew the end was near). People who are ideologues and see it as their duty to control other people "for their own good", and "for the good of the many", don't lose sleep over the fact that they are instrumental in people being injured or dying just because they are executing (sometimes literally) their grandiose plan to save the world.

I just wrote judge O'Scannlain with the documentation of the lies by the AG. It won't make any difference, but someone in the official decision-making chain needs to know about it.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Soleyobo on September 15, 2018, 02:47:01 AM
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/09/14/breaking-news/hawaii-appeals-decision-to-allow-guns-in-public/
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 15, 2018, 06:21:55 AM
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/09/14/breaking-news/hawaii-appeals-decision-to-allow-guns-in-public/
Got a lot of mistakes in that article. Was it written by Horowitz? Repeats some of the things he erroneously claimed at the orals. Not surprising for a Podunk newspaper having a general beat reporter cover a legal issue. Doesn't help the public understand the details of the case, not that that would matter anyway.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on September 15, 2018, 08:22:47 PM
i actually wonder how some of these people sleep at night.  they deny any and all applications regardless of "need".  So say someone is being stalked or threatened, and they would carry if they could legally.  They end up getting assaulted or killed.  The fact that they are now injured or dead is on these politicians and cops that denied them the right to protect themselves.

If someone was stalking me or threatened my life, I would to the following:
1.  Report it to the police so they have a record of the threat.
2.  Apply for a carry permit which will get denied.
3.  Carry my G19 everywhere I go.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 15, 2018, 11:06:41 PM
I can see chief saying

1) file TRO
2) permit denied because u got a TRO
3)if TRO is broken, still no need permit. Violater is arrested
4) violator post bail, permit still denied, call HPD for help. Violator arrested again and higher bail set.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on September 16, 2018, 06:52:40 AM
I can see chief saying

1) file TRO
2) permit denied because u got a TRO
3)if TRO is broken, still no need permit. Violater is arrested
4) violator post bail, permit still denied, call HPD for help. Violator arrested again and higher bail set.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

5) violator physically attacks you causing severe bodily injury.
6) police come to the hospital to take your statement and recommend you get a big dog.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 16, 2018, 07:02:16 AM
I can see chief saying

1) file TRO
2) permit denied because u got a TRO
3)if TRO is broken, still no need permit. Violater is arrested
4) violator post bail, permit still denied, call HPD for help. Violator arrested again and higher bail set.
Well, the chief won't "say" that, or anything else. All there will be on the public record is "denied", and the official reporting document that must be filed with the AG's office monthly will read, under "Reason": "Did not meet chief's criteria". And then a judge on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel can write in an opinion "We don't know why those people were denied licenses. They may have been prohibited persons." But that would never happen, right?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 16, 2018, 01:00:25 PM
I can see chief saying

1) file TRO
2) permit denied because u got a TRO
3)if TRO is broken, still no need permit. Violater is arrested
4) violator post bail, permit still denied, call HPD for help. Violator arrested again and higher bail set.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

A TRO is valid for at most 14 days and is limited to similarly short extensions.  One would not use a TRO to obtain a permit.  A TRO can be converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction if the other side agrees,  If not then if longer term relief is sought then one follows with a motion for a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, endures until there is a final judgment, the preliminary injunction is stayed, or overturned on appeal (or becomes moot).

2, 3, and 4 are nonsensical.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on September 16, 2018, 02:45:53 PM
Has the police department or State ever said open carry is restricted to security guards?  I know in reality it is, but looking for a reference.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 16, 2018, 02:50:09 PM
A TRO is valid for at most 14 days and is limited to similarly short extensions.  One would not use a TRO to obtain a permit.  A TRO can be converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction if the other side agrees,  If not then if longer term relief is sought then one follows with a motion for a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, endures until there is a final judgment, the preliminary injunction is stayed, or overturned on appeal (or becomes moot).

2, 3, and 4 are nonsensical.

To issue a CCW permit using a TRO/injunction as justification (evidence of a threat) is to admit the court orders are impotent.  No state is going to admit a TRO alone is insufficient to provide protection for the victim.

Basically, a TRO is a catch 22 for CCW permit issue:

  - If you apply for a carry permit and don't have a TRO, there's no threat.  It needs to be made official by requesting a TRO. 

  - If you document the threat in a TRO, then you're already protected by the court order.  Hence, no carry permit needed.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 16, 2018, 03:03:15 PM
If I'm reading the aggregated opinions right, the court basically said open carry in Hawaii is a right, meaning the state must allow it.

So, they can require licenses, but the laws ought to be changed to "shall issue", not the "may issue if the police chief is in the mood that day, but don't count on it" way the AG's letter stated, right?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: macsak on September 16, 2018, 03:05:18 PM
To issue a CCW permit using a TRO/injunction as justification (evidence of a threat) is to admit the court orders are impotent.  No state is going to admit a TRO alone is insufficient to provide protection for the victim.

Basically, a TRO is a catch 22 for CCW permit issue:

  - If you apply for a carry permit and don't have a TRO, there's no threat.  It needs to be made official by requesting a TRO. 

  - If you document the threat in a TRO, then you're already protected by the court order.  Hence, no carry permit needed.

https://youtu.be/W2G2sac9s34 (https://youtu.be/W2G2sac9s34)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 16, 2018, 03:20:04 PM
It was a joke.
A TRO is valid for at most 14 days and is limited to similarly short extensions.  One would not use a TRO to obtain a permit.  A TRO can be converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction if the other side agrees,  If not then if longer term relief is sought then one follows with a motion for a preliminary injunction, which, if granted, endures until there is a final judgment, the preliminary injunction is stayed, or overturned on appeal (or becomes moot).

2, 3, and 4 are nonsensical.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 16, 2018, 04:03:04 PM
If I'm reading the aggregated opinions right, the court basically said open carry in Hawaii is a right, meaning the state must allow it.

So, they can require licenses, but the laws ought to be changed to "shall issue", not the "may issue if the police chief is in the mood that day, but don't count on it" way the AG's letter stated, right?
Judge O'Scannlain decided that: "[T]he Second Amendment encompasses the right of a responsible law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of the home."

Note that the term he used is "responsible law-abiding citizen".

That same term is used by the Attorney General in his "opinion", and that opinion is quoted and referenced extensively in the state's petition for an en banc hearing, and no doubt would be an extensive part of the state's brief should the case go en banc. Note however what the AG adds to the "phrase" "responsible law-abiding citizen" as to what else would be required to acquire an "unconcealed" carry license: "[A]n applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens."

Judge O'Scannlain did not decide that "ordinary law-abiding citizens" are only eligible to exercise their Second Amendment protected right to carry "unconcealed" outside the home IF, and ONLY IF they can demonstrate some "need" that "substantially exceeds" that of the "other" "ordinary law-abiding citizens". The AG opinion seems to substantially contradict judge O'Scannlain's ruling. The AG's claim that the law is not "facially" invalid (if you believe his lies about unconcealed carry licenses have always been available to "ordinary law-abiding citizens") does not bear directly on the fact that it IS invalid "as applied" (amounts to a de facto ban). They have no proof that such a license has ever been issued, and of course no one can prove a negative, so it's impossible to prove they never issued, or even denied, one.

I think we all know how the en banc court will rule. The only question remaining is will SCOTUS accept the case if it gets there, and then, how will they rule. We may know the answer to that question sometime around 2023.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 16, 2018, 05:51:47 PM
To issue a CCW permit using a TRO/injunction as justification (evidence of a threat) is to admit the court orders are impotent.  No state is going to admit a TRO alone is insufficient to provide protection for the victim.

Basically, a TRO is a catch 22 for CCW permit issue:

  - If you apply for a carry permit and don't have a TRO, there's no threat.  It needs to be made official by requesting a TRO. 

  - If you document the threat in a TRO, then you're already protected by the court order.  Hence, no carry permit needed.

Do you have a State of Hawaii or 9th circuit court of appeals decision to back that up or is it something you just invented?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 16, 2018, 06:07:11 PM
Do you have a State of Hawaii or 9th circuit court of appeals decision to back that up or is it something you just invented?

Which part?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 16, 2018, 06:23:07 PM


The Hawaii TRO system is significantly flawed and ineffective. It's not unreasonable to assume many of those the system failed tried to get permits to carry and were denied. Since the reasons for denial are not reported, nor are the justifications made public, there's no way to know how many were in an endless TRO cycle and unable to legally arm themselves.

https://www.khon2.com/news/always-investigating/flaws-in-protective-order-system-leave-abuse-victims-vulnerable_20180104063102991/901464059
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 16, 2018, 07:13:53 PM
Which part?

You wouldn't be asserting a claim in which you could not back up every part would you?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 17, 2018, 02:40:32 AM
You wouldn't be asserting a claim in which you could not back up every part would you?

Are you going to answer every question with a question?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 17, 2018, 09:55:44 AM
I will be sending this to all the county police chiefs either later today or tomorrow, pending possible input from outside sources. Oahu, aka "Honolulu City and County" will not allow email inquiries, so I will have to mail that via snail mail, not that there is any hurry, but in case any of you on Oahu are going in there anyway, maybe you can deliver a version signed with your name. Or not. I'm not expecting any real answer anyway, just want to get something "on the record".

Chief of Police,

1. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses did you issue to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, in 2017?

2. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses have you issued to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel in all the years prior to 2017? And in which specific years did you issue how many such licenses?

3. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses have you issued to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel thus far (September 17) in 2018?

4. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have issued to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under what category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, did you report those issuances (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category)?

5. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have denied to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under what category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, did you report those denials (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category)?

6. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have denied to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under whichever category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, you reported those denials (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category), what were the statements made by you for denial under the “Reasons” column?

Thank you,
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on September 17, 2018, 10:03:26 AM
^

What's the email addresses?  I can make similar inquiries, and let you know if I get something other than a canned response.  Honestly, your chances are pretty low of getting any meaningful response.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 17, 2018, 10:04:58 AM
Are you going to answer every question with a question?

Thats what he does. His legal argument is based on his feeling and what he goggled and if you ignore that he starts on personal attacks.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 17, 2018, 10:36:07 AM
^

What's the email addresses?  I can make similar inquiries, and let you know if I get something other than a canned response.  Honestly, your chances are pretty low of getting any meaningful response.
I've gotten actual answers maybe 10% of the time. More to create a record of "Here is the response of the government to this inquiry".

Police department contact info

hawaii county

961-2244

chief ferreira

hcpdone@hawaiicounty.gov

captain wana

aimee.wana@hawaiicounty.gov


Kauai

Kauai Police Department
3990 Kaana Street, Suite 200
Lihue, HI 96766
(808) 241-1711

Michael M. Contrades
Acting Chief of Police
Kauai Police Department

mcontrades@kauai.gov


Maui

Tivoli Faaumu
Chief of Police
crs@mpd.net
Phone: (808) 244-6300


Honolulu

Honolulu Police Department
801 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

Main Phone Number (Police Information)
(808)529-3111

Executive Officer
Honolulu Police Commission
1060 Richards St., Suite 170
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone number (808)723-7580
Email: policecommission@honolulu.gov
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 17, 2018, 10:44:13 AM
Just in case anyone is interested, here is Mr. Nichols' podcast re the Young v Hawaii petition for rehearing en banc. He does not have kind words for the state's attorneys and their arguments.

https://soundcloud.com/californiaopencarry/podcast-7-the-young-v-hawaii-petition-for-rehearing-en-banc?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 17, 2018, 10:55:25 AM
Thats what he does. His legal argument is based on his feeling and what he goggled and if you ignore that he starts on personal attacks.

If that's his idea of a personal attack, he must be new to the Internet!   :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on September 17, 2018, 11:12:35 AM
contacts

Thanks boss.  will let you guys know if i get meaningful responses from them.   :shaka:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on September 17, 2018, 12:31:07 PM
I've gotten actual answers maybe 10% of the time. More to create a record of "Here is the response of the government to this inquiry".

I have FOIA requests into all departments and the AG.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 18, 2018, 06:24:18 PM
Update courtesy of Mr. Nichols (http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=846):

 September 18, 2018 – The three-judge panel requested a response from Mr. Young’s attorneys to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.  This was not unexpected as the three-judge panel in Peruta v. San Diego likewise requested a response within a few days from the petition being filed.  Once the response is filed, the three-judge panel will then decide whether nor not to grant the petition.  In the Peruta v. San Diego appeal, in which Judge O’Scannlain presided, the three-judge panel denied the petitions 8 months and 7 days (252 days) after the response was filed. 

Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 09/18/2018 at 9:14:56 AM PDT and filed on 09/18/2018

Case Name:   George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al
Case Number:     12-17808
Document(s):   Document(s)

* * * * *
Me:

I sincerely hope Young counsel poke a ton of serious holes in that load of crap and lies the from the 11 lawyers representing the state and county.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on September 19, 2018, 08:57:11 AM
I will be sending this to all the county police chiefs either later today or tomorrow, pending possible input from outside sources. Oahu, aka "Honolulu City and County" will not allow email inquiries, so I will have to mail that via snail mail, not that there is any hurry, but in case any of you on Oahu are going in there anyway, maybe you can deliver a version signed with your name. Or not. I'm not expecting any real answer anyway, just want to get something "on the record".

Chief of Police,

1. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses did you issue to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, in 2017?

2. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses have you issued to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel in all the years prior to 2017? And in which specific years did you issue how many such licenses?

3. How many “unconcealed” carry licenses have you issued to “private individuals”, i.e. persons not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel thus far (September 17) in 2018?

4. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have issued to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under what category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, did you report those issuances (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category)?

5. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have denied to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under what category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, did you report those denials (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category)?

6. Could you please tell me, for those “unconcealed” carry licenses you have denied to “private individuals” not employed in any capacity as any kind of “security” personnel, how, and under whichever category on the mandated monthly reporting form issued by the Office of the Attorney General, you reported those denials (i.e. under the “Security” category, or under the “Citizen” category), what were the statements made by you for denial under the “Reasons” column?

Thank you,

Try this guy for th C&C of Honolulu

David P. Nilsen, Captain

Honolulu Police Department

Records and Identification Division

(808)723-3182

dnilsen@honolulu.gov

You can also use the AG's own documents for reference at: http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/rs/
They don't differentiate between CC vs OC for permits issued
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 19, 2018, 09:28:54 AM
You can also use the AG's own documents for reference at: http://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/rs/
They don't differentiate between CC vs OC for permits issued
I will send an email inquiry to the Captain.

Not sure what you mean by "don't differentiate". They do. Unless you're suggesting that the following "227 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses" means that some of those licenses were for concealed and some for unconcealed. For example in the one year (2006) when Kauai issued one of their two licenses ever (to a local judge), here is the report AG annual report you reference::

Licenses to Carry Firearms

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2006, 227 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses, and two (0.9%) were rejected. One private citizen in Kauai County applied for a concealed carry license and was approved at the sole discretion of the police chief.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on September 19, 2018, 11:02:34 AM
I will send an email inquiry to the Captain.

Not sure what you mean by "don't differentiate". They do. Unless you're suggesting that the following "227 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses" means that some of those licenses were for concealed and some for unconcealed. For example in the one year (2006) when Kauai issued one of their two licenses ever (to a local judge), here is the report AG annual report you reference::

Licenses to Carry Firearms

Hawaii’s county police departments also process license applications for the open and/or concealed carry of firearms in public. Statewide in 2006, 227 employees of private security firms were issued carry licenses, and two (0.9%) were rejected. One private citizen in Kauai County applied for a concealed carry license and was approved at the sole discretion of the police chief.

Yup that's what I meant...
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 20, 2018, 08:16:46 AM
HRA president Harvey Gerwig 10 minute interview on NRA's Cam and Company re Young v Hawaii on 9/18/18.

https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2018-harvey-gerwig-hawaii-appeals-pro-carry-permit-ruling
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on September 20, 2018, 12:45:22 PM
Police commission is looking into the permit denials.  Way overdue.

Police Commission reviewing HPD's policies on letting the public carry guns

http://www.kitv.com/story/39131297/honolulu-police-commission-reviewing-hpds-policies-on-letting-the-public-carry-guns
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 20, 2018, 01:17:29 PM
Is this just for open carry or ccw as well?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on September 20, 2018, 01:28:47 PM
http://www.honolulupd.org/department/index.php

See HPC complaint form. Click on "commission" tab.

Maybe we want to submit these and our complaint is with the chief and all prior chiefs for denying all permits?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on September 20, 2018, 01:29:48 PM
I like the first comment in line punaperson  :shaka:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on September 20, 2018, 01:33:55 PM
http://www.honolulupd.org/department/index.php

See HPC complaint form. Click on "commission" tab.

Maybe we want to submit these and our complaint is with the chief and all prior chiefs for denying all permits?

Form location:  http://www.honolulupd.org/downloads/HPC15_R05-11.pdf

With every denial there should be this form to the HPC. Same with attempting to register an "assault pistol" without a detachable magazine
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 20, 2018, 01:47:25 PM
Police commission is looking into the permit denials.  Way overdue.

Police Commission reviewing HPD's policies on letting the public carry guns

http://www.kitv.com/story/39131297/honolulu-police-commission-reviewing-hpds-policies-on-letting-the-public-carry-guns
I have to wonder about Levinson's "concern". He is the one quoted right after the Young panel decision was published saying "“I don’t want to see Tombstone, Arizona, and Dodge City, Kansas...". I believe his strategy is to develop an "air tight" set of "objective" criteria that no one, or virtually no one, could meet in order to be issued a license, but claim that the criteria are now public and objective and no longer hidden behind the (lying) phrase "chief's discretion" used as the "reason" for denial.

For years I have asked for the Hawaii County PD to tell me what the objective criteria are, or failing that, to give me five verbatim examples, which if written by an applicant, would result in them being issued a license. Of course they would never tell me anything but repeat "at the chief's discretion/criteria". Now the AG has essentially done that, and we have examples from the (lying) attorney general opinion 18-1 of who might be granted a license, which includes "a person who has suffered serious domestic abuse from a former partner who has violated previous protective orders" [notice plural]. Multiple violations before you will be granted a license to carry? They might be in a hospital bed or a grave by then. Ridiculous.

The AG did hand us a big favor though, and it was repeated in the petition for en banc hearing, as that petition leans heavily on the AG opinion 18-1. "[A]n applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizen." In other words, an "ordinary law-abiding citizen" is NOT eligible to lawfully exercise their Second Amendment-protected right to bear arms outside their home for self-defense. I'm glad they spelled that out. That should come in handy somewhere down the litigation line.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on September 20, 2018, 02:16:54 PM
From the AGs Opinion 18-1, I have to question item 2. Sufficient Need To Carry A Firearm...
Without attempting to offer an exhaustive list of applicants who could satisfy this standard, we believe that the following illustrative examples could present a sufficient urgency or need
for protection under the statute: (e)....or a person who faces a high risk of armed robbery because his or her job requires stocking ATMs or otherwise transporting large quantities of cash.
Can they define the term "large quantities of cash"? (As a citizen, my "job" is to participate in commerce and as this is not an exhaustive list) Is $100 large, $1000, $10,000, $100,000. It all depends on your point of view. Me - $100, Warren Buffet - $10,000. Coming from Vegas, I regularly saw folks walking around with $10,000 in cash and never thought twice, but on the other hand I saw folks who had $20 and it was their world.


But I did like item 4. No Other Reasons That Justify The Exercise Of Discretion To Deny A License.
Finally, section 134-9, HRS, provides that where an applicant satisfies the statute’s express requirements, “the respective chief of police may grant” an unconcealed-carry license. HRS § 134-9(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we advise that chiefs of police may exercise reasonable discretion to deny licenses to otherwise-qualified applicants, but that discretion may not be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Chiefs of police should exercise their discretion to deny unconcealed carry licenses to qualify applicants only where an applicant’s characteristics or circumstances render the applicant unsuitable to carry an unconcealed firearm for reasons not captured by the express statutory requirements. Discretion may not be used to effectively nullify the authorization for unconcealed-carry licenses contained in section 134-9. Nor may discretion be used to impose categorical restrictions on unconcealed carry licenses -- such as limiting them to private security officers -- that the Legislature did not enact. When a chief of police denies a firearm for discretionary reasons, he or she should document the reasons and report them to the Attorney General as provided in section 134-14, HRS.

So hopefully we can use the denials as documentation for further evidence down the road
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 24, 2018, 04:28:49 PM
Via Wolfwood's post on another site:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...n-Amicus-Brief

https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...f-the-Counties
https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...Gabby-Giffords

amicus briefs came in for the other side
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on September 24, 2018, 04:34:13 PM
From the AGs Opinion 18-1, I have to question item 2. Sufficient Need To Carry A Firearm...

Without attempting to offer an exhaustive list of applicants who could satisfy this standard, we believe that the following illustrative examples could present a sufficient urgency or need
for protection under the statute: (e)....or a person who faces a high risk of armed robbery because his or her job requires stocking ATMs or otherwise transporting large quantities of cash.
Can they define the term "large quantities of cash"? (As a citizen, my "job" is to participate in commerce and as this is not an exhaustive list) Is $100 large, $1000, $10,000, $100,000. It all depends on your point of view. Me - $100, Warren Buffet - $10,000. Coming from Vegas, I regularly saw folks walking around with $10,000 in cash and never thought twice, but on the other hand I saw folks who had $20 and it was their world.


But I did like item 4. No Other Reasons That Justify The Exercise Of Discretion To Deny A License.
Finally, section 134-9, HRS, provides that where an applicant satisfies the statute’s express requirements, “the respective chief of police may grant” an unconcealed-carry license. HRS § 134-9(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, we advise that chiefs of police may exercise reasonable discretion to deny licenses to otherwise-qualified applicants, but that discretion may not be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Chiefs of police should exercise their discretion to deny unconcealed carry licenses to qualify applicants only where an applicant’s characteristics or circumstances render the applicant unsuitable to carry an unconcealed firearm for reasons not captured by the express statutory requirements. Discretion may not be used to effectively nullify the authorization for unconcealed-carry licenses contained in section 134-9. Nor may discretion be used to impose categorical restrictions on unconcealed carry licenses -- such as limiting them to private security officers -- that the Legislature did not enact. When a chief of police denies a firearm for discretionary reasons, he or she should document the reasons and report them to the Attorney General as provided in section 134-14, HRS.

So hopefully we can use the denials as documentation for further evidence down the road
You left out the "job" part... it's an "and" construction so far as "job" AND "money", not an "or" construction, the "or" only refers to the various reasons that one might be required by one's job to "transport large quantities of cash"... they're not that stupid. Wait, I take that back, they ARE that stupid, but not in this case.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on September 24, 2018, 06:53:13 PM
Via Wolfwood's post on another site:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...n-Amicus-Brief

https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...f-the-Counties
https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...Gabby-Giffords

amicus briefs came in for the other side

There was a Fourth Amicus brief filed which he did not list.  For those who would rather not create a Scribd account in order to download them, they are available at my Young v. Hawaii page at my website.  As some filings tend to be large in size, it is best to download the pdf to your local computer and view it from there rather than whining about your not being able to view the file from your portable device.  http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=846

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on October 03, 2018, 07:42:58 AM

 October 2, 2018 – The motion (filed by the Young attorneys) to extend the date for filing the response to the petition for rehearing en banc was granted today. The response is now due on November 8, 2018.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on October 03, 2018, 08:43:05 AM
October 2, 2018 – The motion (filed by the Young attorneys) to extend the date for filing the response to the petition for rehearing en banc was granted today. The response is now due on November 8, 2018.

In the mean while........we wait.  We are good at waiting. We have had a lot of practice.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on October 11, 2018, 06:27:33 PM
If the Young v. Hawaii case is taken en banc then the State of California wants the NRA's Flanagan v. Becerra concealed carry appeal to be heard alongside Young.  Notwithstanding that California was supposed to file a motion, it filed a petition for the Flanagan v. Becerra case to be initially heard en banc and included its request for both appeals to be heard before the en banc panel in its petition.  The NRA said sure, so long as Young is taken en banc but "No" if it isn't taken en banc. As all of the so-called gun-rights groups have abandoned the NRA in the Flanagan appeal (nobody filed an Amicus brief in support of the Flanagan case), I can understand why the NRA would like to simply declare its loss to be a victory if the Young v. Hawaii decision stands.

If the petition for the Flanagan case to be initially heard en banc is granted then it would bypass my pure California Open Carry appeal, Nichols v. Brown, which currently has priority over the Flanagan appeal.  Given that both the NRA and the state defendants in my case argue that it is constitutional to ban Open Carry, it should come as no surprise that the petition makes no mention of my appeal.

The 9th circuit court of appeals has not granted a petition for an appeal to be initially heard before an en banc panel this decade.  The 9th has denied these petitions filed by President Trump, the State of Hawaii, the State of Alaska and every other petition, including mine.  It is highly unlikely that California's petition would have been granted even if I had not filed a petition for my appeal to be initially heard before an en banc panel but to grant California's petition after denying my petition would pull back a curtain the 9th circuit would rather be left closed.

We had a similar situation in the Peruta v. San Diego en banc appeal, which was actually two appeals.  We had the NRA plaintiffs in Peruta arguing that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry, and we had the SAF/CalGuns.nuts plaintiffs arguing that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry in their Richards v. Prieto appeal.

Nobody was arguing in support of Open Carry. 

I pointed this out in my Amicus brief in support of neither party in Peruta.  I likewise observed the impropriety of granting the Flanagan petition in my Amicus brief in support of neither party in Flanagan v. Becerra.

Here is a link to the state's petition for the Flanagan appeal to be initially heard before an en banc panel -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Flanagan-2018-09-21-Petition-for-Initial-Hearing-En-Banc.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Flanagan-2018-09-21-Petition-for-Initial-Hearing-En-Banc.pdf)
Here is a link to my Amicus brief filed in support of neither party in Flanagan v. Becerra -> http://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/25-Amicus-Brief-of-Charles-Nichols-Filed-in-Flanagan-v.-Becerra.pdf (http://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/25-Amicus-Brief-of-Charles-Nichols-Filed-in-Flanagan-v.-Becerra.pdf)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on October 12, 2018, 12:06:13 PM
This article is pretty good, explains why the copy past lawyer is wrong on a few of their legal opinions

https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/crpanews-alert-fighting-for-your-right-to-carry-in-ca/
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 12, 2018, 01:46:12 PM
Thanks that cleared up the questions I had.

Also didn't trump appoint another judge to the 9th circuit?  So more odds in our favor?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Hanabata on October 12, 2018, 01:59:44 PM
Nice article.  Clarified some things for me.  All this legal stuff gets to be confusing!
Thanks!!  :shaka:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on October 12, 2018, 02:17:24 PM
This article is pretty good, explains why the copy past lawyer is wrong on a few of their legal opinions

https://www.crpa.org/crpa-news/crpanews-alert-fighting-for-your-right-to-carry-in-ca/

This is a wonderful example of why stupid people, evil people, and stupidly evil people should not be allowed anywhere near a weapon.  If you believe what the NRA tells the public is more important than what the NRA tells Federal judges then that makes you stupid.  If you know that the only thing that matters is what the NRA lawyers tell the judges but nonetheless propagate NRA lies then that makes you evil.  If you don't know and don't care then that makes you both stupid and evil.

At the same time the NRA told the public in this video that it supports Open Carry, its NRA lawyers were in the 9th circuit court of appeals telling the court that it is constitutional to ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry. -> https://youtu.be/WqeVj7A3bwg (https://youtu.be/WqeVj7A3bwg)

NRA lawyer (Paul Clement) says that states can ban Open Carry (en banc oral argument, Peruta v. San Diego) -> https://youtu.be/z7SJe9TH2VA (https://youtu.be/z7SJe9TH2VA)

Transcript of Flanagan v. Harris (now Becerra) hearing on motion to dismiss:
(The NRA argues that Open Carry can be banned in favor of concealed carry)

NRA lawyer Sean Brady:
"IF THE SHERIFF WERE TO ISSUE CONCEALED-WEAPON PERMITS, AS HE'S ALLOWED TO DO, THEN PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE MADE WHOLE, CORRECT. THEY WOULD -- IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY HAD PERMITS, THEY WERE COMING TO YOUR HONOR SAYING, "NO, WE WANT TO OPEN-CARRY," YOUR HONOR WOULD, I BELIEVE, BE ABLE TO SAY, "NO, YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ARE INTACT. YOU HAVE A CONCEALED-WEAPON PERMIT."

Judge Kronstadt:
"I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T THINK I AGREE WITH YOU."

Now lawyers are not limited to the exact argument they made in the district court but they are prevented from raising new claims on appeal.

Is there a claim filed in the plaintiffs' operative complaint in which any of the plaintiffs seeks to openly carry a firearm?  No.  Okay then, defects in a Complaint can be corrected via a Declaration.  Is there any Declaration filed in the Flanagan case in which any of the plaintiffs articulates a concrete plan to violate any California Open Carry ban, anywhere?  No.  Okay, is there any Declaration filed in the Flanagan case in which any of the plaintiffs articulates any plan to violate any California Open Carry ban.  No. 

Do any of the plaintiffs seek a license to openly carry a handgun?  No.  Do any of the plaintiffs challenge the population prohibitions and residency limitations on California Handgun Open Carry permits?  No.

But they did seek an injunction against the section of California law which allows for the issuance of licenses to openly carry firearms.  Fortunately, instead of filing a motion for partial summary judgment, the Flanagan plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment which did not seek to enjoin that section of the law.

A person can argue day and night that a law is unconstitutional without there being a flaw in the argument but if the plaintiffs have not articulated a concrete plan to violate the law then they do not have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to that law.  The NRA has not challenged California's Open Carry bans in the district court in Flanagan, and the NRA did not in Peruta.

And, of course, 9th circuit procedural law says that claims not raised again on appeal and not distinctly argued in the "body" (the argument section) of the opening brief are forfeited on appeal.

Here is a link to the opening brief in Flanagan v. Becerra -> http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Flanagan-v.-Becerra_Appellants-Opening-Brief_16.pdf (http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Flanagan-v.-Becerra_Appellants-Opening-Brief_16.pdf)

Notwithstanding that 9th circuit procedural law says that argument made in footnotes is to be excluded from consideration, the Flanagan Appellants had this to say in a footnote:

"To be clear, Appellants would be satisfied with a remedy that compels the State or the Sheriff to give Appellants and other otherwise-qualified citizens Carry Licenses, but leaves the State or the Sheriff free to choose between open
or concealed carry. See, e.g., Moore, 702 F.3d at 942. Appellants have challenged California’s open carry laws, its concealed carry laws, and the Sheriff’s good cause policy not because they insist that every one of these provisions must be invalidated, but to ensure that there is no confusion about the scope of their constitutional challenge, and that the courts have available to them every possible avenue for remedying the injury Appellants have suffered. "

The Argument Section of the brief begins on page 17 and ends on page page 46.

Feel free to copy and paste those paragraphs from the opening brief where the plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of, and seek prospective injunctive and/or declaratory relief against: California Penal Code sections 25850 (ban on carrying loaded firearms in public), 26350 (ban on carrying unloaded handguns in public), 26400 (ban on openly carrying unloaded long guns in public), 26150/26155(b)(2) (ban on issuing handgun Open Carry licenses in counties with 200,000 or more people and restricting those licenses to the county of issuance).

The only thing the Flanagan plaintiffs can point to is that they were denied concealed carry permits.  While it is true that under 9th circuit procedural law, the denial of a state license confers standing, it is also true under Peruta v. San Diego en banc there is no Article III standing to challenge the denial of the concealed carry permit under the Second Amendment.

(http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NO-CCW-FOR-YOU-240x300.jpg)

Given that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge any California Open Carry ban, even if they wanted to, which they don't, and given they have foreclosed any possibility for a remand back to the district court to amend their complaint to challenge California's Open Carry bans, all that is left is yet another failed concealed carry appeal to be denied cert by SCOTUS.



Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 12, 2018, 02:42:14 PM
Can anyone confirm if I got the following right:

1) If 9 panel doesn't want to hear it, then original 3 panel ruling stands
2) If 9 panel rules either way, it goes SCOTUS.  (Young loses, we will challenge/ Young wins, state might challenge)
        a) With #2 being said, if SCOTUS rules in our favor, then open carry is allowed in all 50 states instead of just the west coast (9th circuit) 
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on October 12, 2018, 03:29:07 PM


What being said is, States have the right to regulate the way people carry outside of the home as long as they give some method of doing so. If the right to openly carry is affirmed then it may be possible for states to for fill that same right in another way under the premises of legal fiction.

If standing was an issue why hasn't the judge/judges said so ? Why hasn't the state bought it up ? Im sure you e-mailed both of them to tell them about it.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on October 12, 2018, 03:30:11 PM
1) If 9 panel doesn't want to hear it, then original 3 panel ruling stands : YES
2) If 9 panel rules either way, it goes SCOTUS.  (Young loses, we will challenge/ Young wins, state might challenge)
        a) With #2 being said, if SCOTUS rules in our favor, then open carry is allowed in all 50 states instead of just the west coast (9th circuit) : YES
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: aieahound on October 12, 2018, 03:41:38 PM
If I'm not mistaken, SCOTUS and a number of appellate courts have ruled that concealed carry is not a constitutional right under the second amendment.
But there is is a Constitutional right to carry outside the home, with "reasonable" limitations that can be imposed by the State.
That leaves only open carry as our Constitutional Right.
The "reasonable" limitations are up in the air.

Do law abiding citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to carry outside the home.
That's the key issue being litigated in Young.

States can allow concealed carry at their discretion, but open carry may be a Right under 2A.

As I see it.
But I'm no lawyer.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on October 12, 2018, 05:32:12 PM
Can anyone confirm if I got the following right:

1) If 9 panel doesn't want to hear it, then original 3 panel ruling stands
2) If 9 panel rules either way, it goes SCOTUS.  (Young loses, we will challenge/ Young wins, state might challenge)
        a) With #2 being said, if SCOTUS rules in our favor, then open carry is allowed in all 50 states instead of just the west coast (9th circuit)

9th circuit en banc panels consist of eleven judges.  If the en banc petition is denied then the remaining defendants can file a cert petition.  If the en banc petition is granted then the three-judge panel decision in Young v. Hawaii is vacated and we will have to wait for the en banc decision in Young.  The loser can then file a cert petition. If there is a partial win and a partial loss for both sides then both sides can file a cert petition.

If SCOTUS grants the cert petition(s) then what it says in the Young decision applies to all 50 states just as what it said in the Heller decision became applied against all 50 states when the McDonald decision held that is applies to all states and local governments.

That does not mean that state and local governments won't continue to enforce their Open Carry bans.  In order to prevent the enforcement of a state or local Open Carry ban (or any law for that matter) it requires either an injunction or declaratory relief, and that means that someone will have to file a lawsuit challenging those bans.

That's just the way our legal system works.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on October 12, 2018, 05:41:49 PM
Can anyone confirm if I got the following right:

1) If 9 panel doesn't want to hear it, then original 3 panel ruling stands

Off the top of my head (could all be wrong): If the Ninth panel which rendered Young rejects the petition for en banc, any judge in the Ninth Circuit can sua sponte ask for a vote on whether to review the case en banc (See: Peruta). If the case does not go en banc, or goes en banc and is upheld, the ruling stands. The ruling is that the case is remanded to district court to be decided in light of the conclusions of the three judge panel. That decision can be appealed, by the losing side.

2) If 9 panel rules either way, it goes SCOTUS.  (Young loses, we will challenge/ Young wins, state might challenge)

It "goes to SCOTUS" as a writ for certiorari, asking the court to review the case. Typical percentage of cases accepted by SCOTUS 1-3%. See: Peruta, Kachalsky, Woolard, Norman, etc.

        a) With #2 being said, if SCOTUS rules in our favor, then open carry is allowed in all 50 states instead of just the west coast (9th circuit)
If SCOTUS rules that open carry is the right protected by the Second Amendment, then all states will have to have laws in place that allow for open carry, with whatever regulations they believe can be defended in court as not infringing on the exercise of that right. This is what we have in Hawaii right now! Read the AG "opinion". Anyone at anytime could have gotten an unconcealed carry license had they applied and met the criteria that have existed forever. Those criteria are "reasonable regulations" (ask them), and not one single person has a license. I'm just sayin'...
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on October 12, 2018, 06:18:41 PM
If open or concealed carry passes, I imagine the State and counties will set the requirements like LEOSA.  1 year permit, medical exam every 2 years, annual training class, etc.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on October 12, 2018, 06:23:52 PM
If open or concealed carry passes, I imagine the State and counties will set the requirements like LEOSA.  1 year permit, medical exam every 2 years, annual training class, etc.
They can go fuck themselfs
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on October 13, 2018, 09:04:53 AM
I am looking at homes in Arizona.  Grocery prices are cheap too.  $2.19 for 18 ex large eggs.  People are friendly and minimal gun regulations.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on October 14, 2018, 03:30:31 PM
I am looking at homes in Arizona.  Grocery prices are cheap too.  $2.19 for 18 ex large eggs.  People are friendly and minimal gun regulations.

Look into Flagstaff its not hot like Phoenix or Scottsdale.  .
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on October 16, 2018, 06:47:25 AM
Look into Flagstaff its not hot like Phoenix or Scottsdale.  .
I don’t want to derail this thread but Flagstaff gets too cold for me.  I am looking around the Kingman area.  It has been a good 10 days being able to legally carry in AZ and NV.  Buffalo Wild Wings in Las Vegas removed their No Guns sign.  It was prominently displayed on the door when I went there last year.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 16, 2018, 09:06:51 AM
I don’t want to derail this thread but Flagstaff gets too cold for me.  I am looking around the Kingman area.  It has been a good 10 days being able to legally carry in AZ and NV.  Buffalo Wild Wings in Las Vegas removed their No Guns sign.  It was prominently displayed on the door when I went there last year.

Good thing the no guns signs don't have the weight of the law behind them in NV.  1 could CCW and no one would know.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on October 16, 2018, 10:10:47 AM
I just re-read Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, aka Heller II (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf). In that dissent he is arguing, among other things, that the proper way to evaluate possible infringements on the Second Amendment is via "text, history, and tradition", versus an "interest balancing" method such as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis. (I disagree with some of his reasoning, especially regarding the "longstanding" criteria, as it is totally absurd to claim that machine guns may be more or less de facto banned because they are not in "common use"... because the reason they are not and have not been in common use is because they were made nearly impossible to possess via the requirements for ownership due to the NFA 1934, and subsequent legislation that made them too expensive to acquire for almost anyone.)

What is evident, and relevant to Young is that he uses the "text, history, and tradition" test to validate, six times, that "concealed carry may be banned", or other words to that effect, usually in conjunction with other permissible restrictions such as banning ownership and possession by felons, etc.

If people are counting on Kavanaugh to somehow support any claim that a state may not ban concealed carry, or regulate it out of existence de facto, then they are going to be losing that argument (again) at SCOTUS. We don't know what Kavanaugh or the other justices view of unconcealed carry is, but it's pretty clear what Kavanaugh thinks about concealed carry. Unless he has changed his mind. And since he spent 60 pages making the case that the SCOTUS precedents that he is obliged to follow make the case (among other things) that concealed carry can be banned, it's not that likely he will suddenly discover some other interpretation.

Waste of time to argue concealed carry. Hope Young doesn't.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 16, 2018, 10:27:30 AM
Hopefully the DNC/liberals changed his mind to swing him to us more.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on October 16, 2018, 10:28:24 AM
I always preferred Hardiman to be appointed to SCOTUS, even before Gorsuch.  Hope RBG leaves soon, and then Hardiman may have a chance.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: macsak on October 16, 2018, 10:39:45 AM
I always preferred Hardiman to be appointed to SCOTUS, even before Gorsuch.  Hope RBG leaves soon, and then Hardiman may have a chance.

they gonna slander Hardiman worse than they did Kavanagh
next one up will be female, and let's see how they justify messing with a lady...
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on October 16, 2018, 11:18:27 AM
they gonna slander Hardiman worse than they did Kavanagh
next one up will be female, and let's see how they justify messing with a lady...

Child molestation.  Of course the person is grown up now and has no direct relation.  They will claim they were at a "dinner event" and she took him upstairs to a private area when his parents where away.  Fondled him for a few seconds then someone walked in.  Doesn't remember where it was because he was young, or the exact age.  But seeing her on TV brought back the memory.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on October 16, 2018, 11:19:26 AM
I always preferred Hardiman to be appointed to SCOTUS, even before Gorsuch.  Hope RBG leaves soon, and then Hardiman may have a chance.
I sent an email to the White House asking that Hardiman be nominated almost every day after Kennedy announced retirement until Kavanaugh was announced. Apparently they don't value my opinion all that highly. I'm still gonna lobby for him next time... but I suspect the "female candidate strategy" might still be in play then.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on October 16, 2018, 11:49:33 AM

next one up will be female, and let's see how they justify messing with a lady...

Too bad it can’t be Dana Loesch
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on October 16, 2018, 04:14:47 PM
Do enough research and you will find that Kavanaugh sided more with liberal justices than conservative. This latest circus was just because of Trump. Because Trumps a misogynistic pig and anything he says is wrong. Impeach him because Trump. Oh and the hurricanes killed people because Trump.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on October 17, 2018, 08:23:55 AM
the libs are mostly just concerned because they think he might take away their abortion "rights".  A "right" that has killed probably 40 million more in the united states alone than hitler killed jews in the holocaust.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on November 08, 2018, 03:31:20 AM
We filed our response linked here

https://www.scribd.com/document/392675892/Filed-Young-Brief-With-Addendum
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 08, 2018, 07:19:52 AM
We filed our response linked here

https://www.scribd.com/document/392675892/Filed-Young-Brief-With-Addendum
Not being an attorney, I can't evaluate the quality of the legal arguments, but as a person who despises the liars who make and enforce and now defend Hawaii's obviously totally unconstitutional violation of my rights, I delight in seeing the liars bullshit legal arguments characterized as "hogwash" and "Alice in Wonderland".  :worship:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 2ahavvaii on November 09, 2018, 08:54:51 AM
check the staradvertiser article for more bullshit legal arguments.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 09, 2018, 09:27:44 AM
check the staradvertiser article for more bullshit legal arguments.
Here's the article link, which surprisingly allowed me to read the entire article without demanding payment, which is unusual.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/09/hawaii-news/gun-owner-contests-petition-in-open-carry-case/?HSA=b64a594e6d6baa03248560936a457d1564ecd900
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 09, 2018, 10:14:47 AM
Here's the article link, which surprisingly allowed me to read the entire article without demanding payment, which is unusual.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/09/hawaii-news/gun-owner-contests-petition-in-open-carry-case/?HSA=b64a594e6d6baa03248560936a457d1564ecd900

Only articles that make 2a owners look or sound bad are probably "unlocked".
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on November 09, 2018, 01:39:06 PM
here is the article


https://wsoe.org/gun-owner-contests-petition-in-open-carry-case/?fbclid=IwAR0sCc52K7ChxCjysts2_6K-50c9zlGkJIZ7xSct-kDOq7cPsSq5ImnFx9w
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 09, 2018, 02:18:16 PM
For those who haven't bothered to read the article, I'll post this "comment" so you can see the level of hostility out there. I just hope this isn't from Karl Rhoads or one of the other committee chairs that will soon be introducing next years crop of "gun safety regulations"...

[All the spelling and grammatical errors, and stupidity, are in the original.]

Boots

2 hours ago

If scared widdle snowflakes are so scared of facing paradise with out their steel and plastic prosthetics make sure we pass laws that protect the vast majority from their ammosexual drive
1) mandatory unlimited liability insurance for every weapon and every person who has even incidental access to weapon.
2) Every weapon and every individual needs separate policy. No group or family rates. If a person owns 5 guns they must have 5 separate poicies.
3) like auto insurance proof of insurance must be carried and shown on demand. Failure to have proof of insurance with weapon zero tolerance is mandatory felony $2K fine even if proof of insurance is elsewhere.
4) Mandatory arrest and prosecution of anyone taking weapon where it is legally banned. Airports, courthouses, post offices or any place posted. burden of knowing places where they are not allowed is completely upon the poor widdle snowflake.
5) No arrest or prosecutorial discretion allowed in any violation of above law. 1st offense $5,00 fine and 1 year and a day in contracted mainland prison. No "deals" allowed. Every subsequent violation is double the frevious one. 1 Year & $5K, 2 Years and &10k, 4 years and $20K and so on.
6) Any violation requires surrender of all weapons they own until penalties are paid and mental health evauluations.
7) No "accidental" discharge. Weapon goes off it is prosecuted as assualt with deadly weapon, some one else suffers injury or damage of property attempted murder, some one dies 1st degree murder. No excuses no exceptions.
8) 1,000% tax on all ammunition, reloading supplies etc. Exception only for ammunition used at a licensed firing range but even a single round leaves facility the facility loses license, theif is prosecuted for grand larceny. Again no prosectorial or arrest discretion.
9) Any gun carrier must have big yellow stripe up their backs completely visible to all. To warn public of whack job coward with a weapon. ( yeah the last is to sane for legislature to pass)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: rpoL98 on November 09, 2018, 02:44:10 PM
Holey Fawk!  where dahell did u find that!

Democratic Underground? or is that local?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on November 09, 2018, 03:41:58 PM
For those who haven't bothered to read the article, I'll post this "comment" so you can see the level of hostility out there.

If only criminals were punished just as harsh.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 09, 2018, 04:05:12 PM
Holey Fawk!  where dahell did u find that!

Democratic Underground? or is that local?
No, that's the local-style aloha stuff from the Star-Advertiser article comment section from today linked above... you know, just one reader's idea of "a few commonsense gun safety regulations"... What?! You don't think those will work to assure "public safety"? I'll bet you a dollar that all the local judges would find those all to be "presumptively lawful"/"longstanding" regulations and thus not violate Heller or McDonald.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/09/hawaii-news/gun-owner-contests-petition-in-open-carry-case/?HSA=b64a594e6d6baa03248560936a457d1564ecd900
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: tillamook on November 09, 2018, 04:06:10 PM
For those who haven't bothered to read the article, I'll post this "comment" so you can see the level of hostility out there. I just hope this isn't from Karl Rhoads or one of the other committee chairs that will soon be introducing next years crop of "gun safety regulations"...

[All the spelling and grammatical errors, and stupidity, are in the original.]

Boots

2 hours ago

If scared widdle snowflakes are so scared of facing paradise with out their steel and plastic prosthetics make sure we pass laws that protect the vast majority from their ammosexual drive
1) mandatory unlimited liability insurance for every weapon and every person who has even incidental access to weapon.
2) Every weapon and every individual needs separate policy. No group or family rates. If a person owns 5 guns they must have 5 separate poicies.
3) like auto insurance proof of insurance must be carried and shown on demand. Failure to have proof of insurance with weapon zero tolerance is mandatory felony $2K fine even if proof of insurance is elsewhere.
4) Mandatory arrest and prosecution of anyone taking weapon where it is legally banned. Airports, courthouses, post offices or any place posted. burden of knowing places where they are not allowed is completely upon the poor widdle snowflake.
5) No arrest or prosecutorial discretion allowed in any violation of above law. 1st offense $5,00 fine and 1 year and a day in contracted mainland prison. No "deals" allowed. Every subsequent violation is double the frevious one. 1 Year & $5K, 2 Years and &10k, 4 years and $20K and so on.
6) Any violation requires surrender of all weapons they own until penalties are paid and mental health evauluations.
7) No "accidental" discharge. Weapon goes off it is prosecuted as assualt with deadly weapon, some one else suffers injury or damage of property attempted murder, some one dies 1st degree murder. No excuses no exceptions.
8) 1,000% tax on all ammunition, reloading supplies etc. Exception only for ammunition used at a licensed firing range but even a single round leaves facility the facility loses license, theif is prosecuted for grand larceny. Again no prosectorial or arrest discretion.
9) Any gun carrier must have big yellow stripe up their backs completely visible to all. To warn public of whack job coward with a weapon. ( yeah the last is to sane for legislature to pass)

oh wait.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"


They need to just say "ban guns."  Why make the hamster wheel go fast enough to come up with the idea of unlimited liability insurance or painting stripes on peoples backs. 

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 09, 2018, 04:10:11 PM
If only criminals were punished just as harsh.
Or even 10% as harsh. We're at about 3% now (see the lengthy arrest/conviction rapsheets of most of the scumbags arrested recently... "supervised release", "probation", a few months or a year incarcerated... then, back to work  ???).
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 09, 2018, 04:11:34 PM
oh wait.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"


They need to just say "ban guns."  Why make the hamster wheel go fast enough to come up with the idea of unlimited liability insurance or painting stripes on peoples backs.
They wanna make sure there is no doubt in your mind that they despise and hate you and look forward to your demise, one way or another.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 15, 2018, 07:10:29 PM
I'm taking the liberty of re-posting this from Wolfwood that he posted several hours ago on another forum:

* * * * *

This just got filed.

https://www.scribd.com/document/393330860/Young-Motion-to-File-en-Banc- (https://www.scribd.com/document/393330860/Young-Motion-to-File-en-Banc-)

/End Wolfwood post

* * * * *
It is the state's (unusual) reply to the reply made by Young's attorney to the state's petition for en banc hearing.

It is full of blatant lies. Blatant lies that anyone involved in this issue over the years know are lies... the state claiming that at any time any ordinary citizen could have applied for and been granted an open carry license. These people are evil. Every single one of them should be held in contempt of court, prosecuted and disbarred. Here they are, all the ones who signed the reply to the reply:

RUSSELL A. SUZUKI
Attorney General of the State of Hawaii

CLYDE J. WADSWORTH
Solicitor General of the State of Hawaii

KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY
ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI
KALIKOʻONALANI D. FERNANDES
Deputy Attorneys General

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for State of Hawaii
Defendants-Appellees

JOSEPH K. KAMELAMELA
Corporation Counsel

LAUREEN L. MARTIN
Litigation Section Supervisor

D. KAENA HOROWITZ
Deputy Corporation Counsel

COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Attorneys for County of Hawaii
Defendants-Appellees


NEAL K. KATYAL
COLLEEN E. ROH SINZDAK
MITCHELL P. REICH

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
Fax: (202) 637-5910
Email: neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on November 16, 2018, 02:19:38 PM
https://www.scribd.com/document/393405383/Young-San-Diego-County-Gun-Owners-Amicus-Brief

First of the Amicus Briefs got filed.  This is a history brief written to take on Everytown's brief.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 18, 2018, 06:33:54 PM
Can anyone provide a free link to or other free access to this article?

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

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


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

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

* * * *
[I'd prefer an anatomical part at the opposite end of the body, but I guess I'd settle for the foot... and of course Hawaii's argument is that they don't "ban" any kind of carry... anyone can get either an open carry or concealed carry license at any time... one just "must, among other things, demonstrate that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens." You know, virtually the exact words from the constitutions!  :wtf: ]
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on November 19, 2018, 07:24:42 AM
Can anyone provide a free link to or other free access to this article?

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

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


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

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

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

I second that request.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on November 19, 2018, 07:40:03 AM
Can anyone provide a free link to or other free access to this article?

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

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


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

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

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


Was the editorial in the antiquated olde english printed version? Anyone have a copy? Scan and post it?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 19, 2018, 08:05:53 AM

Was the editorial in the antiquated olde english printed version? Anyone have a copy? Scan and post it?
It's in the online edition at the link (as well (likely) as the print edition), but you have to give them money (be a subscriber) in order to sign in and view it. Hell if I'm giving them a cent. Since the writer says there is a "ban", he likely is as ignorant as the others at that rag who have written error-filled articles about the case. Still, I wanna read what is getting put into the minds of the public.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on November 19, 2018, 04:14:58 PM
Amicus Briefs Got filed. Spent all day in Court so I haven't had a chance to read them.
]
https://www.scribd.com/document/393633915/Young-SAF-Amicus-Brief (https://www.scribd.com/document/393633915/Young-SAF-Amicus-Brief)


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

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



https://www.scribd.com/document/393634673/Young-HFC-Brief (https://www.scribd.com/document/393634673/Young-HFC-Brief)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Gordyf on November 19, 2018, 06:44:19 PM
And the NRA sayeth naught????
Aloha
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on November 19, 2018, 10:27:40 PM
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/46480451_10161099106340634_1620522050185592832_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=70e4a0bd470e3bd22844400268dc6d90&oe=5CAD3D46)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on November 20, 2018, 01:53:44 AM
And the NRA sayeth naught????
Aloha

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

So, no surprise that the NRA did not file an Amicus brief in support of Open Carry.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on November 20, 2018, 01:58:05 AM
All of the Amicus briefs in Young v. Hawaii, both in support and in opposition to en banc, can be found at my website at this page -> http://californiaopencarry.com/young-v-state-of-hawaii-appeal-12-17808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/ (http://californiaopencarry.com/young-v-state-of-hawaii-appeal-12-17808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Gordyf on November 20, 2018, 07:38:02 AM
I feel better now :)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on November 20, 2018, 03:06:57 PM
http://bigislandnow.com/2018/11/20/coalition-files-amicus-brief-opposing-ban-on-openly-carrying-firearms/
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on November 20, 2018, 09:57:47 PM
It's in the online edition at the link (as well (likely) as the print edition), but you have to give them money (be a subscriber) in order to sign in and view it. Hell if I'm giving them a cent. Since the writer says there is a "ban", he likely is as ignorant as the others at that rag who have written error-filled articles about the case. Still, I wanna read what is getting put into the minds of the public.
Found a print version(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181121/a9a310f2cfd73a0c085a93f7ad80b1de.jpg)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 20, 2018, 11:11:23 PM
Found a print version
Thanks. I appreciate your effort to provide that for us.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on November 21, 2018, 12:50:18 AM
You need to put a pen you want to sell on it and use the paper as the background to circumvent possible copy right laws.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on November 21, 2018, 09:42:47 AM
You need to put a pen you want to sell on it and use the paper as the background to circumvent possible copy right laws.
Sorry.. forgot to say I was offering up the paper itself for any recycling projects or for lining birdcages

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 21, 2018, 11:33:09 AM
Sorry.. forgot to say I was offering up the paper itself for any recycling projects or for lining birdcages
I thought that WAS the bottom of a birdcage...
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on November 21, 2018, 12:31:28 PM
I  filed a sur-reply..  A surreply s a reply to their reply. I basically am asking permission to file the brief. There are some misrepresentations made by the Defendant that I wanted to point out regarding Hawaii's past practice.

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

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

Please like their page on facebook and consider joining.

http://hifico.org/

https://www.facebook.com/hificoorg
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 21, 2018, 12:44:59 PM
From yesterday's episode of NRA TV's Cam and Company Second Amendment attorney and scholar Steven Halbrook briefly discusses an article about the "second class" Second Amendment. At around the 9 minute mark he briefly discusses limiting the right to bear arms to only "special" classes of people and the divergence between Hawaii's orientation (only security guards get open carry licenses) in Young in the Ninth and Boston/Brookline's orientation (only doctors, lawyers, and retired cops get "unrestricted" concealed carry licenses) in Gould in the First Circuit. [Note that the Second Amendment does NOT read "... the right of security guards, doctors, lawyers, and retired cops to bear arms shall not be infringed".]

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

Steve Halbrook: The Second Class Amendment

Supreme Court Must Stop Spread of Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws

Despite the text of the Second Amendment, supporters of gun rights have often based their arguments on the pre-constitutional right of self-defense. This may be in part why the Supreme Court has been reluctant to stop the spread of federal, state and local gun control. Second Amendment attorney and scholar Steve Halbrook explains why it's up to the newly-constituted Supreme Court with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to make the right to keep and bear arms equal to the rest of the Bill of Rights. They must reign in the appellate courts that are upholding unconstitutional bans. Steve says intermediate scrutiny would never be acceptable for the First Amendment; it's just as unacceptable for the Second. The meaning of "infringe" is clear. Originally aired on Cam & Co 11/20/18.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on November 29, 2018, 04:54:38 AM
Neal Katyal is being paid 185 thousand to defend young according to this fee schedule obtained through a UIPA request . Note he just came on for the en banc proceedings



https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents (https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Inspector on November 29, 2018, 05:20:49 AM
Neal Katyal is being paid 185 thousand to defend young according to this fee schedule obtained through a UIPA request . Note he just came on for the en banc proceedings



https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents (https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents)
Our taxpayer dollars at work and being misspent. It’s sad that we will be paying for both sides of this lawsuit when we eventually prevail. I’m sure it will cost us taxpayers a lot more for the state/county to fight this than you will get when all this is said and done. Don’t get me wrong, whatever you get for this suit after it concludes will be well spent. It just saddens me that our own government is spending our tax dollars to fight to keep our constitutional rights from us.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 29, 2018, 05:46:41 AM
Neal Katyal is being paid 185 thousand to defend young according to this fee schedule obtained through a UIPA request . Note he just came on for the en banc proceedings

https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents (https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents)
Thanks to Andrew for pursuing that document after the state told me they wanted $930 to fulfill my UIPA request (I also wanted to see all the docs leading up to the decision to hire outside counsel, i.e. "We don't know what the fuck we're doing, we only have a staff of 600, we need to hire someone else.").

$185,000 total compensation is a "steal" considering it covers the costs of going before SCOTUS should the case go that far. My understanding is that previous such cases legal fees were in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000. It's almost enough to make me wonder if 1. They know they aren't going to SCOTUS, at least if they have any say in it, or 2. Katyal is going to do a crappy job by not putting in the hours necessary to mount a serious defense of unconstitutional laws (i.e. he "sees the writing on the wall").

Of course those are just my fantasies. In the real world the state will do everything it can, for as long as it can, no matter how much it costs, to deny Hawaii residents of their fundamental, individual, enumerated, god-given/natural, inalienable constitutionally-protected rights. That's what they do.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: tillamook on November 29, 2018, 07:07:00 AM
$1550 an hour?

minus 50% discount... oh ok.  much more reasonable.  ::)

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 29, 2018, 07:20:46 AM
$1550 an hour?

minus 50% discount... oh ok.  much more reasonable.  ::)
Hey, come on, don't demean the economic value of the skills necessary to weasel-word a way to claim that simultaneously the state "recognizes and allows the people to bear arms as prohibited from infringement by the Constitution" AND "the fact that currently no one may bear arms, and that historically virtually no one has had the lawful ability to bear arms, does not mean that no one MAY bear arms IF they meet the absurd ridiculous obviously-disingenuous bullshit commonsense standard that no one has or will ever meet" and get a court to uphold the obvious contradiction. That's pure gold and worth every penny!  :crazy:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Inspector on November 29, 2018, 08:04:11 AM
Hey, come on, don't demean the economic value of the skills necessary to weasel-word a way to claim that simultaneously the state "recognizes and allows the people to bear arms as prohibited from infringement by the Constitution" AND "the fact that currently no one may bear arms, and that historically virtually no one has had the lawful ability to bear arms, does not mean that no one MAY bear arms IF they meet the absurd ridiculous obviously-disingenuous bullshit commonsense standard that no one has or will ever meet" and get a court to uphold the obvious contradiction. That's pure gold and worth every penny!  :crazy:
How much coffee have you had this morning?  :rofl:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: tillamook on November 29, 2018, 08:15:12 AM
Not that I like any news media, but is there any perhaps semi-responsible media who should be publishing this as a waste of tax dollars? 


Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on November 29, 2018, 08:27:21 AM
Not that I like any news media, but is there any perhaps semi-responsible media who should be publishing this as a waste of tax dollars?

I'll see if grassroots institute wants to do a story.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 29, 2018, 08:39:40 AM
How much coffee have you had this morning?  :rofl:
Dude, if I used caffeine, or any other drugs, well... let's just say that wouldn't be pretty.

Not that I like any news media, but is there any perhaps semi-responsible media who should be publishing this as a waste of tax dollars? 
Good luck with that! If anything appeared from the usual suspects it would likely tout the great value of such an expense to help preserve "public safety" and praise the state AG office for being willing to acknowledge that they are in over their head when it comes to trying to make sense to a court how the laws they enforce aren't infringements of constitutionally-protected rights

I'll see if grassroots institute wants to do a story.
Cool. But what's their readership? A couple hundred or maybe a thousand? Better than nothing I suppose.  :shaka:.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on November 29, 2018, 08:43:01 AM
I did not intend for this to go public just yet. I have a press release and story I’m almost done with that I’m going to submit to news organizations latter today.

Hopefully we can get some coverage.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Inspector on November 29, 2018, 08:44:50 AM
Dude, if I used caffeine, or any other drugs, well... let's just say that wouldn't be pretty.
Well, let’s just say your cup of sarcasm runneth over this morning!  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 29, 2018, 09:00:16 AM
I did not intend for this to go public just yet. I have a press release and story I’m almost done with that I’m going to submit to news organizations latter today.

Hopefully we can get some coverage.
Great. Thanks for the efforts.  :shaka:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on November 29, 2018, 01:42:53 PM
Going to Vegas soon.  Gonna open carry an AR with my friend around his block.  Just because I can.  Nevada has no permit required for open carry.

I asked him, aren't his neighbors concerned?  He said there are a few who walk their dogs with an AR slung all the time.  So no biggie.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 30, 2018, 09:32:28 AM
A slightly sarcastic, biased (but for our side) article summarizing the issues as they currently stand in Young v Hawaii.

Hawaii spends $185,000 on lawyer to blow en banc petition to rehear open carry case

https://firearmsunknown.com/FU2/blog/post/hawaii-spends-185-000-on-lawyer-to-blow-en-banc-petition-to-rehear-open-carry-case

This summer, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled in the case Young v. Hawaii that Hawaii’s unconcealed carry licensing scheme was so stringent that it violated Mr. Young’s Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home, as its provision - that only those who provided a need, an urgency, or was engaged in the protection of life and property would be able to obtain a license - resulted in zero unconcealed carry licenses being issued to anyone other than security guards.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on November 30, 2018, 04:25:42 PM
So how long do we have to wait before we know whether or not the 9th is going en banc?  Young should have been issued a permit already and not have to wait another 3-7 years before this thing goes through SCOTUS.  If he loses at SCOTUS, then his permit can be revoked, not the other way around as he won his appeal.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on November 30, 2018, 04:43:11 PM
So how long do we have to wait before we know whether or not the 9th is going en banc?  Young should have been issued a permit already and not have to wait another 3-7 years before this thing goes through SCOTUS.  If he loses at SCOTUS, then his permit can be revoked, not the other way around as he won his appeal.
Courtesy of Mr. Charles Nichols, here are the court documents that detail the en banc prodecures: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/general_orders/General%20Orders.pdf and http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/frap.pdf

Here is his coverage and all the court documents links at his website: http://californiaopencarry.com/young-v-state-of-hawaii-appeal-12-17808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/

There he states: "The short version is that we have no way of knowing when there will be a decision on the en banc petition."
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on December 08, 2018, 02:29:41 PM
Since it's possible that Young could go en banc...

I was looking at some info about the en banc procedures in general, and at the Ninth Circuit in particular. Here is a brief one page summary from the court about the general en banc procedures: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/02/10/En_Banc_Summary2.pdf

An en banc panel in the Ninth Circuit (all the other circuits have all the judges sit en banc) consists of the chief judge and 10 randomly drawn judges from the pool of the remaining 28 judges (but there are currently 6 vacancies, which makes Flake's blocking of the confirmation of sefveral Trump appointees to the Ninth Circuit even more , uh, maddening), and including any senior status judges who may have sat on the original three judge panel of the case going en banc. For Young, that would include both O'Scannlain (who wrote the affirmative opinion in Young), and Clifton (who wrote the dissent), if they choose to be included in the random draw.

That means the pool for the random drawing, of the 28 active judges (currently 23 filled seats) (chief judge Thomas is a Clinton appointee) is 16 Democrat appointed judges (9 Clinton, and 7 Obama appointees) and 7 Republican appointed judges (5 G.W. Bush, and 2 Trump). so the Dems have more than a 2 to 1 chance of being selected to the en banc panel (should there be one). Sure would be at least potentially helpful if a couple or more Trump appointees could get seated before the Young en banc panel is seated.

I know that SCOTUS chief justice Roberts has declared in response to Trump that there are no "Obama judges or Bush judges" etc., but let's get real. Of course there are, and certainly the decisions re Second Amendment rights split very closely along those lines (though in Young the dissent was filed by a G.W. Bush appointee).

I'm quite frustrated that it may take years to even get the en banc stage completed. (Note that in the New Jersey Large Capacity Magazine ban case, oral arguments were heard November 20 and the decision was filed December 5! Compare that to the over a year for Peruta to get a published decision. I wonder if I'll still be around when the whole carry issue gets finalized in Hawaii? The time in Peruta from the original 3 judge panel decision to the en banc panel decision was 2 years and 4 months (same timeline with Young would put that decision at November 2020! Just in time to see the election of Kamala Harris as president!). Cert at SCOTUS was later denied, but if accepted that would likely take at least another year... and even if Young were to win at SCOTUS it would like still be at least a couple more years before the legislature could fashion and pass legislation attempting to skirt the ruling to the best of it's ability (onerous training requirements and fees, annual renewals, etc., resulting in likely more years of litigation to get them to actually adhere to the intent of the SCOTUS decision.) But maybe I'm totally wrong and overly pessimistic and the legislature will introduce a bill in a month to establish permitless carry throughout Hawaii. But I don't think so.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on December 08, 2018, 06:53:37 PM
I tell you, it is time to move to Arizona.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on December 15, 2018, 09:14:00 AM
Meanwhile... in the United States of America...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/14/oklahoma-on-verge-of-ending-permit-requirement-for-concealed-carry/

Oklahoma lawmakers are on the verge of ending the permit requirement for concealed carry in their state.

State legislators passed a bill to eliminate the requirement early this year, only to have Gov. Mary Fallin (R) veto it.

But Ammoland reports that Governor-elect Kevin Stitt (R) has already made clear he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. In early September News 9 quoted Stitt saying, “I would sign it. I am a constitutional conservative. I support the first amendment, the second amendment and I think the best defense for a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

State Sen. Nathan Dahm (R) introduced the legislation that Fallin vetoed and plans to reintroduce it under Stitt.

On November 27, 2018, Breitbart News reported a similar situation in South Dakota, where outgoing Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) vetoed legislation to end a concealed carry permit requirement but Governor-elect Kristi Noem (R) is expected to sign it.

There are currently 12 states where the Second Amendment is the only concealed carry permit a resident needs: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Vermont. Adding Oklahoma and South Dakota to that list will be considerable expansion on the exercise of freedom.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on December 19, 2018, 06:32:15 AM
I filed a couple studies in Young to rebut the study the State is relying on

https://www.scribd.com/document/395975064/Young-Filed-28j-About-Concealed-Carry-Study
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on December 19, 2018, 06:48:21 AM
I filed a couple studies in Young to rebut the study the State is relying on

https://www.scribd.com/document/395975064/Young-Filed-28j-About-Concealed-Carry-Study
Thanks. If only the liars and ignorant were amenable to facts and reason...
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on December 26, 2018, 06:36:51 PM
Since it's possible that Young could go en banc...
... resulting in likely more years of litigation to get them to actually adhere to the intent of the SCOTUS decision.) But maybe I'm totally wrong and overly pessimistic and the legislature will introduce a bill in a month to establish permitless carry throughout Hawaii. But I don't think so.

I've been away from this thread fr months (a year?), but decided to come back specifically because I was in the yard the other day and thought, "wth ever did happen with that Young case?!"
Now I see.... Stonewalling in the 9th Demokrat Circuit, buy time for the next Socialist in Chief to appoint a few more Commissars to that circuit... Thanks.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on December 26, 2018, 06:48:49 PM
...the state will do everything it can, for as long as it can, no matter how much it costs, to deny Hawaii residents of their fundamental, individual, enumerated, god-given/natural, inalienable constitutionally-protected rights. That's what they do.

Everyman has exactly the government he deserves. You all voted these clowns for 70 years in a row just because your tutu used to vote for them, and your dad votes for them, and your stupid civil servant unions tell you to vote for them, and because you all don't want to be embarrassed at your cousin Kawika's son's one year birthday party on the beach under one acre of tarp, when they all ask, "why you went vote foa dakine? They stay republicans, brah. Yoa mudda would be so shamed about you if she was alive. Ho, braddah, make A you neva vote for da dems, man! Hey Auntie, he went vote foa da odda side!" (and assorted other well constructed conversations about governance, world view, and geoploitical subtleties that likely happen - not! - at such gatherings.
To fit in you all vote for these clowns every cycle and we all get what we deserve. Good for you. Good for us.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on December 26, 2018, 06:55:16 PM
... That argument is foreclosed by the en banc decision in Peruta...

What mean "foreclosed" ???
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on December 26, 2018, 07:31:26 PM
I sent an email to the White House asking that...Apparently they don't value my opinion all that highly...

Yeah, I know what you mean. They don't listen to Sergeant Cox, either.  >:(
Had they listened to Sergeant Cox, they wouldn't be in Iraq in the first place, or, having gone in, woulda been done the right way quicker the first time. :o  That, and Palestine wouldn't be a threat to anyone anymore. ;)   But, they don't listen to you and they don't listen to Sergeant Cox either. Sergeant Cox has all the answers...

Caveat: I am (was) Sergeant Cox (retired).
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on December 26, 2018, 08:33:27 PM
What mean "foreclosed" ???

The three-judge panel that decided Young v. Hawaii is bound by the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego which held that there is no right, under the Second Amendment, for a member of the general public to carry a handgun concealed in public.  The only courts which can overturn the en banc decision in Peruta is another en banc court of the 9th circuit or the United States Supreme Court.  Peruta filed a cert petition which was denied.  Therefore, the en banc decision in Peruta remains binding on every three-judge panel as well as every district court judge in the 9th circuit.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on December 26, 2018, 09:34:17 PM
Everyman has exactly the government he deserves. You all voted these clowns for 70 years in a row just because your tutu used to vote for them, and your dad votes for them, and your stupid civil servant unions tell you to vote for them, and because you all don't want to be embarrassed at your cousin Kawika's son's one year birthday party on the beach under one acre of tarp, when they all ask, "why you went vote foa dakine? They stay republicans, brah. Yoa mudda would be so shamed about you if she was alive. Ho, braddah, make A you neva vote for da dems, man! Hey Auntie, he went vote foa da odda side!" (and assorted other well constructed conversations about governance, world view, and geoploitical subtleties that likely happen - not! - at such gatherings.
To fit in you all vote for these clowns every cycle and we all get what we deserve. Good for you. Good for us.

I don't vote.

https://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on January 04, 2019, 09:09:05 PM
The three-judge panel that decided Young v. Hawaii is bound by the en banc decision in Peruta v. San Diego which held that there is no right, under the Second Amendment, for a member of the general public to carry a handgun concealed in public.  The only courts which can overturn the en banc decision in Peruta is another en banc court of the 9th circuit or the United States Supreme Court.  Peruta filed a cert petition which was denied.  Therefore, the en banc decision in Peruta remains binding on every three-judge panel as well as every district court judge in the 9th circuit.

Thanks!
But...If the Peruta banc decided that concealed carry is not constitutionally protected, and separately some other - Young, or any other - case thread decides that open carry is also not constitutionally protected, then effectively the courts (albeit via separate threads) have decided that bearing arms in public in any fashion is not constitutionally protected.

Wait... That would mean either 1) the court(s) are wrong (honest mistake) ; or 2) the court(s) deliberately took away one of our rights knowing full well what they are doing; or 3) the court(s)' interpretation(s) are correct and we can only bear arms in private and not in public.

If number three, then wow that sucks, and the 2A is a crappy right.
If number one, then wouldn't further litigation expose and correct that ? Give us back either the open- or concealed-carry?
If number two, isn't that legitimate grounds for open amred insurrection and overthrow (corrective) action of a tyrannical governing system? I mean, my forefathers threw a bunch of tea into the harbor for this kind of crap...
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Kukailimoku on January 04, 2019, 09:12:08 PM
I don't vote.

https://youtu.be/xIraCchPDhk

Didn't-voters are also covered under the theory of you-have-exactly-what-you-deserve. If you don't vote then you helped it happened; and whether or not one votes if they allow to stand waht is standing then again, you still deserve what is standing. Because not knocking it down.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on January 24, 2019, 02:59:02 PM
Brief quotes from Young and Beck in a three minute part 1 of 2 report from NPR Hawaii. Can't wait to hear "the legislators weigh in" on part 2! If they let them speak unedited I'd bet that we'd hear "Wild West" more than once.  :rofl:

http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/post/george-k-young-jr-continues-his-quest-open-carry-firearms
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: tillamook on January 24, 2019, 04:05:04 PM
Brief quotes from Young and Beck in a three minute part 1 of 2 report from NPR Hawaii. Can't wait to hear "the legislators weigh in" on part 2! If they let them speak unedited I'd bet that we'd hear "Wild West" more than once.  :rofl:

http://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/post/george-k-young-jr-continues-his-quest-open-carry-firearms

They had some previews from the politicians and that's what it was "I dont want to live in a state where we are shooting each other over parking spaces"
I would not except NPR to give anything other than a slanted view on guns.  They did say that "anyone can go to any gun show in the US and get a gun without a background check even from a dealer" and never corrected it. 



Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on January 24, 2019, 06:11:44 PM
https://youtu.be/Yxm6eDxyJgI
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on February 08, 2019, 04:55:38 PM
En banc oral argument will take place during the week of March 25, 2019, in San Francisco, California.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on February 08, 2019, 08:15:13 PM
En banc oral argument will take place during the week of March 25, 2019, in San Francisco, California.

Is this open to the public?  I might go to show support.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on February 08, 2019, 08:42:54 PM
Is this open to the public?  I might go to show support.

Video of the oral argument will be broadcast live and an archive version posted the same day at the 9th circuit court of appeals YouTube channel -> https://www.youtube.com/user/9thcirc/videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/9thcirc/videos)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: All_rice on February 10, 2019, 12:42:52 AM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/us-appeals-court-to-revisit-open-carrying-of-guns-idUSKCN1PX2A9

Does this change anything?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on February 10, 2019, 12:52:47 AM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-court/us-appeals-court-to-revisit-open-carrying-of-guns-idUSKCN1PX2A9

Does this change anything?

Bad news.

Lengthens the case.
If en banc rules against us and SCOTUS doesn't take the case, then still no carry in Hawaii.
Costs more.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on February 10, 2019, 07:48:05 AM
I would be shocked if en bank ruled FOR us.  So much so that at my age I might die of a heart attack and as I always said, no legal carry in Hawaii in my lifetime will come true.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 10, 2019, 08:59:37 AM
I would be shocked if en bank ruled FOR us.  So much so that at my age I might die of a heart attack and as I always said, no legal carry in Hawaii in my lifetime will come true.
Im in my 30s and migh have the same odds. Fighting for my childrens right (when i have). #3/16inch

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Gordyf on February 10, 2019, 05:22:07 PM
En banc oral argument will take place during the week of March 25, 2019, in San Francisco, California.

So En Banc is only being argued, not assured yet??
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on February 12, 2019, 04:12:24 PM
Is this open to the public?  I might go to show support.

Its open to the public
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 12, 2019, 04:59:47 PM
Wolfwood has posted the state's motion for supplemental briefing, filed yesterday, Feb. 11, 2019:

https://www.scribd.com/document/399423462/Young-Motion-for-Supplemental-Briefing

They claim to need another 7,000 words to adequately explain the lying bullshit Attorney General's "opinion" stating that open carry has never been restricted to "security guards", and that open carry has always been available to "typical law-abiding citizens".

The Hawaii county application still reads (and has for years):

(https://i.imgur.com/AULTPb5.jpg)

There's no amount of words that can make that lie go away.

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on February 12, 2019, 04:59:57 PM
Its open to the public

Good to hear.  I'm putting in my military space A flight request.  hopefully I get a seat during summer break.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on February 12, 2019, 06:37:08 PM
Not seeing it posted anywhere else, I have, at great personal expense, downloaded the Opposition to the state's motion for supplemental briefing -> https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/203-Young-v.-Hawaii-Plaintiffs-Opposiiton-to-Motion-for-Supplemental-Briefing.pdf (https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/203-Young-v.-Hawaii-Plaintiffs-Opposiiton-to-Motion-for-Supplemental-Briefing.pdf)

Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: London808 on February 14, 2019, 08:37:38 AM
The 9th Circuit stayed Young v. Hawaii pending issuance of an opinion by the Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on February 14, 2019, 10:40:05 AM
The 9th Circuit stayed Young v. Hawaii pending issuance of an opinion by the Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York.

In laymans terms what does this mean for us here?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 14, 2019, 10:43:07 AM
The 9th Circuit stayed Young v. Hawaii pending issuance of an opinion by the Supreme Court in New York Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York.
I'm pretty sure that the stay is a consequence of the court having voted to take the case en banc, and has nothing at all to do with any other case in any other venue.

Some people have speculated that the en banc panel would delay publishing an opinion until the SCOTUS opinion is published.

And they don't (usually) take a case en banc in order to pronounce "Yep, you got it right. Good job."

Of course we could get unbelievably lucky in the draw for the panel, but the odds are way way way against getting a 2a-friendly majority.

EDIT: My bad, maybe. The 3 judge panel ruling/opinion was vacated/null when the case was accepted en banc. The en banc oral arguments were stayed (postponed) pending NYSRPA at SCOTUS. I think. Does anyone have a link to the order by the Ninth staying Young? I can't find it, and see no news articles about it... but various people are claiming that's the case. The latest posting on the Ninth Circuit site for Young v Hawaii is the order for en banc hearing issued Feb. 8.

Maybe the Ninth just hasn't updated their site yet...

(https://i.imgur.com/vmKusZr.jpg)
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on February 14, 2019, 02:43:07 PM
I think the delay benefits us in that we'll have a better chance of winning in the 9th if Scotus sets a good president, but it's bad that the case gets dragged out longer.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on February 21, 2019, 11:35:35 AM
Mr. Young's attorneys filed an opposed motion to lift the stay of the en banc proceedings.

A link to the motion can be found at my website under my February 21, 2019, update -> https://californiaopencarry.com/young-v-state-of-hawaii-appeal-12-17808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/ and possibly attached to this post.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 21, 2019, 01:10:03 PM
Thanks for the info, but can you break down what this means and why in "rich dummy" terms?  I'm not good with this type of wordings.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 26, 2019, 09:13:09 AM
Posted today at the SCOTUS site re NYSRPA:

Feb 25 2019   Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits is granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 7, 2019. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 5, 2019.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html

* * * * *

What this means is that Tom King's (executive director of NYSRPA) claim that the case would definitely be heard this spring, and a decision thus announced by late June, is officially a crock of shit. The case won't be heard until at least October (when the court reconvenes) and a decision may not be announced until June 2020 (though it could come any time before then and after the oral arguments).

Young's attorneys have filed to remove the stay placed by the Ninth Circuit on Young pending SCOTUS rendering it's decision in NYSRPA (Since SCOTUS has a long history of rendering rather narrow decisions, what does a law banning the transportation of an unloaded firearm in a locked container to anyplace other than an approved range in NYC have to do with carrying a loaded firearm for self-defense outside the home?). I suspect that the chances of the Ninth lifting it's own stay are approximately zero. That means that orals for Young en banc won't even be scheduled until NYSRPA is announced... then add on to that that the previous 2A en banc cases average 16 months from orals to opinion being announced... we're looking at 2021 or 2022 before we get the decision in Young, and if (haha) it loses there it may then be appealed to SCOTUS for 2023 or maybe even 2024! (Or even way longer if en banc remands for a do-over in district court.) This is justice? ("Justice delayed is justice denied.") And they wonder why some people refuse to obey laws that deny them the exercise of their constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense? What a fucking joke!  :wtf:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on February 26, 2019, 10:33:32 AM
This shows how bias our court system is.  A case about a baker refusing to bake a gay cake goes to the SCOTUS very quickly.  But anything 2a gets denied or delayed.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 27, 2019, 07:29:09 PM
February 26, 2019.

The motion to lift the stay was denied.  The stay of Young v. Hawaii remains in place until after there is a decision in NYSRPA v. NYC.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on February 28, 2019, 11:57:28 AM
February 26, 2019.

The motion to lift the stay was denied.  The stay of Young v. Hawaii remains in place until after there is a decision in NYSRPA v. NYC.

COME ON 2027!!! Baby I can taste the freedom now!
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on February 28, 2019, 12:22:02 PM
COME ON 2027!!!
Whence the optimism?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on February 28, 2019, 01:21:05 PM
Whence the optimism?

Just being positive  :D
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on March 02, 2019, 05:17:43 PM
28 U.S. Code §2101(e) -> "An application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review a case before judgment has been rendered in the court of appeals may be made at any time before judgment."  See SCOTUS Rule 11.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on April 12, 2019, 06:58:23 AM
Wolfwood: Do you know if this is true? (from another forum):

"Latest from CRPA in the Firing Line [magazine]. Is that the state has appealed to have Flanagan and Young heard as a joint hearing."
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on April 12, 2019, 11:43:14 AM
Wolfwood: Do you know if this is true? (from another forum):

"Latest from CRPA in the Firing Line [magazine]. Is that the state has appealed to have Flanagan and Young heard as a joint hearing."

the request was denied
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: wolfwood on April 12, 2019, 09:43:18 PM
https://www.scribd.com/document/406102355/Young-28j-Re-NYC-Case

filed this
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on April 30, 2019, 09:05:12 AM
This just in from SCOTUS re NYSRPA... a big fuck you to New York City asking for a stay while they attempted to moot the case by making some revisions to the law...

Apr 29 2019   Motion of respondents to hold briefing schedule in abeyance DENIED.

[The above is my version, here's the original as on the site: Apr 29 2019   Motion of respondents to hold briefing schedule in abeyance DENIED.]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on April 30, 2019, 09:09:00 AM
What is the reason why Young would take so long?  That Christian banker who refused to bake a cake went to SCOTUS very quickly.  So 1st amendment gets a "speedy hearing", but 2a gets jack.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: 6716J on April 30, 2019, 09:20:04 AM
What is the reason why Young would take so long?  That Christian banker who refused to bake a cake went to SCOTUS very quickly.  So 1st amendment gets a "speedy hearing", but 2a gets jack.

2nd Amendment is 2nd Class in their world
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: tillamook on April 30, 2019, 11:37:30 AM
Marking tires with chalk is more important than protecting your family, that's why. 
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: SOLEsource684 on April 30, 2019, 11:30:50 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/supreme-court-will-hear-gun-rights-case-on-transporting-handguns.html

To my understanding Mr. Young's case was fast tracked to SCOTUS via piggyback off of the New York case? Is that correct? Maybe someone chime in here?  I've tried to scour through this thread but didn't really see anything confirming this. 

Cheers,
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: zippz on April 30, 2019, 11:59:41 PM
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/22/supreme-court-will-hear-gun-rights-case-on-transporting-handguns.html

To my understanding Mr. Young's case was fast tracked to SCOTUS via piggyback off of the New York case? Is that correct? Maybe someone chime in here?  I've tried to scour through this thread but didn't really see anything confirming this. 

Cheers,

Young en banc was put on hold in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals until the NY SCOTUS case is decided.

In other words, it was delayed.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: RSN172 on May 01, 2019, 05:34:00 AM
They waiting till I die first.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on May 01, 2019, 05:50:03 AM
They waiting till I die first.
It won't matter if you die first... it will matter if Mr. Young dies first.

Just sayin'...   :geekdanc:   ;) :shaka:
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: changemyoil66 on May 01, 2019, 09:32:23 AM
It won't matter if you die first... it will matter if Mr. Young dies first.

Just sayin'...   :geekdanc:   ;) :shaka:

We all better chip in if he needs any medical care.  Gofundme?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on May 01, 2019, 11:16:43 AM
Here's Stephen Halbrook on NRA-TV's Grant Stinchfield show today briefly discussing the SCOTUS denial of stay requested by NYC in NYSRPA v NYC. Meaning it's still being scheduled to be heard next session (hopefully early in the fall so we can get a decision ASAP and get Young rolling again...).

Starts at 1:20...

https://www.nratv.com/videos/stinchfield-stephen-halbrook-new-york-citys-attempt-to-escape-scotus-review-fails
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on May 01, 2019, 05:31:48 PM
The final judgment of Federal district court judge Samuel James Otero in my California Open Carry appeal was published on this day, five years ago.  I published a timely appeal the same month.  The judge compared firearms to crystal meth and people who carry them to drug dealers.  Sadly, the State of California did not stand by Otero's analogy on appeal.  My lawsuit was filed in the district court on November 30th of 2011.

Mr. Young filed his notice of appeal on December 14, 2012.  His lawsuit was initially filed in June of 2012.  His judge held that the Second Amendment right is limited to the inside of one's home.

Pena v. Horen was initially filed in the district court on April 30, 2009 (ten years ago).  The 9th circuit court of appeals tossed it on August 3, 2018. It is currently awaiting a decision on its cert petition.

Across the nation, well over 1,000 Second Amendment cases have been decided with finality in the Federal courts, nearly all of them while any of the three cases above have languished in the courts.

I stopped tracking the time between cases taken under submission for a decision in Second Amendment cases but I suspect the 9th circuit court of appeals still holds the record for the shortest time, which was two days. Proof that the 9th circuit can issue a decision quickly when it wants to.

I suspect that the overall "winner" is the ~15-year long nunchuck case out of New York.  That case was reversed and remanded by SCOTUS nine years ago and just recently won before the Federal district court judge.

"Fast track" is not a term I would use.

How old is Mr. Young? 

Mark Baird, who recently filed his own California Open Carry lawsuit (albeit limited to handguns) is 69 years old the last time I heard.

At 59 years of age, I am the spring chicken of the three carry cases.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on May 01, 2019, 07:21:21 PM
...

How old is Mr. Young? 

Mark Baird, who recently filed his own California Open Carry lawsuit (albeit limited to handguns) is 69 years old the last time I heard.

At 59 years of age, I am the spring chicken of the three carry cases.
According to this story from Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-hawaii/unlikely-pair-could-usher-gun-rights-case-to-u-s-supreme-court-idUSKBN1KT13B), Mr. Young was 68 last August at the time the story was published (that means he was awfully young when in Vietnam).

My suggestion is that the next plaintiff in a carry case, at least in Hawaii and the consequent Ninth Circuit, be a fetus. Have the pregnant woman go in and say that the fetus has told her it wants to have a carry license waiting when it emerges and has given the mother power of attorney to submit an application to be valid from the date of birth. Baby comes out, immediately starts crying because license has been denied, thus making it defenseless against some clown holding it upside down and spanking it. I figure that way, even with all the delay shenanigans at every level we'd have a chance of someone taking the litigation all the way to SCOTUS and getting a decision while the person was still alive and thus the case not mooted by plainiff death. Twins would be even better.
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: Charles Nichols on May 01, 2019, 08:16:16 PM
According to this story from Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-hawaii/unlikely-pair-could-usher-gun-rights-case-to-u-s-supreme-court-idUSKBN1KT13B), Mr. Young was 68 last August at the time the story was published (that means he was awfully young when in Vietnam).

My suggestion is that the next plaintiff in a carry case, at least in Hawaii and the consequent Ninth Circuit, be a fetus. Have the pregnant woman go in and say that the fetus has told her it wants to have a carry license waiting when it emerges and has given the mother power of attorney to submit an application to be valid from the date of birth. Baby comes out, immediately starts crying because license has been denied, thus making it defenseless against some clown holding it upside down and spanking it. I figure that way, even with all the delay shenanigans at every level we'd have a chance of someone taking the litigation all the way to SCOTUS and getting a decision while the person was still alive and thus the case not mooted by plainiff death. Twins would be even better.

Love it.

Where is the ROTFLMAO emoji?
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: punaperson on May 15, 2019, 09:13:13 AM
Young attorney's file amicus in NYSRPA (Young en banc is stayed pending SCOTUS decision in NYSRPA)(I note they mention Mr. Young's age as a possible relevant factor to consider in reaching a resolution... as per above discussion).

Brief article with basics:

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/23611/Lawyers-for-Hawaii-Gun-Carry-Lawsuit-File-Supreme-Court-Brief-in-New-York-Case.aspx

The actual amicus brief:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-280/99589/20190514093818327_18-280%20Amicus%20Young.pdf
Title: Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
Post by: tillamook on May 15, 2019, 10:14:58 AM
what happens if he does die?  Does the case get thrown out?  because that seems like it is the strategy here by the courts.