Young v. State of Hawaii (Read 38391 times)

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #220 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

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #221 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.

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #222 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?
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #223 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.

"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #224 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.

6716J

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #225 on: September 08, 2018, 05:24:07 PM »
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #226 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.
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #227 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.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #228 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.

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #229 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

"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #230 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.
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #231 on: September 09, 2018, 01:26:49 PM »
So in 3 to 7 years........

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #232 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.

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #233 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.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #234 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
« Last Edit: September 09, 2018, 02:30:39 PM by punaperson »

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #235 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.
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #236 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.




"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #237 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 >?
"Mr. Roberts is a bit of a fanatic, he has previously sued HPD about gun registration issues." : Major Richard Robinson 2016

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #238 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.

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #239 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.