Young v. State of Hawaii (Read 41723 times)

2ahavvaii

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #300 on: September 17, 2018, 11:12:35 AM »
contacts

Thanks boss.  will let you guys know if i get meaningful responses from them.   :shaka:

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #301 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.
"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 #302 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.

6716J

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #303 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
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #304 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.

6716J

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #305 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...
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #306 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

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #307 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
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

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #308 on: September 20, 2018, 01:17:29 PM »
Is this just for open carry or ccw as well?

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #309 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?

6716J

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #310 on: September 20, 2018, 01:29:48 PM »
I like the first comment in line punaperson  :shaka:
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

6716J

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #311 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
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #312 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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2018, 02:16:17 PM by punaperson »

6716J

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #313 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
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #314 on: September 24, 2018, 04:28:49 PM »

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #315 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.

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #316 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

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #317 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.

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #318 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.

Charles Nichols

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #319 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
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