Young v. State of Hawaii (Read 41700 times)

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #240 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
"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 #241 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

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #242 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"

"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 #243 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.

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #244 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.
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

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #245 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.

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #246 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 ?





"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 #247 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.
"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 #248 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.
"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 #249 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?

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #250 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.

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #251 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
"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 #252 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 ?

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #253 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
"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 #254 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 

"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 #255 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"?

London808

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #256 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
"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 #257 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.   

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #258 on: September 12, 2018, 07:50:14 AM »
TWO DAYS!

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #259 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.