9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Carry is a right and that may issue licensing is unconstitutional.  Opinions for Richards v. San Diego and Baker v. Kealoha not published at this time.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf



TLDR version:

1.) A right to carry firearms for self-defense exists outside the home.  Heller was not specific, but pointed squarely to this reasoning.
2.) History shows that bear meant to carry outside for self-defense.
3.) That right can be either/or, or both concealed or open, but one *must* be available to *ALL* common citizens.  May issue policies are wholly unconstitutional.

Congrats!

Congrats!

It's not mine yet - but this would be a nail in the coffin.

Yes!

Exciting news. Waiting on the others...

This is awesome news. 2014 is off to a good start.

Excellent news. Thanks Chris for the info and all your hard work in making your case go the distance for those of us here in Hawaii (I only say that 'cause now you're a Cali boy...)....

When you come back, drinks are on me!

.

Thanks for the info, Funtimes.

I have not yet read the entire 79-page majority opinion, or the 48-page dissent, but from face value, this sounds promising!

Good luck, my man... I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a ruling in your favor!

TLDR version:

1.) A right to carry firearms for self-defense exists outside the home.  Heller was not specific, but pointed squarely to this reasoning.
2.) History shows that bear meant to carry outside for self-defense.
3.) That right can be either/or, or both concealed or open, but one *must* be available to *ALL* common citizens.  May issue policies are wholly unconstitutional.

Chris,

Your motion is for a preliminary injunction, correct?   Any idea how this will effect your case in the short term (i.e. the injunction)?  The long term implications are certainly positive.

Here's Eugene Volkh's quick take on the ruling

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-holds-second-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/more-on-the-reasoning-of-the-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/

Chris,

Your motion is for a preliminary injunction, correct?   Any idea how this will effect your case in the short term (i.e. the injunction)?  The long term implications are certainly positive.

Here's Eugene Volkh's quick take on the ruling

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-holds-second-amendment-secures-a-right-to-carry-a-gun/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/more-on-the-reasoning-of-the-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/

Here is my best guess, and I see  a few different paths.

1.) Court grants my injunction to the law, and orders the C&C to issue me a permit to carry firearms.
2.) Court says that the law was not clear at the time.  Therefore, because it was not clear, the judge himself couldn't have been required to know what the standard was - that a right existed outside of the home.  They would likely find error, but not grant it, and send it back to be re-heard.

3.) Court denies the PI and tells us to move on.  We either A.) Amend the complaint to remove some stuff, refile, tro / pi, or B.) just go forward and file a motion for summary judgement consistent with the opinions released in Peruta / Richards.


4.) Our case is stayed, again, pending an En Bach request in Peruta or Richards.


A lot of this depends on when they release my opinion.  Peruta was heard earlier in the day than my case by a few hours.  Richards opinion should come soon.  Mine should follow right after that. 

All this said, best case is that Hawaii is some form of shall issue this year.  Worst case is that En Bach is granted, all cases are stayed, opinion of the panel is reversed or altered in a fashion that dramatically alters what we currently think is a victory.   Aside from that, San Diego could also appeal to the SCOTUS directly and not request En Bach.

Reading quickly through the opinion. Noticed this quote.

To reason by analogy, it is as though San Diego County banned all political speech, but exempted from this restriction particular people (like current or former political figures), particular places (like private property), and particular situations (like the week before an election). Although these exceptions might preserve small pockets of freedom, they would do little to prevent destruction of the  right to free speech as a whole

The majority opinion summary:

We conclude by emphasizing, as nearly every authority on the Second
Amendment has recognized, regulation of the right to bear arms is not only
Legitimate but quite appropriate. We repeat Heller’s admonition that
“nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession”—or carriage—“of firearms by felons and the
mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”  Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–27.
Nor should anything in this opinion be taken to cast doubt on the  validity of
measures designed to make the carrying of firearms for self-defense as safe
as possible, both to the carrier and the community.
We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the
safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to
law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, “the
enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices
off the table.. . . Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is
outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation,
where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun
violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not
debatable is that it is not the role of this Court [or ours] to pronounce the
Second Amendment extinct.”  Id.at 636. Nor may we relegate the bearing
of arms to a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules
than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated
into the Due Process Clause.”  McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044.
The district court erred in denying the applicant’s motion for summary
judgment on the Second Amendment claim because San Diego County’s
“good cause” permitting requirement impermissibly infringes on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
REVERSED and REMANDED

This great news. Fingers crossed that Chief Kealoha will have to eat it.

Right on Chris, this is great news!! 

I'm REALLY hoping this has a positive impact on Oahu's CCW laws and process!!

Congratulations Chris!     I certainly hope that this decision bodes well for your case, as well as all the rest of us in Hawaii who would like to exercise our Second Amendment rights.

Thanks to you, and the attorneys and their assistants, for enduring a long, grueling, costly path. I appreciate all your efforts and wish you the best, whatever the outcome of your particular case. I'm sure the Ninth Circuit taking all three of those cases simultaneously will end up having a long term impact. I hope it's in your and our favor.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Carry is a right and that may issue licensing is unconstitutional.  Opinions for Richards v. San Diego and Baker v. Kealoha not published at this time.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf



TLDR version:

1.) A right to carry firearms for self-defense exists outside the home.  Heller was not specific, but pointed squarely to this reasoning.
2.) History shows that bear meant to carry outside for self-defense.
3.) That right can be either/or, or both concealed or open, but one *must* be available to *ALL* common citizens.  May issue policies are wholly unconstitutional.

Today is an EXCITING day.

I predict that SCOTUS will grant cert to Drake (New Jersey) and Peruta will not be heard en banc.

Assuming Peruta stands, how will you go about attacking Hawaii.

134-9 is obviously not suitable to this decision. 134-9 deems that in an uncommon occurance that one may be issued an open carry license and in an exceptional case, a CCW license may be granted. This will have to be struck.

Second point, it seems they would be free to issue you either an OC  or CCW license, you wouldn't be able to demand one or the other, but at least one. HI would probably go with CCW.

Third point, the county restriction is an undue burden, if the state's limited public safety interested is satisfied by one chief issuing you a license, then it should be valid statewide.

Not to get ahead of myself, but if 134-9 is either replaced or an alternative to a newly created shall-issue statewide CCW law, PLEASE, do not forget about non-residents, if Hawaii doesn't want to recognize out of state licenses then perhaps they can have non-residents mail applications to the AG or the Department of Safety.

Just some thoughts.

Boo-YAH!!

GREAT news.  Thanks for the updates and effort you put forward.  We all appreciate it.    CC in Hawaii soon fingers crossed

Today is an EXCITING day.

I predict that SCOTUS will grant cert to Drake (New Jersey) and Peruta will not be heard en banc.

Assuming Peruta stands, how will you go about attacking Hawaii.

134-9 is obviously not suitable to this decision. 134-9 deems that in an uncommon occurance that one may be issued an open carry license and in an exceptional case, a CCW license may be granted. This will have to be struck.

Second point, it seems they would be free to issue you either an OC  or CCW license, you wouldn't be able to demand one or the other, but at least one. HI would probably go with CCW.

Third point, the county restriction is an undue burden, if the state's limited public safety interested is satisfied by one chief issuing you a license, then it should be valid statewide.

Not to get ahead of myself, but if 134-9 is either replaced or an alternative to a newly created shall-issue statewide CCW law, PLEASE, do not forget about non-residents, if Hawaii doesn't want to recognize out of state licenses then perhaps they can have non-residents mail applications to the AG or the Department of Safety.

Just some thoughts.

We still need to wait on the decision in Baker v. Kealoha then we'll see where it goes. For Chicago, the city had a set time period to get a new law on the books.