Nope, it's still idiotic even after reading it twice.

Seriously?  You're trolling, right?  Please, please, tell me you're trolling!

Seriously?  You're trolling, right?  Please, please, tell me you're trolling!

how is he trolling lol?  You can't explain shit after you are dead ;p

It says "them explain"

It says "them explain"

Ah. The bad grammar in it through me off #backtomyhole

I know it's not worded the best and almost a "Ron Paulism"     but still I agree with the meme.  it is better for her to testify (alive) than have the police explain to me why she's dead.  six of one, half dozen the other but not exactly.  confusing but true.

KK's not even reading it.

He's just staring at the hot chick. 

how is he trolling lol?  You can't explain shit after you are dead ;p

 

KK's not even reading it.

He's just staring at the hot chick. 

Were there words on the picture?

I only saw female greatness.

.

Okay, seriously... 

Just publishing the frickin' opinion, already!!

The last filing in Baker v. Kealoha was August 2013. That said, they still need to play out the En Banc with Peruta from Brady and decide if they want to send the CA AG up to SCOTUS. There were 2 Peruta filings re the Brady En Banc  yesterday. Dealt with lack of standing for Brady people to file and also that the court did not have time and was too busy for 12 judges to review all the stuff in the Brady filings.

My read of the Tea leaves is that the court is still divided 2-1, however there are complicated procedural issues that differentiate Baker from Peruta. Make take a while for the clerks to figure out a ruling for the judges that won't be overturned.

.

Keep your hats on I would bet an appeal to SCOTUS will be forthcoming, and this comes in a different position than Peruta. It may or may not survive SCOTUS if an appeal comes to pass.

I pray we may apply for CCW at long last in the meantime. I note the court was still divided 2-1 as I surmised.

That said, FIRST ROUND OF DRINKS IS ON ME! 

Keep your hats on I would bet an appeal to SCOTUS will be forthcoming, and this comes in a different position than Peruta. It may or may not survive SCOTUS if an appeal comes to pass.

I pray we may apply for CCW at long last in the meantime. I note the court was still divided 2-1 as I surmised.

That said, FIRST ROUND OF DRINKS IS ON ME! 

I've heard that they wouldn't appeal.  If Peruta doesn't go En Banc, it would be pretty pointless for them to even try.

Now we have to see what's going to happen, so long as Peruta stays controlling - then the victory is ours and this game is over.

Having read the Judge Thomas dissent, they have more of a leg to stand on in Baker than they do in Peruta. 

Just seen in the Patriot Post this morning....   Not sure how it will all play out...

"Hawaii Becomes Shall-Issue
The Ninth Circuit Court recently ruled in Peruta v. San Diego that California residents did not have to show a "pressing need" for a concealed weapons license. Thursday, the Ninth Circuit extended that to Hawaii by overturning a district court ruling and thus making the Aloha State a shall-issue state. The Court said, "In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's decision denying [the plaintiff's] motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with Peruta." We're glad to see that even the Ninth Circuit acknowledges that the Second Amendment means what it says. "

If this is a step in the right direction we will see.  I cant imagine the powers that control our state government ever changing. As long as they remain in power nothing ever changes for the good.
We need to change them first

Just seen in the Patriot Post this morning....   Not sure how it will all play out...

"Hawaii Becomes Shall-Issue
The Ninth Circuit Court recently ruled in Peruta v. San Diego that California residents did not have to show a "pressing need" for a concealed weapons license. Thursday, the Ninth Circuit extended that to Hawaii by overturning a district court ruling and thus making the Aloha State a shall-issue state. The Court said, "In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's decision denying [the plaintiff's] motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with Peruta." We're glad to see that even the Ninth Circuit acknowledges that the Second Amendment means what it says. "

I could be mistaken but it sure seems like something's up with this.

Can someone please do a quick recap and explain layman-style what in the seven kingdoms is happening RFN?

Thanks!

I could be mistaken but it sure seems like something's up with this.

Can someone please do a quick recap and explain layman-style what in the seven kingdoms is happening RFN?

Thanks!

There is quite a bit going on and I am not sure on what affects what, but do know that all of this does tie in together in one way or another.
- Drake v. Jerejian: Waiting to see if it will be heard in the Supreme Court. I believe this one would be to make a binding decision affecting the whole US.
- Peruta v. San Diego: Won but waiting to see if the AG will be able to request an en banc review of the case. This is a case that affects the Baker decision
- Baker v. Kealoha: Won but C&C filed for en banc. I really don't know if this was within the specified timeline.

- Baker v. Kealoha: Won but C&C filed for en banc. I really don't know if this was within the specified timeline.

They had requested and were approved for an extension of time to file.