Not on today's order list.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...17zor_986b.pdf

May 15 2017   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-894.htm

Ho hum... 

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/15/second-amendment-case-peruta-vs-california-may-be-heading-to-supreme-court.html

"The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta."

 

So if SCOTUS rules in favor of Peruta, what effect will it have on Hawaii, other than the state refusing to recognize and appealing the decision.  Can they even appeal a SCOTUS decision?

So if SCOTUS rules in favor of Peruta, what effect will it have on Hawaii, other than the state refusing to recognize and appealing the decision.  Can they even appeal a SCOTUS decision?

There are 2 ways to appeal a SCOTUS decision.  Pass an amendment to change the constitution.   Or later in the future (we're talking at least a few decades), SCOTUS can revisit the case again but this is highly unlikely.

So if SCOTUS rules in favor of Peruta, what effect will it have on Hawaii, other than the state refusing to recognize and appealing the decision.  Can they even appeal a SCOTUS decision?

I can speculate about that! 

First, it's a giant "IF", as other nearly identical cases (some form of "good cause" requirement) have been denied cert the past few years. The "money" is on denial of cert with these relisting being used to allow for a dissent to be completed.

However IF Peruta is granted cert, AND IF Peruta were to "win", all that would do for Hawaii is (possibly) negate the "exceptional case" requirement (similar to the "good cause" specific threat requirement of Peruta). What it would NOT do is address all the other vague, ambiguous, arbitrary and capricious clauses in the law that would be available for Hawaii to continue to be a de facto "no issue" state. (See my post in another thread in this section briefly mentioning them: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=27505.msg244037#msg244037). A SCOTUS Peruta decision could, theoretically, address all those other restrictive licensing requirements, but it's extremely rare for a SCOTUS decision to address any issues beyond the very narrow question presented by the litigant, so it's highly unlikely that the court would go beyond the "good cause" issue to address things like "no 'unreasonable' training requirement" or "no 'unreasonable' cost" or "no 'unreasonable' limitations on carry locations", etc., much less some "strict scrutiny" decision that would dictate "no government approval or permission can be required" (i.e. permitless open and concealed carry). It would likely mean that even if Peruta were successful, that more cases would have to be filed to address the various other impediments Hawaii has created to deny citizens the right to lawfully bear arms, though some of those might be addressed in Young which is already at the Ninth, apparently waiting for the Peruta SCOTUS disposition.

By the way, I watched a video of Ed Peruta today prior to the announcement of another relist. It's not really worth watching (IMHO) as it's just rambling on about his shooting at a young age, etc., but right at the beginning he said "It gets a little old after, what, 8 or 9 years?"  Also, he just got out of the hospital after suffering some kind of (realtively "minor") cardiac event. Oh, and he says he now "agree(s) with Nichols" that open carry is the right protected by the Constitution. https://www.facebook.com/edperuta/videos/10154431553275952/

I guess I really won't see a legal right to carry in Hawaii in my lifetime, even if I live to 90.

I guess I really won't see a legal right to carry in Hawaii in my lifetime, even if I live to 90.

Well, if you live to 90 I think you might have a chance if you are now 10. 

Like I said, everything I wrote was pure speculation based upon what I read, and weighting the various opinions by the track records of the opinionators. But anything can happen. Maybe?

If the politicians saw that the probability of their future continued election to office would be enhanced by adopting pro-Second Amendment positions they would do that. It's just that short of an apocalyptic economic collapse I don't see what conditions would change the voters of Hawaii to consider other views of government than as cradle to grave provider.

I saw today that the Nevada legislature passed a law that will allow 18 to 21 year old service members and vets to obtain CCW licenses (if the governor signs it). The bill passed overwhelmingly in the House and unanimously in the Senate. I sent the article to senator Gabbard, as at my suggestion he had incorporated such a provision in the CCW bill he introduced this year. I asked him what we in Hawaii could do to get our pro Second Amendment bills at least heard in committees. His response: "I’m sorry, but I don’t have a good answer on getting the Second Amendment rights legislation heard. Those decisions rest squarely in the hands of our public safety committee Chairs: Senator Clarence Nishihara for the Senate and Rep. Gregg Takayama in the House." I had sent each of those chairmen at least 4 emails and called them each about 4 times.... and... nothing. Nothing at all. Not even a response, other than over the phone "No decision has been made". So, as much as I don't want to be doom and gloom, it seems pretty damned doomy and gloomy out there. 

At least gabbard gave u a idk and not the normal bs "i support the 2a, but together we can keep hawaii safe"

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Not in the "List of Orders" (again) today. That (almost certainly) means that it will be "relisted" for conference on Thursday, May 25, 2017, but the "relists" aren't published until later in the morning. I'll keep checking and update this if/when that happens.

For those interested, SCOTUSblog has done an updated article (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/the-statistics-of-relists-redux-october-term-2015/) on the probabilities of being granted or denied cert (or other dispositions) based upon the number of times a case is relisted. Long story short: The more times it is relisted, the lower the probability that it will be granted cert. This will be Peruta's 4th relist. Only 11.1% of cases with four relists are granted cert. Of course, Peruta could be one of that 11.1% (just like one person "beats" the winning lotto ticket odds of 100 million to one and is the winner). The "general opinion" is mostly that Peruta will be denied cert, and that a dissent to that denial is being written (most likely by Thomas/Alito)... but everyone is really guessing/speculating and making bets based upon history and odds, not knowledge of what is actually going on in the conferences, as those are attended only by the justices (no clerks/secretaries, etc.), and they ain't talkin'.

ETA (a few minutes later): As suspected:

May 22 2017   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.

ETA2:

I should mention that the announcement of the results of the May 25 conference will be on Tuesday May 30 due to Monday being a holiday. See ya all then. 

And the hopes are fading....much like trumps wall at this point it might just be a dream

I guess I really will have to move to Nevada.

I guess I really will have to move to Nevada.

My only reason to move back

I guess I really will have to move to Nevada.

There are still Nichols (CA, before the Ninth CCA), and Norman (FL, sought extension to request cert before SCOTUS after Florida Supreme Court upheld the state right to ban open carry), which are both "clean" open carry cases, and Young (HI, before the Ninth CCA), which includes open carry. However, until there are (likely) one or two of the "liberal" justices replaced at SCOTUS by fervent Second Amendment defenders, it's quite possible no case will be successful to the degree that it could easily overturn Hawaii's de facto "no issue" law. I guess it depends on how many years you have left... which is a truly sad thing to have to say when it comes to having to make a decision about living somewhere in the United States where you can legally exercise your Constitutionally-protected rights without facing arrest, prosecution and incarceration.           

I actuallyo like Nevada a lot.  Plus Front Sight is there so it is not really a bad thing.  Lots of good restaurants and Hawaiian markets in Vegas.  I would miss all the uhu, moana kali and other fish my friend gives me every month.

Charles Nichols just posted a brief article outlining the relationship of Peruta, Nichols, and Norman that I mentioned a couple of posts above.

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/peruta-concealed-carry-lawsuit-waited-2768-days-supreme-court-says-wait-longer_80013/

Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer

Charles Nichols just posted a brief article outlining the relationship of Peruta, Nichols, and Norman that I mentioned a couple of posts above.

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/peruta-concealed-carry-lawsuit-waited-2768-days-supreme-court-says-wait-longer_80013/

Peruta Concealed Carry Lawsuit has Waited 2,768 Days – Supreme Court says Wait Longer

NRA lawyers bungled his case...

The linked article has small sample sizes and I can interpret the same numbers differently. If you consider the cases that are accepted but decided without oral argument, the odds of being accepted improve slightly with each relist until after the 3rd one, it drops a little.

If you don't consider such cases, then the odds of being granted an oral hearing are the highest with 1 relist (cases with 0 relists are almost all denied) and drop sharply until the 3rd relist, but after that the chances flatline at 7.4% to the aforementioned 11.1%. Note that the chances actually improve with the 4th relisting, but again the small sample size.

Fifth "Relist" after four "Reschedules".

May 30 2017   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.

Remaining Conference Dates this session:

June 1
June 8
June 15
June 22

Not in the "Orders List" today, but has not officially been posted as "relist" (i.e."Distributed for conference of June 8"),

If/when that happens (or anything else) I will post it.

In other words: still waiting.

ETA:

Finally used a different browser to get the update on SCOTUS website after suddenly (and suspiciously) Opera decided it didn't want to list the Peruta docket info:

Jun 5 2017   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.