For those who may not follow the stickies above...

Order issued today, March 10, 2017. Remanded back to District Court for rehearing

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2017/03/10/12-16258.pdf

ETA: It had been 2021 days since this case was filed!

And now it goes back to square one... except that now the NInth has ruled that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry, and Baker did not apply for an open carry license.

If you think you will get justice from a Democrat court, you are an idiot.
Pol Pot had it right. Eliminate the people that think they know what they
know is right even if it is wrong and never question what they believe.
I question my beliefs every day.

Here is a link to a press release of one person's opinions re the Baker and Young cases, and the open carry case out of California. The article is by the person bringing that open carry suit (Nichols v. Brown, which is near having an oral argument date issued), Charles Nichols.  **I am not advocating for this view of the cases. I am "neutral" on the legal questions. I will present other points of view if and when I find them, and encourage others to do the same.**

https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/posts/1242960002453487:0

, and Baker did not apply for an open carry license.

Just wanted to add that we did try to apply. I was denied being able to because I wasn't a security guard or in possession of a guard license.  We asked in my application and narrative letter to issue one to carry open or concealed.  Our briefs sufficienctly documented and argued that hawaii has taken open carry off the table and that concealed is the only permit allowed to citizens.  We discussed their refusal to allow me that manner of carry.

We've got one more shot at this with my second appeal in Young.  There my client applied for both a open and concealed carry permit.

keep fighting the good fight 

Just wanted to add that we did try to apply. I was denied being able to because I wasn't a security guard or in possession of a guard license.  We asked in my application and narrative letter to issue one to carry open or concealed.  Our briefs sufficienctly documented and argued that hawaii has taken open carry off the table and that concealed is the only permit allowed to citizens.  We discussed their refusal to allow me that manner of carry.

So basically, one must argue that a rights violation occured because there is no provision in the State for an open carry permit for a citizen although it is documented that a concealed carry permit was applied for and denied because of the former conditions?

Yeah...  they're not stone-walling this at all...  absolutely no motives here...

Seriously, I forgot why I stopped believing in our Judiciary a long time ago until I read this.

Seriously, I forgot why I stopped believing in our Judiciary a long time ago until I read this.

Not like you need any more examples of a corrupt "political" judiciary, but here's an example from just a couple of days ago:

"I think open carry (and concealed-carry) laws, with all due deference to the Second Amendment, which I support...are dangerous to any community because of the epidemic of mental health issues throughout this country," U.S. District Court Judge Walter H. Rice said. [So a federal judge "supports" the Second Amendment except for the "bear" part (and probably the "keep" part as well since none of the mentally ill mass public shooting killers carried their guns into public legally as concealed or open carry permit holders.)] http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/03/10/wright-patterson-employees-wont-be-allowed-bring-handguns-work.html

And if you want a really really ugly example (getting into the weeds of the FISA courts): "So, these 11 judges are not part of the federal judiciary. They are not appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. Their appointment by the Chief Justice of the United States may qualify them as clerks to the Chief Justice but the Chief Justice has no constitutional authority to appoint other judges, and such appointments made by the Chief Justice certainly do not meet the constitutional standard for considering or issuing warrants for anything — and certainly not in a secret kangaroo court." http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2017/03/the-fake-court/

So how would one even apply for an open carry permit,(not that they would even issue one) seeing as how there is no application form on the HPD site or anywhere that I have looked. But then again, if you can't apply, they can't issue...

I miss the days of "Shall Issue" and legal open carry in Nevada...

So how would one even apply for an open carry permit,(not that they would even issue one) seeing as how there is no application form on the HPD site or anywhere that I have looked. But then again, if you can't apply, they can't issue...

I miss the days of "Shall Issue" and legal open carry in Nevada...

You go to the police department firearms registration office and video record your conversations with the highest ranking staff member, preferably the officer in charge of the entire division, or even the chief if he'd talk to you, asking for an open carry license application. Immediately after that conversation you compose a letter (containing all the relevant information from the recorded conversations) and send it by registered mail to the PD Firearms Registration Division, and a copy to the chief, asking for an application for an open carry license or a written explanation of why they won't provide you with an open carry license application. Place that information in your lawsuit file.

I found it "amusing" that in Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Thomas's dissent to the remand he argued that Baker did not make any case at all for his "urgency" "or the need" for an open carry licenses ("Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated..."). I've always found that language to be particularly arbitrary and capricious in applying to a security guard. What, you walk in there and say "Listen, I've been out of work for over a year and I urgently need a job!"? And I've never found a single dictionary that has a definition of "engaged" that means "employed" ("engaged in the protection of life and property"). Anyone who takes responsibility for their own protection of their own and their family members lives and property is "engaged" in that practice. It's the statist totalitarian socialist "progressives" at their most disingenuous hypocritical semantic deviousness. And, besides, we all know that our peon lives are of no value at all compared to those bags of money being hauled around by the "only ones".

You go to the police department firearms registration office and video record your conversations with the highest ranking staff member, preferably the officer in charge of the entire division, or even the chief if he'd talk to you, asking for an open carry license application. Immediately after that conversation you compose a letter (containing all the relevant information from the recorded conversations) and send it by registered mail to the PD Firearms Registration Division, and a copy to the chief, asking for an application for an open carry license or a written explanation of why they won't provide you with an open carry license application. Place that information in your lawsuit file.

I found it "amusing" that in Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Thomas's dissent to the remand he argued that Baker did not make any case at all for his "urgency" "or the need" for an open carry licenses ("Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated..."). I've always found that language to be particularly arbitrary and capricious in applying to a security guard. What, you walk in there and say "Listen, I've been out of work for over a year and I urgently need a job!"? And I've never found a single dictionary that has a definition of "engaged" that means "employed" ("engaged in the protection of life and property"). Anyone who takes responsibility for their own protection of their own and their family members lives and property is "engaged" in that practice. It's the statist totalitarian socialist "progressives" at their most disingenuous hypocritical semantic deviousness. And, besides, we all know that our peon lives are of no value at all compared to those bags of money being hauled around by the "only ones".

No open carry app available means you can open carry without applying because no app is needed so HPD didn't make one.  =P

No open carry app available means you can open carry without applying because no app is needed so HPD didn't make one.  =P

That's one interpretation... enjoy your time in the hoosegow!

I know you're being facetious, but for the record Honolulu issued 149 "security" open carry licenses in 2016, so they have an application. You just can't have one. Peon.

That's one interpretation... enjoy your time in the hoosegow!

I know you're being facetious, but for the record Honolulu issued 149 "security" open carry licenses in 2016, so they have an application. You just can't have one. Peon.

I need a permit for the permit.