I logged on after a long absence to see your reaction to Young v. Hawaii finally getting a firm date and time for the en banc oral argument but there was nothing here.

The wheels of justice move slowly, and in our case, backwards.

The wheels of justice move slowly, and in our case, backwards.

.....backwards......

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

.....backwards......

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Date is set for 9/24/2020 my birthday baby!

 Thursday, September 24, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Pacific time [10:30 AM Hawaii time]. San Francisco, Courtroom 1.

For live streaming video, go to this site the morning of the 24th and click the appropriate link:

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/live_oral_arguments.php

Young v. Hawaii Handgun Open Carry Pre-Game Analysis II

Over a year and a half ago, I wrote my first Pre-Game Analysis of Young v. Hawaii but the en banc case was stayed pending the decision by SCOTUS in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. New York City. That case was dismissed as moot, which put Young v. Hawaii back into play. My analysis has changed somewhat since then. For one thing, we have over a year and a half of decisions by the judges which have given more insight in how they are likely to vote and we have two potential en banc judges who took senior status. As they were not judges who sat on the Young v. Hawaii three-judge panel, Judges Bybee and Bea are not eligible to sit on the Young v. Hawaii en banc panel.

The final analysis remains the same. Six votes are needed to win.

More -> https://newsblaze.com/business/legal/young-v-hawaii-handgun-open-carry-pre-game-analysis-ii_167628/

^ Thank you for sharing your article. That was a good read.

Also, the Youtube video at the bottom was hilarious to watch, particularly watching Young's counsel trying not to laugh while the attorney was getting picked apart.

You're welcome. 

When I first watched the oral argument, I was speechless.  The irony is that I had filed an unopposed motion (the State of California did not oppose) to argue my California Open Carry appeal before the same three-judge panel that heard Young v. Hawaii.  I had no great desire to travel 3,000 miles to go to the beach given that I live near the beach but the California's state's attorney seemed to like the idea of going to Hawaii.  The 9th circuit asked the Hawaii state's attorney if he would come to Pasadena instead and argue the appeal before my three-judge panel.  He said no.

The irony is that had he said yes then he would have argued his case before three judges far more hostile to the Second Amendment.  I don't remember off the top of my head who those three judges were, I just remember looking back and being greatly relieved that the Hawaii attorney said, "No!"

But if my appeal had been heard before the same three-judge panel as Young v. Hawaii then I would now be going through the expense of an en banc rehearing and I would have the same statistically likely to be hostile en banc panel that Young has.

If Young ultimately wins then I win.  If he loses then I get to file an en banc petition with a much-improved pool of judges.

Ironic and lucky.

For the court/Young v Hawaii nerds:

Young v. Hawaii en banc panel to be unveiled tomorrow (Monday) morning by 10:00 AM [7 AM Hawaii time].

I suspect Charles Nichols will post an article or comments within hours of the announcement detailing the past record of the chosen judges re Second Amendment and/or related issues.

https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/?redirect=false

Keep your fingers crossed... or something. 

Here is the link to Charles Nichols' article:

https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaRightToCarry/posts/3252333931516074?__tn__=K-R

My "summary": "No way of "knowing" with the selected panel of judges, but It's likely gonna be close either way."

6 judges are republican appointed, 5 were democrat appointed.  Looks like we got a chance from that perspective.

Clifton throws a wrench into that as a republican appointee who previously decided against Young.  I didn't know the prior young decision had 3 republican appointees.  Guess it maybe up to Democrat appointed Wardlaw to decide.  I give it a 40% chance of winning.

I was never aware that Democrat judges and Republican judges were supposed to
read the same words and come to different conclusions based on politics alone.
perhaps we need to introduce them to a new word,
"Sturmgewehr".
They keep it up, legislating from the bench,  and even if they don't
know German they will figure it out, soon.
Especially if Biden get elected.

I was never aware that Democrat judges and Republican judges were supposed to
read the same words and come to different conclusions based on politics alone.

The treacherous SC justus Rogers hilariously claimed there were no "political"  judges.

That must have come as a shock for all those liberal causes that have to shop for politically sympathetic judges.

This was my response to Internet Lawyer Dude four days ago.  I had responded to earlier videos but for some reason, he refuses to even acknowledge that my California Open Carry lawsuits exists.

@Armed Scholar - How is it you know about the Baird v. Becerra lawsuit, filed last year and now has to start over, and yet you make no mention of my California Open Carry lawsuit Charles Nichols v. Gavin Newsom et al, filed in 2011?  My appeal is already fully briefed and argued on appeal.  If the Young v. Hawaii en banc panel holds that the Second Amendment extends outside the doors to our home, and even if it decides the state can require a heightened need for a license to carry a handgun then I win my Open Carry lawsuit and the Baird v. Becerra lawsuit becomes moot.

^ Thank you for sharing your article. That was a good read.

Also, the Youtube video at the bottom was hilarious to watch, particularly watching Young's counsel trying not to laugh while the attorney was getting picked apart.

Thanks for that.   After watching the department of health self destruct its nice to have confirmation that absolutely no one in this state's government is competent.  I'm going to go figure out what I'm going to spent my state taxes on instead of paying them. 

I watched the first en banc oral argument.  The argument and questioning were limited to the petition for rehearing en banc.  Which is good.  Here is a link to Young v. Hawaii petition -> https://californiaopencarry.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Young-v.-Hawaii-Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

Also, the plaintiff's attorney limited her opening statement to two minutes.  The government's attorney spoke for 4 1/2 minutes without interruption in his opening statement. 

Link for the youtube feed on 9/24 at 10:30am

^ Thank you for sharing your article. That was a good read.

Also, the Youtube video at the bottom was hilarious to watch, particularly watching Young's counsel trying not to laugh while the attorney was getting picked apart.

This was a very interesting watch. Good to see the judges really challange the state.

The en banc oral argument live streaming video link on YouTube is now live and counting down.