Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada) (Read 7616 times)

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2025, 01:00:19 PM »
Order takes effect in 21 days unless appealed.

I doubt it'll be appealed since it's a relatively minor 2a case and AG is overwhelmed by the Trump cuts litigation

changemyoil66

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2025, 09:45:34 AM »
Status update for more online stuff like online permit to acquire and CCW:

HPD has requested funds to make the website and has contacted various vendors for quotes.

Same with Maui PD and Big Island PD.

Their deadline to go live is March 2026.

Lihikai

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2025, 10:26:19 AM »
Have an opinion on whether we’ll be able to go back to online registration for face to face purchases?

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2025, 05:14:11 PM »
Have an opinion on whether we’ll be able to go back to online registration for face to face purchases?

It'll likely be appealed and status quo for now.

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2025, 11:09:38 AM »
Guess I can put it out now that my attorney posted it, the State will appeal it to the 9th Circuit En Banc where there is a 80% chance of us losing.  Need more Trump judges.

Current procedures will stay in place for now.

changemyoil66

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #25 on: July 28, 2025, 03:23:23 PM »
The 9th will hear the portions en banc about the in person registration and expiration of handgun permit to acquire.

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #26 on: July 28, 2025, 04:28:49 PM »
The saga continues...

aletheuo137

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #27 on: July 28, 2025, 06:04:10 PM »
The saga continues...
Never ending story...

Sent from my SM-A156U1 using Tapatalk

hvybarrels

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2025, 10:38:09 AM »
Never ending story...

Sent from my SM-A156U1 using Tapatalk

If the news was lying to me I would have heard about it on the news.

Q

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #29 on: July 29, 2025, 03:01:55 PM »
Guess I can put it out now that my attorney posted it, the State will appeal it to the 9th Circuit En Banc where there is a 80% chance of us losing.  Need more Trump judges.

Current procedures will stay in place for now.



I'm more interested in learning how we can get access to HIFICO lawyers because they seem to be helping the same people over and over while ignoring people that contact them who aren't in their friend circle

changemyoil66

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2025, 06:45:06 PM »
I'm more interested in learning how we can get access to HIFICO lawyers because they seem to be helping the same people over and over while ignoring people that contact them who aren't in their friend circle

This Yukutake lawsuit is the same one from day 1.  It had multiple parts to it and registration and handgun permits are 1 part of it.  So its' not a new lawsuit.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2025, 08:06:23 PM by changemyoil66 »

Flapp_Jackson

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2025, 01:09:26 PM »
Update:

The 3 judge panel ruled even with the online reg for FFL purchases, it's still unconstitutional to have to bring the gun in person to reg at HPD.  This was still required for private party sales or out of state.

I'm sure HI will appeal to En Banc, the full 9th circuit  But if they don't this would mean all registration can be done online.

The state also changed the pick up time frame of a permit to acquire from 10 days to 30.  This also has been ruled unconstitutional by the panel.

The owner of Danger Close is also a plaintiff.  I spend my money there since he's fighting for our 2a right.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #32 on: August 02, 2025, 10:57:29 AM »
I'm more interested in learning how we can get access to HIFICO lawyers because they seem to be helping the same people over and over, while ignoring people who contact them who aren't in their friend circle

Things to keep in mind before I get into this.  Our attorneys primarily work on contingency, with no charge to the plaintiff except for some smaller fees. The attorney is paid by the County/State if they win a case in Federal court or settle it.  If the case is lost or ruled moot, the attorneys don't get paid anything.  Private practice civil rights attorneys are paid at the low end of the attorney's pay scale, so those who do it on contingency are a rare breed and do it for the cause.  Even if the attorney "wins" the case, the State can get it ruled moot, canceling out the attorney's pay, resulting in our attorneys losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on their "wins," such as our Taser and Butterfly Knife lawsuits.

Option #1 Pay up front
The attorneys will take almost any case if they are paid for it.  A slam dunk case with a fast settlement may cost $10,000.  Something that goes to the 9th Circuit 3-judge appeal is $150,000.  Going up to an En banc or SCOTUS appeal would be $300,000 or more.  It may seem excessive, but a significant amount of research, briefs, expert testimonies, fees, and travel is typically involved over a decade for a SCOTUS opinion.  For example, I just paid $2,200 today in this case for the 9th Circuit En Banc briefs formatting and printing fees, which is printing 20 copies of the court briefs.   If the attorney wins against the State/County, the client might get their money back.

Option #2 Contingency Basis
Attorneys working on contingency are looking for:
1.  Good chance of winning or settlement
2. A similar case wasn't previously lost with no major changes in the courts since then
3.  A person with a good, clean, and moral background
4.  A reliable and trustworthy person who will see the case through to the end, even if it takes 10 years (won't get in trouble, leave the state, etc.)
5.  Has been proven to be a 2A supporter through selfless acts
6.  Attorneys have the resources to take on the case

A good way to look at this is that we aren't taking cases to help the individual.  We are doing these cases to help the 2A cause and community in general.  I took on this case not to help myself, but to help the tens of thousands of others in Hawaii who struggle with the cost of living and can't take time off work to get a firearm.  The changes we've made in this case have saved the 2A community millions of dollars in lost wages, mileage, and productivity.

For the slam dunk, easy and quick to settle cases, we'll take just about anyone.  For complex cases that will run the course over a decade, we need people we can fully trust.  In order to trust them, we need to know who they are.  Know they are fighting for the 2A just as hard as we are.  They are contributing to the cause not necessarily with money, but with their time, efforts, and sacrifice. 

Most of the plaintiffs in the high-profile and long-running cases have done that and proven themselves.  They've put in hundreds of hours of work and a lot of their own money to support the 2A and the attorneys.  I put $15,000 into this case alone.







« Last Edit: August 02, 2025, 04:39:26 PM by zippz »

hvybarrels

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2025, 03:55:27 PM »
Hey Todd have you considered a patreon or subscribestar? These are fascinating updates and I always learn a lot.
It might be good to compile them into an account where someone could easily catch up on the issues without searching through multiple threads.
It could also provide more consistent funding from those of us who would rather avoid getting involved with the legal system.
If the news was lying to me I would have heard about it on the news.

Q

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #34 on: August 02, 2025, 07:52:51 PM »
Things to keep in mind before I get into this.  Our attorneys primarily work on contingency, with no charge to the plaintiff except for some smaller fees. The attorney is paid by the County/State if they win a case in Federal court or settle it.  If the case is lost or ruled moot, the attorneys don't get paid anything.  Private practice civil rights attorneys are paid at the low end of the attorney's pay scale, so those who do it on contingency are a rare breed and do it for the cause.  Even if the attorney "wins" the case, the State can get it ruled moot, canceling out the attorney's pay, resulting in our attorneys losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on their "wins," such as our Taser and Butterfly Knife lawsuits.

Option #1 Pay up front
The attorneys will take almost any case if they are paid for it.  A slam dunk case with a fast settlement may cost $10,000.  Something that goes to the 9th Circuit 3-judge appeal is $150,000.  Going up to an En banc or SCOTUS appeal would be $300,000 or more.  It may seem excessive, but a significant amount of research, briefs, expert testimonies, fees, and travel is typically involved over a decade for a SCOTUS opinion.  For example, I just paid $2,200 today in this case for the 9th Circuit En Banc briefs formatting and printing fees, which is printing 20 copies of the court briefs.   If the attorney wins against the State/County, the client might get their money back.

Option #2 Contingency Basis
Attorneys working on contingency are looking for:
1.  Good chance of winning or settlement
2. A similar case wasn't previously lost with no major changes in the courts since then
3.  A person with a good, clean, and moral background
4.  A reliable and trustworthy person who will see the case through to the end, even if it takes 10 years (won't get in trouble, leave the state, etc.)
5.  Has been proven to be a 2A supporter through selfless acts
6.  Attorneys have the resources to take on the case

A good way to look at this is that we aren't taking cases to help the individual.  We are doing these cases to help the 2A cause and community in general.  I took on this case not to help myself, but to help the tens of thousands of others in Hawaii who struggle with the cost of living and can't take time off work to get a firearm.  The changes we've made in this case have saved the 2A community millions of dollars in lost wages, mileage, and productivity.

For the slam dunk, easy and quick to settle cases, we'll take just about anyone.  For complex cases that will run the course over a decade, we need people we can fully trust.  In order to trust them, we need to know who they are.  Know they are fighting for the 2A just as hard as we are.  They are contributing to the cause not necessarily with money, but with their time, efforts, and sacrifice. 

Most of the plaintiffs in the high-profile and long-running cases have done that and proven themselves.  They've put in hundreds of hours of work and a lot of their own money to support the 2A and the attorneys.  I put $15,000 into this case alone.

Cool story. Now now many plaintiffs over the past 5-10 years didn't come from the circle of friends that seem  to be the same people always listed as the complaintant.

Unless you guys plan on refunding memberships, everyone that's a member of HIFICO should have the same access to legal consultation and assistance; especially if they are lifetime members.

And I highly doubt that seeking consultation to challenge discrimination against service connected veterans due to the waiver is "all about myself", so maybe think before you  make dumb assumptions and statements, which I know is kinda your thing: especially when considering I talked to Alan on the phone about this years ago and he claimed he was already working on something that somehow never came to fruition.

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2025, 09:44:46 PM »
yep

hvybarrels

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #36 on: August 03, 2025, 02:36:22 AM »
I wonder what sort of premiums a constitutional rights insurance company would have to charge in order to break even.
If the news was lying to me I would have heard about it on the news.

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2025, 09:10:33 AM »
My attorney posted this today on the difficulties of 2A attorneys winning and getting paid in the 9th Circuit.  He continues to work on this lawsuit, but quit doing private practice lawsuits in the 9th Circuit because he can't make a living working for free.  He now works for GOA where they pay a regular attorneys wages when he works on cases.

Please like and subscribe to his channel, he's working hard to get the info out.  He also filed the lawsuit  with GOA on NY Sensitive Places ban and recently filed the GOA Suppressor lawsuit due to the "big beautiful bill" passing.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2025, 09:16:31 AM by zippz »

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2025, 09:55:59 AM »
Just a reminder....

Because of Stephen and Alan's efforts in this lawsuit, it saved the 2A community in Hawaii a couple million dollars in lost wages, mileage, and productivity wasted having to go to the police station when they buy a firearm.  It used to be 3 trips for every firearm aqcuired, now it is reduced to 1 trip in most instances.  They are responsible for the current implementation of:
1.  No firearms inspection/in person registration for firearms bought at an FFL
2.  Emailed permits and registration
3.  Late PTA/Registration at HPD on Wednesdays
4.  extended the 30 day expiration date on handgun permits
5.  and coming up, online applications for permits
This appeal will further enhance this and ensure the former requirements aren't put back into place.

zippz

Re: Updated Yukutake etal. vs. Connors (Shikada)
« Reply #39 on: August 08, 2025, 10:34:46 PM »
I have a en banc court date, January 16th in Pasedena.