Take away from the above

Alan says people need to do their part in the legislature to stop these types of laws. Since it takes years to fight. This is coming from the guy who makes money from these laws.

The host lives in NY and said there are 5 million gun owners. Their commie governor won by 3 million votes. If every gun owner voted, it should have been a landslide.

HI will be the 1st sensitive places that will most likely go to the 9th because HIs law passed before CA's one. CA's one is also under a lawsuit.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

There are 13 million registered voters in New York State, the majority of whom are deep blue liberal. Every single gun owner could vote, and it could still result in a 3 million vote win for Hochul.

EDIT: Hochul won by about 400,000 votes. Yes, gun owners need to vote, but I expect they already turn out in bigger numbers than the average person because they’ve got some skin in the game. It’s a tough problem.

There are 13 million registered voters in New York State, the majority of whom are deep blue liberal. Every single gun owner could vote, and it could still result in a 3 million vote win for Hochul.

EDIT: Hochul won by about 400,000 votes. Yes, gun owners need to vote, but I expect they already turn out in bigger numbers than the average person because they’ve got some skin in the game. It’s a tough problem.

There's also the election rigging infrastructure in blue states including ours that has to be contended with. The only sure fire way to overwhelm the system's ability to manufacture fake votes and cancel legitimate ones.

That means we have to get our friends, family, and neighbors to vote as well. They made ballot harvesting legal and use it extensively. We are fools if we don't follow their lead.

New vid from HIFICO social medias talks about the injunction.  Worth a watch, it's like 1 min or so.

With the CA ruling as well, I suspect that the 9th will put a stay on the injunction. Which means the sensitive places law goes back into effect in HI and CA.  The hearing isn't until March or April, so enjoy your freedom while you can.

The 9th is the most anti 2A circuit.  They were on track to do positive stuff, but I guess got scolding's to be corrupt again.

9th hearing on 4/11. 9am CA time.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I still can't believe the audacity of prohibiting guns by default.

I'm going to start calling that the "Public Library Safety Act". When you go to a library, it is assumed you shall not practice your right to free speech by default because you might hurt someone with your volume/words. When it comes to the 2A, not being able to carry anywhere by default is also a "public safety act", so to practice your civil rights you need explicit permission. We should bring the Public Library Safety Act to Congress. Too many people are being hurt by words/volume, so the 1st Amendment should be off by default when in all public or private places, just like in a public library. Businesses need to post signs, no less than 36" from the bottom of the main entrance, in size 128 font or larger, in "red" font as defined by an R value of greater than 125, and G and B values of less than 25 on the RBG color spectrum, in all capital letters, with the text "FREE SPEECH ALLOWED!".

Vote for me. I can do this!

The 3 judges assigned to the panel for the 9th are all anti 2a. CA's challenge to sensitive places is right after ours and with the same 3 judges.

From the hostility we've seen a few weeks ago by another 9th circuit anti 2a panel, don't expect a logical hearing.

Prediction: This panel will remove the current stay on HI's law, which means once again, you can only CCW on the public sidewalk.  HIFICO will challenge this to the full judge panel, but until the hearing and ruling takes place, any ruling the 3 judge panel makes will be in force.

Oral Arguments in Wolford v Lopez, and California's Carralero v Bonta coming up this morning.  There's one unrelated case starting at 630am HST then Carralero starts around 715am and Wolford 8am or so.

9th Circuit San Francisco agenda
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/monthly_sittings/135108.html

YouTube 9th Circuit Court live.
https://www.youtube.com/live/qYX1KUeE1rk

Our pre court huddle


Bum fight!  As soon as I get off the BART rail.  Welcome to San Francisco.

I think HI's lawyer is the same one that they paid $119,000 for the Young vs. HI lawsuit, which they lost.

Cliff notes going by memory for those who cannot watch:

 1 judge asked why is an automatic ban OK with the 2a, but not OK with the 1a. This is with regard to the auto ban on private property. HI replied that it doesn't apply cause owners can consent.

She also asked why Bruen should be applied differently to various states when it's law of the land. HI is saying HI is diff from NJ and stuff.

The other haole judge stated that isn't historical standard and all 3 judges laughed and the HI lawyer said it is historical.

HI is using the no hunting on my land without permission for the auto ban on private property.

A judge asked a hypothetical: If 1 entire island was a school, then why is CCW ban OK there (gun free school zone federal law) ?.  Alan Becks reply was Maui isn't a school or polling place. People live there. This is with regard when the stat of 96.7% of Maui county is banned CCW if this law continues to be enforced. HI states this 96.7% is made up by the plaintiffs. HI says, "It treats all private property as banning firearms as wrong since owners can consent".

HI's rebuttal to Alans opening is "you're wrong and I cannot prove it". He even said that we (Plantiffs) have to prove Bruen applies to us.  That's not how it works, the state must prove history and tradition, not us.

Overall, this panel was much less hostile comapred to the CA's AWB panel a month ago.

9th Circuit Court

Bum Fight


Not much difference.

     

9th Circuit Court

Bum Fight

Not much difference.

     

And poo

Some of the main takeaways from the hearing.

The judges were openly questioning and concerned with having a circuit split with the 2nd Circuit Court (New York).  In Antonyuk, the 2nd Cir struck down the preliminary injunction thereby upholding the bans in all sensitive places except for churches and places without a "guns allowed" sign.  The liberal 9th 3 judge panel is expected to closely follow the 2nd's ruling.  A "Circuit Split" is when the appeals courts have different decisions from each other, one of the conditions for SCOTUS to take up a case as you cannot have the same laws applied differently in the US.  However the appeals courts judges are supposed to judge cases on their merits while taking into consideration how other courts handled the appeals.  They do not base their decisions on preventing SCOTUS from taking a case and overrule them.  That is gaming the system and politics.  It's very apparent judges do this, but they don't openly say they're doing it.

The other issue is how many historical analogues are needed to rule a 2a restriction constitutional.  The opposing counsel and the judges analysis of Bruen was that only one analogue was needed, not analogues.  So if there was one gun restriction in a state, city, or territory out of the original 13 states, that was enough.  They pointed to a restriction on firearms carry in NYC in 1763 and 1771 that justified the sensitive places ban.  I'm not sure what those restrictions are, I have to look them up.

The word "balancing" was used a lot in the opposition.  They are still pushing "Interest Balancing" tests for public safety to justify the carry restrictions.  This was prohibited under Heller and Bruen opinion which uses the text, history, and tradition.  They also talked as if the SCOTUS Heller/Bruen opinions intended for restrictions like this to be allowed

Neal Katyal, the opposing counsel who served under Obama, was a smooth talker.  Little substance, but he had the confidence to make it sound good like a car salesman.  The three judges were all democrat appointments.  Schroader and Graber are extremely anti 2nd amendment from past cases and were pretty hostile to the 2A in court.  Sung never ruled on a 2A case before, and her line of questioning was milder. The likely outcome will be ending the preliminary injunction in Hawaii for everything except for the hold on the private property "guns allowed" sign requirement.

There were a few Moms Demand Action ladies in the court.  They had a small rally with the Mayor the prior day.


Few other pictures

The corrupt 9th ruled that cancelled the injuction for all except for banks.

So as of now, u can carry at a bank.

All other places are banned and u need permission on private property now.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

The corrupt 9th ruled that cancelled the injuction for all except for banks.

So as of now, u can carry at a bank.

All other places are banned and u need permission on private property now.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Infuriating.  Is there any recourse or is that the end of the road?

And I wonder what their definition of "beach" is.  Is a rocky coastline considered a beach?

You can carry in a bank if there is a guns allowed sign or have consent.

We may get some minor restrictions lifted in the short term since more of California's restrictions were lifted v Hawaii's.  Though that'll probably be later reversed in a en banc court.

It'll most likely need to be decided by SCOTUS on our or other states sensitive places ban in a couple years or more.  Or if SCOTUS takes a different case that "clarifies" the history requirement, the district and appeals courts may reconsider and remove some of the restrictions.

Infuriating.  Is there any recourse or is that the end of the road?

And I wonder what their definition of "beach" is.  Is a rocky coastline considered a beach?

This ruling was with regard to the injunction issued by the Hawaii Judge.  It isn't a ruling for the lawsuit itself.

So for now back to sidewalk carry?

So for now back to sidewalk carry?

Yup.

So for now back to sidewalk carry?

Pretty much.

Although you could carry in banks with consent, realistically no banks will give that consent.

You could walk around in circles of parking lots shared with government offices.