I certainly don't "know" if this is true, but have heard:

"9th circuit rules require that Young be heard in Hawaii unless there is some other case which, in the interest of judicial economy, supports relocating the oral arguments to another courthouse."

IF that is true, it could mean that the court is seriously considering consolidating the oral arguments of Young and Nichols...as per Nichols' request mentioned above.

That is why they were thinking about doing it in Pasadena. Because of Nichols motion.

I certainly don't "know" if this is true, but have heard:

"9th circuit rules require that Young be heard in Hawaii unless there is some other case which, in the interest of judicial economy, supports relocating the oral arguments to another courthouse."

IF that is true, it could mean that the court is seriously considering consolidating the oral arguments of Young and Nichols...as per Nichols' request mentioned above.

I have to correct my own post, above. I misused the term "consolidated" which apparently has the legal meaning of the cases being legally combined in such a manner that  both cases are combined and treated as one single case so that only one decision is rendered. I meant, as I stated earlier in the thread, that the oral arguments for both separate and individual cases would be scheduled/heard at the same time before the same three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit (because of the similarity of the issues being argued) and then separate decisions would be rendered for each separate case. This is exactly what took place previously with the Peruta, Richards, and Baker cases. While Young and Nichols have some similar issues involved, they are different in various ways, including that they challenge (obviously different) laws in different states.

That is why they were thinking about doing it in Pasadena. Because of Nichols motion.

Wolfwood, could you please let us know here if you get any definitive (or even not-so-definitive) information on the date and location of the orals? At this point do you have any idea when you will be informed about that? Mahalo. 

Nothing yet from Wolfwood re Young being scheduled, so...

The final scheduling of possible cases to be heard in Hawaii by the Ninth Circuit is for October 10-13, 2017. The next possible scheduling would likely be in February 2018, if the scheduling repeats the patterns of 2016 and 2017 (Honolulu scheduled in February, June, and October). http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/calendar/sitdates_2017.pdf

The way the "Oral Argument Dates & Locations" (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/) seems to be working is that each Monday the calendar is updated with the locations/cases/times approximately 10 weeks in the future. Since last Monday they listed the cases to be heard in the first week of October, I'm wildly guessing that they will next Monday list the cases to be heard the second week of October (which would be the Honolulu scheduled sessions). So maybe we'll know next Monday if Young will be heard in Hawaii at that time.

If not scheduled in the October 10-13 window, and the court wants to accommodate the Hawaii County/state attorneys who apparently don't want to go to the mainland to defend their laws, it would likely be scheduled for February 2018 window. It's also possible that the court could hold the hearings on the mainland, either with or without holding the simultaneous hearing for Nichols, and the Hawaii County/state attorneys would then have the choice to either show up or not. There's no rule that requires them to be present and make and/or respond to oral arguments.

The Ninth Circuit (surprisingly to me) updated their oral arguments calendar today, Sunday. It now includes the Hawaii schedule for October 10-13. The Young case is not listed. The next Hawaii orals will be in February 2018. Unless the October schedule is amended at a later date and the Young case added for the October 10-13 dates, or the Young case is scheduled for a mainland courthouse after the first two weeks of October, Young will likely not be heard until February. Likely have a wait of two or three weeks to see if Nichols is on the early November calendar for Pasadena.

We gun folks are patient people.  We waited for what, about 8 years for Peruta? 

We gun folks are patient people.  We waited for what, about 8 years for Peruta?

Yes, we have become masters of patiently losing exceedingly lengthy (incompetently litigated?) lawsuits (Not that anyone could win a Second Amendment rights lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit, but some might have a strategically and tactically better chance than others).

I did notice at the top of the calendar page: "Note: Calendar entries may change up until the hearing date." I doubt though that they could suddenly schedule an orals without enough lead time for the attorneys to be prepared and make all travel/scheduling arrangements, which is why they normally give the 10-12 weeks lead time.

I have heard absolutely nothing regarding Young.  I will post something when I hear from the Court.

I am not a lawyer so excuse me if this is a basic question, but what would happen if everyone filed a suit on the same or similar grounds over CCW. Can the courts just refuse them based on some higher court ruling or do they have to hear each and every one?

I am not a lawyer so excuse me if this is a basic question, but what would happen if everyone filed a suit on the same or similar grounds over CCW. Can the courts just refuse them based on some higher court ruling or do they have to hear each and every one?

If it cost me 0 dollars then I would file also.  I would represent myself so no attorney to be paid.

I am not a lawyer so excuse me if this is a basic question, but what would happen if everyone filed a suit on the same or similar grounds over CCW. Can the courts just refuse them based on some higher court ruling or do they have to hear each and every one?

Guessing here, if all of the cases are the same then the cases will most likely be dismissed quickly and judges will base it on the 9th appeals court decision.  You'll have to appeal to the 9th appeals court for the eventual dismissal.  Only way to win is to have a good case and have it heard by the Supreme court .  All of this will be costly and you'll have to front the money because the lawyers know you will lose.

Nothing to gain by doing everything at the same time.  You need time to pass while the appeals and supreme court justices are changed through attrition.  Or have a different case and challenge it on different grounds.

Oral arguments in Hawaii Feb. 12-18 2018

I am not a lawyer so excuse me if this is a basic question, but what would happen if everyone filed a suit on the same or similar grounds over CCW. Can the courts just refuse them based on some higher court ruling or do they have to hear each and every one?

I believe the courts can decide if the cases should be combined if they're similar enough. The prosecuting will have a stronger case. In a civil case, it could become a class action suit and a larger damage claim.

On a side note, my adult son has been leaning more and more toward gun control laws and I've been arguing against it. The SCOTUS has declared that reasonable gun laws are allowed but not outright bans. He maintains that the NRA can somehow lobby the judges to decide against gun laws. I said that judges have been impeached for less.

As per Wolfwood's unofficial announcement above, Young was today officially scheduled for oral argument in Hawaii.

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view.php?hearing=February%20-%20Honolulu%20Bankruptcy%20Courthouse%20Hawaii&dates=12,13,%2015,16&year=2018

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Calendar for Honolulu Bankruptcy Courthouse Hawaii

February 12

2018-02-12  9:00 am  Courtroom 250L, Honolulu Bankruptcy Courthouse Hawaii

12-17808   George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii - George Young appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action challenging under the Second Amendment provisions of Hawaii law pertaining to the issuance of permits to carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon. [1:12-cv-00336-HG-BMK]   Civil   HI   15 min

Three days later Nichols v Brown will be heard by the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena:

2018-02-15  9:00 am  Courtroom 3, Richard H. Chambers US Court of Appeals, Pasadena

14-55873   Charles Nichols v. Edmund Brown, Jr. - Charles Nichols appeals pro se from the district court's judgment on the pleadings in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging a set of California state laws regulating the open carry of firearms in public places. [2:11-cv-09916-SJO-SS]

One week to orals! I hope some of you on Oahu will attend and lend support to Mr. Young. 2018-02-12  9:00 am  Courtroom 250L, Honolulu Bankruptcy Courthouse Hawaii

Some potentially good news this morning! I'm trying not to get too over the top, but...

The court today announced the three judge panel: O'SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA. https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/view.php?caseno=12-17808

Of course judge O'Scannlain was the author of the original Peruta panel decision (reversed en banc) that strongly advocated that there is a right to bear arms, including specifically concealed as Peruta was contesting denial of CCW permit from San Diego sheriff based upon the "good cause" requirement of California being interpreted to not include "self defense" as as good cause). The other two judges were appointed by G.W. Bush, which doesn't mean anything in particular, except that there is a probability that they will be more sympathetic to Second Amendment claims than those appointed by Clinton or Obama, whom make up the majority of the Ninth Circuit judges. Super lucky draw!

Good luck to George Young and his attorney Alan Beck! 

Young can check here on Friday to see if the orals will be broadcast live: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/live_oral_arguments.php Otherwise the video of the orals will be posted later on the Ninth site. https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

Me and london808 will be there.  Fyi were not sure exactly when the session starts and it'll be only 15 min long to deteemine if the case should continue on.  We're also planning to meet with the attorney after the session is over.

Me and london808 will be there.  Fyi were not sure exactly when the session starts and it'll be only 15 min long to deteemine if the case should continue on.  We're also planning to meet with the attorney after the session is over.

My understanding is that each side has 15 minutes.The decision by the panel will be mostly based upon the extensive written filings but the orals can provide an opportunity for the judges to ask questions based upon those filings and for counsel for both sides to emphasize or clarify particular points or counter arguments. I'm hoping, of course, that O'Scannlain shreds some of the preposterous claims by the state/county. 

I look forward to meeting those that will be attending.  I will be in town the Saturday before through the Sunday after.
Based on our panel I strongly believe we will win this round.

Just a reminder, the Young case will be heard before the Ninth Circuit this coming Monday morning as per the above notice at 9 AM.

The notice of live video feed is also posted:

Live Video Streaming of Oral Arguments and Events

Honolulu CR250L 9:00 AM Monday 2/12

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000012993

Young is scheduled to be the second of three cases heard, the first allowing 10 minutes for each side to present their arguments.

GOOD LUCK!  We need some wins, because the only way Hawaii will ever restore the ability for us to lawfully exercise many of our rights is by having it imposed on the state/legislature/police chiefs by court decisions.

Gotta work. Shucks. I wanna show up to court more.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk