Here is the YouTube link for the same live video feed:

WTF?!?! The attorney for the county claimed that "engaged in the protection of life or property" applies to ordinary citizens, not just security guards! And he said since anyone is engaged in protection of themselves they are eligible for an open carry license!

Exactly the opposite of the facts. Even the state forms for counties submitting the statistics re firearms, including concealed and open carry applications and dispensations, notes the open carry license material not as "open carry", but as "security". I wish Beck had made that point. I sent him that stuff and made that point.

The good news: All the judges seemed to want to limit the case to open carry, and seemed to have "a problem" with the current legal structure and the fact that there is a de facto ban for ordinary citizens. We can only hope...

What's the next step after this hearing?
The judges make a ruling?

What's the next step after this hearing?
The judges make a ruling?

Yes, the three judge panel will issue a ruling, if Peruta and other firearms rights cases in the Ninth Circuit are any example, it may take a year or more for that decision to "come down". Then, I suspect it's highly likely that the losing side will ask for an en banc hearing (larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges like the one that overturned the original Peruta three-judge-panel decision), that could take many months to get scheduled, if granted, and then it might take another year for that decision to be rendered, and then an unknown amount of time (but relatively short) for the losing side there to possibly ask SCOTUS to grant cert and hear the case (SCOTUS takes less than 1% of the cases that ask for cert). So... years and years and years.     

Yes, the three judge panel will issue a ruling, if Peruta and other firearms rights cases in the Ninth Circuit are any example, it may take a year or more for that decision to "come down". Then, I suspect it's highly likely that the losing side will ask for an en banc hearing (larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges like the one that overturned the original Peruta three-judge-panel decision), that could take many months to get scheduled, if granted, and then it might take another year for that decision to be rendered, and then an unknown amount of time (but relatively short) for the losing side there to possibly ask SCOTUS to grant cert and hear the case (SCOTUS takes less than 1% of the cases that ask for cert). So... years and years and years.     

So don't buy my sling for open carry yet.  Thanks for the updates.

So don't buy my sling for open carry yet.  Thanks for the updates.

Nah. Though maybe you'd want to "break it in"... but with the likely time frame I'd guess it'd be more likely you'll just break it. My suggestion if you intend to lawfully carry openly in Hawaii is to eat a relatively low saturated fat, low calorie, high fiber diet, get lots of exercise, avoid dangerous activities (sky diving, traveling to third world countries, dishing any dirt on the Clintons, etc.), and have long-lived parents. It might be a while. 

Plus, even if SCOTUS were to issue a generic ruling about the necessity of granting ordinary citizens the right to bear arms outside their home openly and/or concealed in a "shall issue" manner, the legislature and bureaucracy will drag their feet for years as they "fine tune" the "training requirement", fee schedule, etc. (See: Washington, D.C. and their concealed carry law (hurdles) reiterations despite court orders...).

Pics of the legal team from yesterday.  And +1.





Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk

Here is the archived video of just the Young v Hawaii portion of yesterday's oral arguments:

Interesting how the State's case completely fell apart, as if they expected that it wasn't necessary to show up with compelling arguments and could just skate through. That guy almost seemed surprised when they would ask him tough questions and his "that's the way we do things" responses weren't working.

I didn't have time to watch the entire video, but seems like the judges asked the state some good questions which they didn't have an answer to.

And that Young's atty, wasn't reading from a note sheet, looked like he was well prepared and memorized everything.  I didn't see him look down.

Just for a point of clarity, the County of Hawaii was arguing against Young, not the state. The original lawsuit (2012!!!) did include the state as well as the county, but the state claimed 'immunity" (etc.) and was deleted from the suit.

So even if by some miracle Young were to get a positive ruling, it would be against the County of Hawaii and be in terms of imposing some kind of "shall issue" standard against the Hawaii County Police Department. It would have no effect on the state law itself which would continue to read the same "exceptional case" for CCW and "engaged in the protection of life or property" for open carry, and be subject to "interpretation" by the PDs of the other islands, and there's no reason to believe those other PDs would adopt "shall issue" just to be nice.

I could be completely wrong about all of the above.

Plus, I can't see any panel of the Ninth ruling that open carry is the right and must be legally recognized and a "reasonable" option exist to exercise that right (and they've already ruled there is no right to CCW).

I could be completely wrong about that too.

Whatever happens, it's not going to be "over" for at least a few more years... 

Just for a point of clarity, the County of Hawaii was arguing against Young, not the state. The original lawsuit (2012!!!) did include the state as well as the county, but the state claimed 'immunity" (etc.) and was deleted from the suit.

So even if by some miracle Young were to get a positive ruling, it would be against the County of Hawaii and be in terms of imposing some kind of "shall issue" standard against the Hawaii County Police Department. It would have no effect on the state law itself which would continue to read the same "exceptional case" for CCW and "engaged in the protection of life or property" for open carry, and be subject to "interpretation" by the PDs of the other islands, and there's no reason to believe those other PDs would adopt "shall issue" just to be nice.

I could be completely wrong about all of the above.

Plus, I can't see any panel of the Ninth ruling that open carry is the right and must be legally recognized and a "reasonable" option exist to exercise that right (and they've already ruled there is no right to CCW).

I could be completely wrong about that too.

Whatever happens, it's not going to be "over" for at least a few more years... 

I'll ask them when we have our meeting this week.

If the law is ruled unconstitutional, then it should change across the state.  Or at least make it a lot easier to sue the other counties.

Since it's the 9th circuit court of appeals, it would also set precedent in the western region so it could be used in other ban counties in other states.

Wouldn't hold your breath though cause it'll be many years before this is settled.

Just for a point of clarity, the County of Hawaii was arguing against Young, not the state. The original lawsuit (2012!!!) did include the state as well as the county, but the state claimed 'immunity" (etc.) and was deleted from the suit.

The state did submit something (a breif) and it is mentioned a few times by the county and by the judges, 13:20 ish in the video.

The state did submit something (a breif) and it is mentioned a few times by the county and by the judges, 13:20 ish in the video.

The state filed an amicus curiae brief. If you haven't read it, I suggest you plow through it. Warning: It will raise your blood pressure! The lies and deception, as well as specious arguments, are ever present. The state's position, clearly stated, is that a BAN on all public carry of firearms is warranted by the facts, but they graciously allowed one person in the past 17 years to have a full license in 2006 (to a judge, which they forgot to mention) (the one issued in 2013 was valid for 13 DAYS). It really is unbelievable... I hadn't read it for a long time and now I remember why. 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Young-v.-Hawaii_Amicus-Curiae-Brief-of-the-State-of-Hawaii-In-Support-of-County-of-Hawaii-Appellants-35.pdf

 Footnote 1 on page 10 notes the dismissall of the state from the lawsuit:

1 The State of Hawaii (and Governor and Attorney General), as party defendants,
were dismissed below on immunity grounds, Clerk’s Record (CR) 42 at 9-14, and
plaintiff does not appeal that dismissal.

I'll ask them when we have our meeting this week.

If the law is ruled unconstitutional, then it should change across the state.  Or at least make it a lot easier to sue the other counties.

Since it's the 9th circuit court of appeals, it would also set precedent in the western region so it could be used in other ban counties in other states.

Wouldn't hold your breath though cause it'll be many years before this is settled.

I doubt they'll rule the state law unconstitutional, but rather issue a much narrower ruling, if they even decide in "our" favor. They aren't going to want to create any more widespread a ripple effect than the need to, so they can simply rule that Hawaii County PD must expand the narrow tailoring of their interpretation to allow at least a couple of non-security personnel to carry in public in some manner, or at least publish documentation of specifically what the criteria are for issuing a license (they won't do that now... I've tried several times and ways to get them to). That would provide a basis for lawsuits against the other county PDs, but again, we're talking more and more years...

1908 passed with nay from McDermott and amendmended from a request.

Nevermind, wrong place.

1908 passed with nay from McDermott and amendmended from a request.

?

The Court can rule that 134-9 is unconstitutional despite the Court not being a party.  The only requirement is the state be noticed of the case. 

The Court can rule that 134-9 is unconstitutional despite the Court not being a party.  The only requirement is the state be noticed of the case.

Thanks Wolfwood, good to know. 

Given that possibility, is the decision of the state not to participate in a lawsuit that could render state law unconstitutional a "tactical" move that would give them some kind of greater leverage in appealing and/or delaying implementation of a decision that the law is unconstitutional?

Update this afternoon from Charles Nichols re a motion by California re Nichols v. Brown that has a bearing on Young v. Hawaii.

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 27, 2018 – On February 27, 2018, the 3-judge panel issued an order vacating its submission of Nichols v. Brown pending issuance of a decision in Young v. State of Hawaii.

The State of California wanted the 3-judge panel assigned to the Nichols v. Brown appeal to issue its decision before the 3-judge panel in Young issued its decision because the judges assigned to the Young v. Hawaii appeal appeared to be much more favorable to the Second Amendment than the judges assigned to the Nichols v. Brown appeal.

By vacating the submission of the Nichols v. Brown Appeal, that can't happen. Now we wait for the decision in Young v. Hawaii.

EDIT: This is potentially a good thing.