Young v. State of Hawaii (Read 24852 times)

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #340 on: October 16, 2018, 11:18:27 AM »
they gonna slander Hardiman worse than they did Kavanagh
next one up will be female, and let's see how they justify messing with a lady...

Child molestation.  Of course the person is grown up now and has no direct relation.  They will claim they were at a "dinner event" and she took him upstairs to a private area when his parents where away.  Fondled him for a few seconds then someone walked in.  Doesn't remember where it was because he was young, or the exact age.  But seeing her on TV brought back the memory.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #341 on: October 16, 2018, 11:19:26 AM »
I always preferred Hardiman to be appointed to SCOTUS, even before Gorsuch.  Hope RBG leaves soon, and then Hardiman may have a chance.
I sent an email to the White House asking that Hardiman be nominated almost every day after Kennedy announced retirement until Kavanaugh was announced. Apparently they don't value my opinion all that highly. I'm still gonna lobby for him next time... but I suspect the "female candidate strategy" might still be in play then.

RSN172

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #342 on: October 16, 2018, 11:49:33 AM »

next one up will be female, and let's see how they justify messing with a lady...

Too bad it can’t be Dana Loesch

6716J

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #343 on: October 16, 2018, 04:14:47 PM »
Do enough research and you will find that Kavanaugh sided more with liberal justices than conservative. This latest circus was just because of Trump. Because Trumps a misogynistic pig and anything he says is wrong. Impeach him because Trump. Oh and the hurricanes killed people because Trump.
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy.

2ahavvaii

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #344 on: October 17, 2018, 08:23:55 AM »
the libs are mostly just concerned because they think he might take away their abortion "rights".  A "right" that has killed probably 40 million more in the united states alone than hitler killed jews in the holocaust.

wolfwood

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #345 on: November 08, 2018, 03:31:20 AM »

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #346 on: November 08, 2018, 07:19:52 AM »
We filed our response linked here

https://www.scribd.com/document/392675892/Filed-Young-Brief-With-Addendum
Not being an attorney, I can't evaluate the quality of the legal arguments, but as a person who despises the liars who make and enforce and now defend Hawaii's obviously totally unconstitutional violation of my rights, I delight in seeing the liars bullshit legal arguments characterized as "hogwash" and "Alice in Wonderland".  :worship:

2ahavvaii

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #347 on: November 09, 2018, 08:54:51 AM »
check the staradvertiser article for more bullshit legal arguments.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #348 on: November 09, 2018, 09:27:44 AM »
check the staradvertiser article for more bullshit legal arguments.
Here's the article link, which surprisingly allowed me to read the entire article without demanding payment, which is unusual.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/09/hawaii-news/gun-owner-contests-petition-in-open-carry-case/?HSA=b64a594e6d6baa03248560936a457d1564ecd900

changemyoil66

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #349 on: November 09, 2018, 10:14:47 AM »
Here's the article link, which surprisingly allowed me to read the entire article without demanding payment, which is unusual.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/09/hawaii-news/gun-owner-contests-petition-in-open-carry-case/?HSA=b64a594e6d6baa03248560936a457d1564ecd900

Only articles that make 2a owners look or sound bad are probably "unlocked".

wolfwood

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #351 on: November 09, 2018, 02:18:16 PM »
For those who haven't bothered to read the article, I'll post this "comment" so you can see the level of hostility out there. I just hope this isn't from Karl Rhoads or one of the other committee chairs that will soon be introducing next years crop of "gun safety regulations"...

[All the spelling and grammatical errors, and stupidity, are in the original.]

Boots

2 hours ago

If scared widdle snowflakes are so scared of facing paradise with out their steel and plastic prosthetics make sure we pass laws that protect the vast majority from their ammosexual drive
1) mandatory unlimited liability insurance for every weapon and every person who has even incidental access to weapon.
2) Every weapon and every individual needs separate policy. No group or family rates. If a person owns 5 guns they must have 5 separate poicies.
3) like auto insurance proof of insurance must be carried and shown on demand. Failure to have proof of insurance with weapon zero tolerance is mandatory felony $2K fine even if proof of insurance is elsewhere.
4) Mandatory arrest and prosecution of anyone taking weapon where it is legally banned. Airports, courthouses, post offices or any place posted. burden of knowing places where they are not allowed is completely upon the poor widdle snowflake.
5) No arrest or prosecutorial discretion allowed in any violation of above law. 1st offense $5,00 fine and 1 year and a day in contracted mainland prison. No "deals" allowed. Every subsequent violation is double the frevious one. 1 Year & $5K, 2 Years and &10k, 4 years and $20K and so on.
6) Any violation requires surrender of all weapons they own until penalties are paid and mental health evauluations.
7) No "accidental" discharge. Weapon goes off it is prosecuted as assualt with deadly weapon, some one else suffers injury or damage of property attempted murder, some one dies 1st degree murder. No excuses no exceptions.
8) 1,000% tax on all ammunition, reloading supplies etc. Exception only for ammunition used at a licensed firing range but even a single round leaves facility the facility loses license, theif is prosecuted for grand larceny. Again no prosectorial or arrest discretion.
9) Any gun carrier must have big yellow stripe up their backs completely visible to all. To warn public of whack job coward with a weapon. ( yeah the last is to sane for legislature to pass)

rpoL98

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #352 on: November 09, 2018, 02:44:10 PM »
Holey Fawk!  where dahell did u find that!

Democratic Underground? or is that local?

zippz

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #353 on: November 09, 2018, 03:41:58 PM »
For those who haven't bothered to read the article, I'll post this "comment" so you can see the level of hostility out there.

If only criminals were punished just as harsh.
Join the Hawaii Firearms Coalition at www.hifico.org.  Hawaii's new non-profit gun rights organization focused on lobbying and grassroots activism.

Hawaii Shooting Calendar - https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=practicalmarksman.com_btllod1boifgpp8dcjnbnruhso%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Pacific/Honolulu

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #354 on: November 09, 2018, 04:05:12 PM »
Holey Fawk!  where dahell did u find that!

Democratic Underground? or is that local?
No, that's the local-style aloha stuff from the Star-Advertiser article comment section from today linked above... you know, just one reader's idea of "a few commonsense gun safety regulations"... What?! You don't think those will work to assure "public safety"? I'll bet you a dollar that all the local judges would find those all to be "presumptively lawful"/"longstanding" regulations and thus not violate Heller or McDonald.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/11/09/hawaii-news/gun-owner-contests-petition-in-open-carry-case/?HSA=b64a594e6d6baa03248560936a457d1564ecd900

tillamook

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #355 on: November 09, 2018, 04:06:10 PM »
For those who haven't bothered to read the article, I'll post this "comment" so you can see the level of hostility out there. I just hope this isn't from Karl Rhoads or one of the other committee chairs that will soon be introducing next years crop of "gun safety regulations"...

[All the spelling and grammatical errors, and stupidity, are in the original.]

Boots

2 hours ago

If scared widdle snowflakes are so scared of facing paradise with out their steel and plastic prosthetics make sure we pass laws that protect the vast majority from their ammosexual drive
1) mandatory unlimited liability insurance for every weapon and every person who has even incidental access to weapon.
2) Every weapon and every individual needs separate policy. No group or family rates. If a person owns 5 guns they must have 5 separate poicies.
3) like auto insurance proof of insurance must be carried and shown on demand. Failure to have proof of insurance with weapon zero tolerance is mandatory felony $2K fine even if proof of insurance is elsewhere.
4) Mandatory arrest and prosecution of anyone taking weapon where it is legally banned. Airports, courthouses, post offices or any place posted. burden of knowing places where they are not allowed is completely upon the poor widdle snowflake.
5) No arrest or prosecutorial discretion allowed in any violation of above law. 1st offense $5,00 fine and 1 year and a day in contracted mainland prison. No "deals" allowed. Every subsequent violation is double the frevious one. 1 Year & $5K, 2 Years and &10k, 4 years and $20K and so on.
6) Any violation requires surrender of all weapons they own until penalties are paid and mental health evauluations.
7) No "accidental" discharge. Weapon goes off it is prosecuted as assualt with deadly weapon, some one else suffers injury or damage of property attempted murder, some one dies 1st degree murder. No excuses no exceptions.
8) 1,000% tax on all ammunition, reloading supplies etc. Exception only for ammunition used at a licensed firing range but even a single round leaves facility the facility loses license, theif is prosecuted for grand larceny. Again no prosectorial or arrest discretion.
9) Any gun carrier must have big yellow stripe up their backs completely visible to all. To warn public of whack job coward with a weapon. ( yeah the last is to sane for legislature to pass)

oh wait.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"


They need to just say "ban guns."  Why make the hamster wheel go fast enough to come up with the idea of unlimited liability insurance or painting stripes on peoples backs. 

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #356 on: November 09, 2018, 04:10:11 PM »
If only criminals were punished just as harsh.
Or even 10% as harsh. We're at about 3% now (see the lengthy arrest/conviction rapsheets of most of the scumbags arrested recently... "supervised release", "probation", a few months or a year incarcerated... then, back to work  ???).

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #357 on: November 09, 2018, 04:11:34 PM »
oh wait.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"


They need to just say "ban guns."  Why make the hamster wheel go fast enough to come up with the idea of unlimited liability insurance or painting stripes on peoples backs.
They wanna make sure there is no doubt in your mind that they despise and hate you and look forward to your demise, one way or another.

punaperson

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #358 on: November 15, 2018, 07:10:29 PM »
I'm taking the liberty of re-posting this from Wolfwood that he posted several hours ago on another forum:

* * * * *

This just got filed.

https://www.scribd.com/document/393330860/Young-Motion-to-File-en-Banc-

/End Wolfwood post

* * * * *
It is the state's (unusual) reply to the reply made by Young's attorney to the state's petition for en banc hearing.

It is full of blatant lies. Blatant lies that anyone involved in this issue over the years know are lies... the state claiming that at any time any ordinary citizen could have applied for and been granted an open carry license. These people are evil. Every single one of them should be held in contempt of court, prosecuted and disbarred. Here they are, all the ones who signed the reply to the reply:

RUSSELL A. SUZUKI
Attorney General of the State of Hawaii

CLYDE J. WADSWORTH
Solicitor General of the State of Hawaii

KIMBERLY T. GUIDRY
ROBERT T. NAKATSUJI
KALIKOʻONALANI D. FERNANDES
Deputy Attorneys General

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAII
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorneys for State of Hawaii
Defendants-Appellees

JOSEPH K. KAMELAMELA
Corporation Counsel

LAUREEN L. MARTIN
Litigation Section Supervisor

D. KAENA HOROWITZ
Deputy Corporation Counsel

COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Attorneys for County of Hawaii
Defendants-Appellees


NEAL K. KATYAL
COLLEEN E. ROH SINZDAK
MITCHELL P. REICH

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
Fax: (202) 637-5910
Email: neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees

wolfwood

Re: Young v. State of Hawaii
« Reply #359 on: November 16, 2018, 02:19:38 PM »
https://www.scribd.com/document/393405383/Young-San-Diego-County-Gun-Owners-Amicus-Brief

First of the Amicus Briefs got filed.  This is a history brief written to take on Everytown's brief.