Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old 09-21-2018, 4:35 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Again...go read Heller. Note how it ended.

=8-/
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 09-21-2018, 3:30 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Again...go read Heller. Note how it ended.

=8-/
How many appeals courts have concluded that "bear" is not within the core right guaranteed by the Second Amendment? And how many of those cases cited Heller for that proposition? And after concluding that it is not a core right, how many applied their diluted excuse for "intermediate scrutiny"? Since all of these courts read Heller, it is safe to assume that they concluded that the bear issue had not been foreclosed. Read the AG's petition in Flanagan which all but argues that there is no right to openly bear arms in any incorporated ci8ty or town, notwithstanding the fact that you are far more likely to be assaulted in one of those crowded metropolitan areas than in the open country or out in the forest (because people are few and far between, and the only need for self defense in most cases is from creatures on four legs). The right as Becerra sees it is limited to private property and while hunting, camping and hiking. I wonder where he got that idea? Not from the Second Amendment!
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 09-21-2018, 4:38 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
How many appeals courts have concluded that "bear" is not within the core right guaranteed by the Second Amendment? And how many of those cases cited Heller for that proposition? And after concluding that it is not a core right, how many applied their diluted excuse for "intermediate scrutiny"? Since all of these courts read Heller, it is safe to assume that they concluded that the bear issue had not been foreclosed. Read the AG's petition in Flanagan which all but argues that there is no right to openly bear arms in any incorporated ci8ty or town, notwithstanding the fact that you are far more likely to be assaulted in one of those crowded metropolitan areas than in the open country or out in the forest (because people are few and far between, and the only need for self defense in most cases is from creatures on four legs). The right as Becerra sees it is limited to private property and while hunting, camping and hiking. I wonder where he got that idea? Not from the Second Amendment!
Again, read how the Heller case . . .

E N D E D


YOU put forth that proposition that the AG in his en banc request was possibly taking the position that authorities simply didn't understand or implement policy correctly.

IF YOUR INTERPRETATION IS TRUE . . .

That means en banc can be approved simply to allow the authorities to issue to Young.

If Young agrees - case is moot . . . there's nothing further to declare, discuss, or even any action to take.


Just like in Heller, where Scalia in making his judgment comes to a halt - because DC decided to issue to Heller at the last minute, and Heller agreed.


Scalia closing words in judgement would have been much more extensive had that not happened in Heller v. DC.


YOU brought up a possible interpretation - I simply extended it and analyzed it for you.

YOUR interpretation angle you presented is certainly possible...

YOU may turn out to be right in how this moves forward and ends...

Don't react to me, take a deep breath, think through the implication of what you pointed out.


It is actually right in line with the two possibilities I pointed out should Wolfwood enlist the help of members of the "dream team" whose history is trying to to get a win for CCW - even at the expense of OC.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 09-23-2018, 3:27 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,358
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Again, read how the Heller case . . .

E N D E D


YOU put forth that proposition that the AG in his en banc request was possibly taking the position that authorities simply didn't understand or implement policy correctly.

IF YOUR INTERPRETATION IS TRUE . . .

That means en banc can be approved simply to allow the authorities to issue to Young.

If Young agrees - case is moot . . . there's nothing further to declare, discuss, or even any action to take.


Just like in Heller, where Scalia in making his judgment comes to a halt - because DC decided to issue to Heller at the last minute, and Heller agreed.


Scalia closing words in judgement would have been much more extensive had that not happened in Heller v. DC.


YOU brought up a possible interpretation - I simply extended it and analyzed it for you.

YOUR interpretation angle you presented is certainly possible...

YOU may turn out to be right in how this moves forward and ends...

Don't react to me, take a deep breath, think through the implication of what you pointed out.


It is actually right in line with the two possibilities I pointed out should Wolfwood enlist the help of members of the "dream team" whose history is trying to to get a win for CCW - even at the expense of OC.

=8-|
Pretty ballsy if they do so and only intend to issue to Young (and continue to implement a no-issue scheme). He's been denied under both the citizen CCW and the security-guard-issue-only OC permit.
IIRC Young didn't have major death threats over his head so it's not like the situation in Drake where the original plaintiff had been kidnapped and taken halfway across the country and a permit was eventually issued to him to try to show his situation was different.
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 09-23-2018, 1:59 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Yep, would be ballsy.

Saddest part is...if the scenario TruOil's angle gives us plays out...it becomes a hammer.

If a nail pops up in which a win for OC is on the horizon, down comes the hammer...only the plaintiff and his lawyer get the win, NOT the general OC cause.

If a nail pops up for a CCW win on the horizon, same exact hammer comes down where the win is strictly for the plaintiff and lawyer only. NOT a win for the CCW cause.

Next thing you know, we're asking our liberal friends,

"How do you like a world where exercising ANY right requires filing a lawsuit?"

=8-/
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 09-23-2018, 4:08 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Pretty ballsy if they do so and only intend to issue to Young (and continue to implement a no-issue scheme). He's been denied under both the citizen CCW and the security-guard-issue-only OC permit.
IIRC Young didn't have major death threats over his head so it's not like the situation in Drake where the original plaintiff had been kidnapped and taken halfway across the country and a permit was eventually issued to him to try to show his situation was different.
I will no longer respond to rabbit, as he puts words in my mouth that I did not speak and makes arguments that i cannot interpret or that make no sense. That said, an en banc panel could reverse on the basis of the Hi AG opinion, and the chief could STILL refuse to issue Mr. Young for failing to show sufficient "cause." And as I said previously, it would take any number of years before sufficient evidence of a "no issue" policy was developed before another challenge could be brought. Flanagan is different in the sense that California has an express open carry ban in all urban areas, while Hawaii has an implied one on every island. In Flanagan, Becerra argues that banning open carry in urban areas is in the public interest, and that the public interest trumps the right, a position that can be affirmed under the Ninth Circuit's lame excuse for intermediate scrutiny, as well as the similarly lame standard applied in the 2d, 3rd and 4th Circuits. Only DC has expressly concluded that "bear" is a core right under the 2A and subject to strict scrutiny. That decision was not appealed because NY and Ca wanted to prevent that "poison" from spreading. Unless and until the Supreme Court holds that the "bear" part of the 2A is a core right AND subject to strict scrutiny, we will not see open carry, loaded or unloaded, in California.
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 09-23-2018, 5:41 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Wow, I take you seriously on the misinterpretation angle...

...and you pull a juvenile polarization move..

Guess I'll just stop taking you seriously in the future when you do make a notable observation or points . . .

Adults can play that game too...

=8-/
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 09-24-2018, 4:00 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,016
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...n-Amicus-Brief

https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...f-the-Counties
https://www.scribd.com/document/3893...Gabby-Giffords

amicus briefs came in for the other side
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 09-24-2018, 6:23 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 482
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm not a lawyer but the Everytown one sounds like weird word salad.

The Giffords one they're bring back the good old chestnut "Collective Right" saying "Bear Arms" is a military term meaning only soldiers on a battle field, it's a joke.
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 09-24-2018, 9:16 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I haven't looked at the briefs in a long time--did the county ever argue that open carry permits were not limited to security guards but available to anyone? Or is this an entirely new argument never considered by (a) the trial court, (b) the original panel? If the latter, hasn't the argument been waived?
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 09-25-2018, 4:41 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 841
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I haven't looked at the briefs in a long time--did the county ever argue that open carry permits were not limited to security guards but available to anyone? Or is this an entirely new argument never considered by (a) the trial court, (b) the original panel? If the latter, hasn't the argument been waived?
Yep, the Hawaii AG issued a letter attempting to interpret their open carry statute as not being limited to professional security guards... after the court decision... even though there’s never been an open carry permit issued to anyone that was not a security guard.

They’re obviously trying to muddy the water after the fact and one can hope that would never fly but this is the 9th.

Here’s the Hawaii AG letter, issued sept 11
http://ag.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uplo...n-No.-18-1.pdf
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 09-25-2018, 7:50 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,358
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I will no longer respond to rabbit, as he puts words in my mouth that I did not speak and makes arguments that i cannot interpret or that make no sense. That said, an en banc panel could reverse on the basis of the Hi AG opinion, and the chief could STILL refuse to issue Mr. Young for failing to show sufficient "cause." And as I said previously, it would take any number of years before sufficient evidence of a "no issue" policy was developed before another challenge could be brought. Flanagan is different in the sense that California has an express open carry ban in all urban areas, while Hawaii has an implied one on every island. In Flanagan, Becerra argues that banning open carry in urban areas is in the public interest, and that the public interest trumps the right, a position that can be affirmed under the Ninth Circuit's lame excuse for intermediate scrutiny, as well as the similarly lame standard applied in the 2d, 3rd and 4th Circuits. Only DC has expressly concluded that "bear" is a core right under the 2A and subject to strict scrutiny. That decision was not appealed because NY and Ca wanted to prevent that "poison" from spreading. Unless and until the Supreme Court holds that the "bear" part of the 2A is a core right AND subject to strict scrutiny, we will not see open carry, loaded or unloaded, in California.
I'm not sure about that. HI is asking that it's OC scheme be looked at in the same light as the CCW scheme. No CCW permits issued in HI county since 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 09-25-2018, 8:47 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,358
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I haven't looked at the briefs in a long time--did the county ever argue that open carry permits were not limited to security guards but available to anyone? Or is this an entirely new argument never considered by (a) the trial court, (b) the original panel? If the latter, hasn't the argument been waived?
http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

Just reading the briefs post-Peruta en banc, it's stated by Young that the OC permit is limited to security personnel, while the county never specifically addresses it. I'll have to look at the Baker briefings and see if the state has made any remarks on OC there.
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 09-25-2018, 11:48 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 537
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I'm not sure about that. HI is asking that it's OC scheme be looked at in the same light as the CCW scheme. No CCW permits issued in HI county since 2000.
At least. That's when the mandated reporting began. My letter from former chief Kubojiri (that was submitted into the record) stated that during his 25 years on the force he had never heard of one being issued, and that he had never heard of one ever being issued.

The counties' amicus quotes the Kauai issuance of two CONCEALED licenses in 2006 (to a judge) and 2013 (for 12 [EDIT: My bad, not 12, but 9 (nine)] days to a military member or their family member) as evidence that they have not prohibited anyone who "has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens" from obtaining a license of some kind. Of course they argue that the right to bear arms is not infringed by issuing two licenses in the entire history of the department, because only those two people met the "criteria".

The amicus brief doesn't point out that the other county police chiefs, in their "declarations", fail to mention that none of them, or their departments, have EVER issued any kind of license, much less an unconcealed carry license, to anyone other than a security guard. EVER. Now why did they not make a point of that?


Last edited by surfgeorge; 09-25-2018 at 1:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 09-25-2018, 1:38 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
At least. That's when the mandated reporting began. My letter from former chief Kubojiri (that was submitted into the record) stated that during his 25 years on the force he had never heard of one being issued, and that he had never heard of one ever being issued.

The counties' amicus quotes the Kauai issuance of two CONCEALED licenses in 2006 (to a judge) and 2013 (for 12 [EDIT: My bad, not 12, but 9 (nine)] days to a military member or their family member) as evidence that they have not prohibited anyone who "has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens" from obtaining a license of some kind. Of course they argue that the right to bear arms is not infringed by issuing two licenses in the entire history of the department, because only those two people met the "criteria".

The amicus brief doesn't point out that the other county police chiefs, in their "declarations", fail to mention that none of them, or their departments, have EVER issued any kind of license, much less an unconcealed carry license, to anyone other than a security guard. EVER. Now why did they not make a point of that?

The point I was making is that the chiefs have always interpreted the statute as guards only, but now with the "clarification" from the DA, then you arguably have to wait to see what those chiefs do afterwards. Its not like we can't predict the answer--that no one has sufficient good cause--but it would need to be proved a la the case in D.C showing no issuance except to the privileged few under their "may issue" CCW scheme. Plus you have to look at open carry certs only. As the panel decision states, Peruta forecloses the CCW issue; the non-issuance of CCW permits is therefore a nonissue. Is there any evidence as to the number of open carry permits issued, and more importantly, wto whom they were issued?
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 09-25-2018, 2:16 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,811
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

No, no , no... you guts don't get it. The AG is making the case himself that there is no "right" to carry in Hawaii (emphasis added by me):

Quote:
An applicant must satisfy four criteria to obtain an unconcealed-carry license:...
To satisfy these requirements, an applicant must demonstrate, among other things, that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 09-25-2018, 2:32 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 537
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
No, no , no... you guts don't get it. The AG is making the case himself that there is no "right" to carry in Hawaii (emphasis added by me):
They're arguing that their criteria to issue the licenses is legal both as a "presumptively lawful longstanding" regulation, AND that the bearing of arms outside the home is not a "core" part of the Second Amendment-protected right (which might require strict scrutiny), among other things (panel mis-understood the actual law, etc.). Thus they are claiming there is a "right" to bear arms outside the home, but that "right" may be regulated, you know, by a "few commonsense gun safety regulations". The fact that those few commonsense gun safety regulations result in zero unconcealed carry licenses EVER (to anyone other than security employees), is irrelevant.

We know that is a total pile of horse****. And I'm betting O'Scannlain and Ikuta concur in that view. Watch the orals and look at O'Scannlain's face and listen to the tone of his voice when he challenges the county attorney when he claims that unconcealed carry really has been available all along to "ordinary law-abiding citizens". He wasn't happy.

En banc petition denied.

Then Sidney Thomas will call for an en banc vote again.

Last edited by surfgeorge; 09-25-2018 at 2:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 09-25-2018, 2:50 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 537
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The point I was making is that the chiefs have always interpreted the statute as guards only, but now with the "clarification" from the DA, then you arguably have to wait to see what those chiefs do afterwards. Its not like we can't predict the answer--that no one has sufficient good cause--but it would need to be proved a la the case in D.C showing no issuance except to the privileged few under their "may issue" CCW scheme. Plus you have to look at open carry certs only. As the panel decision states, Peruta forecloses the CCW issue; the non-issuance of CCW permits is therefore a nonissue. Is there any evidence as to the number of open carry permits issued, and more importantly, wto whom they were issued?
The state reports the county stats on two categories of carry licenses: SECURITY and CITIZEN. The "citizen" applications are all for concealed. The licenses in the "security" division are all, exclusively as far as we know, to employees of security firms, but there is no designation as to how many of those are concealed and how many are unconcealed. I'm trying to find that out, as well as how many of those "security" unconcealed licenses have been granted to "ordinary law-abiding citizens", but as you can well imagine, I'm getting stonewalled. They don't want to make public that the "citizen" and "security" divisions are really "concealed" and "unconcealed", as that belies their absurd claims.

Further evidence of this is that the counties' amicus brief makes a big deal of Kauai PD issuing (the only) two concealed licenses in, well, forever in the state of Hawaii for which there is any extent data (the other two issues in 2001 on Maui appear to be gone, and they are not mentioned in the brief). If they had one scintilla of evidence that anyone anywhere at any time in Hawaii, other than a security guard had ever been issued an unconcealed license, they would have led off the brief with it. They didn't, because they don't, because there aren't.

Their argument that just because no one has ever gotten an unconcealed license doesn't mean that no one COULD have gotten one... is preposterous, especially given that people have been (anecdotally) told that they cannot even apply for an open carry license unless they have proof of employment for a security firm.

My understanding is that a number of people have already applied for the unconcealed licenses and should be getting their denial letters shortly. Then we have to go from there pending the next stages of Young and maybe Nichols.

Last edited by surfgeorge; 09-25-2018 at 2:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 09-25-2018, 3:03 PM
Scottie15's Avatar
Scottie15 Scottie15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 930
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
En banc petition denied.

Then Sidney Thomas will call for an en banc vote again.
At least it got denied... once.
__________________
Its an expensive hobby, but more expensive when you try and convince yourself you don't need what you really want.
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 09-25-2018, 5:00 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
The state reports the county stats on two categories of carry licenses: SECURITY and CITIZEN. The "citizen" applications are all for concealed. The licenses in the "security" division are all, exclusively as far as we know, to employees of security firms, but there is no designation as to how many of those are concealed and how many are unconcealed. I'm trying to find that out, as well as how many of those "security" unconcealed licenses have been granted to "ordinary law-abiding citizens", but as you can well imagine, I'm getting stonewalled. They don't want to make public that the "citizen" and "security" divisions are really "concealed" and "unconcealed", as that belies their absurd claims.

Further evidence of this is that the counties' amicus brief makes a big deal of Kauai PD issuing (the only) two concealed licenses in, well, forever in the state of Hawaii for which there is any extent data (the other two issues in 2001 on Maui appear to be gone, and they are not mentioned in the brief). If they had one scintilla of evidence that anyone anywhere at any time in Hawaii, other than a security guard had ever been issued an unconcealed license, they would have led off the brief with it. They didn't, because they don't, because there aren't.

Their argument that just because no one has ever gotten an unconcealed license doesn't mean that no one COULD have gotten one... is preposterous, especially given that people have been (anecdotally) told that they cannot even apply for an open carry license unless they have proof of employment for a security firm.

My understanding is that a number of people have already applied for the unconcealed licenses and should be getting their denial letters shortly. Then we have to go from there pending the next stages of Young and maybe Nichols.
I have little doubt that there are few if any "citizen" open carry permits, but what the State will argue is that the police have simply "gotten it wrong" all these years, and from now on citizens will be considered along with guards for open carry permits. Is it a stall. Well, yeah! After that devastating decision of the original panel, these guys are grasping at any straw they can to prevent their system from disappearing. WHY, THERE'LL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS, I TELL YOU! IT WILL BE THE WILD WEST ALL OVER AGAIN!!! WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!! Right now, the only thing they've got going for them is that the AG's opinion is a plausible interpretation of the statute. I wonder if they realize that this will establish that the police chiefs have been violating citizens civil rights for decades by refusing to consider citizen applications. (They must--and that is why you are getting the bium's rush on your records requests.)
Reply With Quote
  #781  
Old 09-25-2018, 7:08 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 537
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I have little doubt that there are few if any "citizen" open carry permits, but what the State will argue is that the police have simply "gotten it wrong" all these years, and from now on citizens will be considered along with guards for open carry permits. Is it a stall. Well, yeah! After that devastating decision of the original panel, these guys are grasping at any straw they can to prevent their system from disappearing. WHY, THERE'LL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS, I TELL YOU! IT WILL BE THE WILD WEST ALL OVER AGAIN!!! WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!! Right now, the only thing they've got going for them is that the AG's opinion is a plausible interpretation of the statute. I wonder if they realize that this will establish that the police chiefs have been violating citizens civil rights for decades by refusing to consider citizen applications. (They must--and that is why you are getting the bium's rush on your records requests.)
Not really. The state and counties argue that the unconcealed carry licenses have ALWAYS been available to ordinary law-abiding citizens who met the criteria as outlined in the recent AG opinion. The fact that none have EVER been issued is merely a coincidence, don't you know.

The declarations by both the Honolulu PD chief and the Kauai PD acting chief have verbatim identical phrases and sentences throughout their declarations, including: "[T]he Attorney General's opinion comports with the [HPD's/KPD's]
past and current practice."

And we know they can't be lying, because both declarations are signed immediately below this statement: "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct." When was the last time a Hawaii police chief lied? I mean besides HPD's most recent former chief Kealoha who resigned and is now under federal indictment and facing trial? Surely his replacement, a woman, wouldn't deceive the public, would she? Couldn't be, because their motto is "to protect and serve with aloha". I kid you not.

Read the declarations for more of the lies and deceptive statistics and claims about how the world will end with mass public violence if the ordinary law-abiding citizens of Hawaii are allowed to bear arms outside their homes, even though none of what they predict has happened in any other state where the law went from "no" or "may" issue to "shall" issue or "permitless":

HPD http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...lard_157-2.pdf

KPD http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...ades_157-3.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 09-28-2018, 10:54 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I have little doubt that there are few if any "citizen" open carry permits, but what the State will argue is that the police have simply "gotten it wrong" all these years, and from now on citizens will be considered along with guards for open carry permits.
So the state will argue that their law is facially neutral, but was applied in a discriminatory fashion?

Do they not know about equal protections in Hawaii, or do they just want to maximize their chances of losing?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 09-28-2018, 1:06 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
So the state will argue that their law is facially neutral, but was applied in a discriminatory fashion?

Do they not know about equal protections in Hawaii, or do they just want to maximize their chances of losing?
Nah, just that the issuance is discretionary and that no citizen has to date shown sufficient "need" to open carry a handgun in public outside of those areas where it is permissible.
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 09-28-2018, 5:11 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Nah, just that the issuance is discretionary and that no citizen has to date shown sufficient "need" to open carry a handgun in public outside of those areas where it is permissible.
But isn't a sufficient need argument fatal when we are speaking of a constitutional right?
Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 09-28-2018, 8:10 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
But isn't a sufficient need argument fatal when we are speaking of a constitutional right?
Depends on what jurisdiction you are in and the level of scrutiny applied. If you are Judge O'Scanlain, strict scrutiny applies (as he did in this case and the original Peruta decision). But if you are Judge Stanley Thomas and the rest of the liberals on the Ninth Circus bench, "intermediate scrutiny" applies, whereby, under their extremely deferential standard that is little more than the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis, the government has an "important interest" in "protecting the public," and therefore "reasonable restrictions" on the right to bear arms essentially trump the right.
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 09-28-2018, 8:21 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 537
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Depends on what jurisdiction you are in and the level of scrutiny applied. If you are Judge O'Scanlain, strict scrutiny applies (as he did in this case and the original Peruta decision). But if you are Judge Stanley Thomas and the rest of the liberals on the Ninth Circus bench, "intermediate scrutiny" applies, whereby, under their extremely deferential standard that is little more than the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis, the government has an "important interest" in "protecting the public," and therefore "reasonable restrictions" on the right to bear arms essentially trump the right.
And in Hawaii the "reasonable restrictions" are, de facto, that no one may bear arms in public.

The state actually argued that: Because of the inherent danger of firearms, in order to help assure "public safety", no one should be allowed to bear arms in any location where any member of the public may lawfully be. Thus applying the "sensitive locations" proviso of Heller I to any and all public spaces.

Case closed.
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 09-29-2018, 3:14 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,358
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottie15 View Post
At least it got denied... once.
If it's denied then it's denied. The entire court votes on it. One judge cannot change that outcome.
Peruta was different. The county in that case didn't proceed with en banc, but Thomas went sua sponte and asked for en banc w/o the parties asking for it.

Not what's happening here.
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 09-29-2018, 3:22 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,358
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The point I was making is that the chiefs have always interpreted the statute as guards only, but now with the "clarification" from the DA, then you arguably have to wait to see what those chiefs do afterwards. Its not like we can't predict the answer--that no one has sufficient good cause--but it would need to be proved a la the case in D.C showing no issuance except to the privileged few under their "may issue" CCW scheme. Plus you have to look at open carry certs only. As the panel decision states, Peruta forecloses the CCW issue; the non-issuance of CCW permits is therefore a nonissue. Is there any evidence as to the number of open carry permits issued, and more importantly, wto whom they were issued?
Then en banc should be denied; the case will return to the district and the judge can now take into account that chiefs have not interpreted the statute correctly. I assume the case is still ripe (not mooted).
But in that case O'Scannlain's opinion is still controlling. Can the district court, with a straight face, say that Young stands for the proposition that a license can be denied to any average citizen?
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 09-29-2018, 3:27 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,358
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
But isn't a sufficient need argument fatal when we are speaking of a constitutional right?
It should but the circuit courts have tried to create the "core" right of "in the home" and separate it from everything else-public carry. In essence, no protection except in the case of a total ban, which doesn't matter since we've seen you don't need a total ban on paper to accomplish a total ban in reality.
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 10-06-2018, 6:13 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It will be interesting to see how the 9th factors in Justice Kavanaugh into their decision to grant or deny en banc
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 10-06-2018, 9:37 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
It will be interesting to see how the 9th factors in Justice Kavanaugh into their decision to grant or deny en banc
They know he will uphold Heller....therefore no SCOTUS change of mind.
Which of course under pins Peruta...CCW is not the right.

CCW can be prohibited, OC in general cannot.

However, OC falls in a narrow spectrum:

UOC > LOC

Can OC be regulated down to UOC? Some states already do this. CA banned it outright however.

As to the carry question outside the home...despite popular myth that it has NOT been discussed....all precedents referenced and cited have involved cases in which the carry aspect was PUBLIC.

CCW or OC, didn't matter - the subject was before the court and appeals court for PUBLIC carrying.

OC almost as a rule resulted in remand or overturned.
CCW almost as a rule resulted in conviction upheld.

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 10-07-2018, 6:57 AM
dogrunner dogrunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: E/Central Fl
Posts: 100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Precisely what States mandate unloaded open carry?..............California was to my knowledge sorta alone in such a requirement. Now Florida once had a licensing system that was county specific........while the matter of concealed/open was an issue of some debate. The issue of loaded or no was never a consideration under that law.

I suggest to you that your perspective is California centric and has little impact from a national point of view..........Yeah, I've heard of some instances wherein certain carry issues involving vehicles apply...usually involving game laws but never the sort of specific statutory regulation your state imposed with ULOC.
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 10-07-2018, 8:57 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogrunner View Post
Precisely what States mandate unloaded open carry?..............California was to my knowledge sorta alone in such a requirement. Now Florida once had a licensing system that was county specific........while the matter of concealed/open was an issue of some debate. The issue of loaded or no was never a consideration under that law.

I suggest to you that your perspective is California centric and has little impact from a national point of view..........Yeah, I've heard of some instances wherein certain carry issues involving vehicles apply...usually involving game laws but never the sort of specific statutory regulation your state imposed with ULOC.
Don't use the word mandate...

...use the word regulate.

Regulation usually falls under a spectrum - the extent of the particulars varying among the states.

You really should get out and travel more...

Just like with CCW, how open carry is regulated varies by quite a lot - with some of the nuances being quite small between neighboring states - Nevada, Idaho, Utah . . . and some not being nuanced at all - Nevada and California for example.

Probably the most confusing part of examing a state's OC regulations is when vehicles are involved.

How states treat those - even neighboring states that allow OC or CCW for that matter can be quite a homework assignment.

Cars
Trucks
Recreational Vehicles
Storage/Moving Vehicles
Motorcycles

=8-(

. . . and then there's the issue of OC in State and in-State National Parks.

=8-P
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 10-07-2018, 1:49 PM
dogrunner dogrunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: E/Central Fl
Posts: 100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Rarebit, it is YOU that needs exposure to a broader experience relative to the subject at hand.

Firstly, the State and Ntl. park regulations are generally controlled by the jurisdiction wherein located. Ntl. Forests do, by policy, follow the law of the State in which located.....BUT...that was not the reference point addressed.

I ask again just WHICH States have ever required unloaded open carry other than California...........As stated, I can think of none that had such a mandate other than your own!

And more so, it truly doesn't make a lick of difference to me as I carry under LEOSA anyhoo......and that'd include your digs as well.
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 10-07-2018, 4:30 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Kavanaugh was on the DC Circuit, the same Circuit that ruled DC's may-issue licensing regime for concealed carry unconstitutional and refused to hear DC's appeal en banc. That will be the model for whichever case(s) make it to SCOTUS in the next two years.
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 10-07-2018, 7:45 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogrunner View Post
Rarebit, it is YOU that needs exposure to a broader experience relative to the subject at hand.

Firstly, the State and Ntl. park regulations are generally controlled by the jurisdiction wherein located. Ntl. Forests do, by policy, follow the law of the State in which located.....BUT...that was not the reference point addressed.

I ask again just WHICH States have ever required unloaded open carry other than California...........As stated, I can think of none that had such a mandate other than your own!

And more so, it truly doesn't make a lick of difference to me as I carry under LEOSA anyhoo......and that'd include your digs as well.
Chuck Michel does more than just legal work...

...pay attention.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 10-07-2018, 7:47 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
Kavanaugh was on the DC Circuit, the same Circuit that ruled DC's may-issue licensing regime for concealed carry unconstitutional and refused to hear DC's appeal en banc. That will be the model for whichever case(s) make it to SCOTUS in the next two years.
As per second amendment, or equal protection....

Kavanaugh said it himself during the actual Senate hearing....CCW can be prohibited.

And he made it clear during the same hearing that he is bound by Heller v. DC.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 10-17-2018, 1:53 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 537
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
As per second amendment, or equal protection....

Kavanaugh said it himself during the actual Senate hearing....CCW can be prohibited.

And he made it clear during the same hearing that he is bound by Heller v. DC.

=8-|
I just re-read Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, aka Heller II (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf). In that dissent he is arguing, among other things, that the proper way to evaluate possible infringements on the Second Amendment is via "text, history, and tradition", versus an "interest balancing" method such as strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis. (I disagree with some of his reasoning, especially regarding the "longstanding" criteria, as it is totally absurd to claim that machine guns may be more or less de facto banned because they are not in "common use"... because the reason they are not and have not been in common use is because they were made nearly impossible to possess via the requirements for ownership due to the NFA 1934, and subsequent legislation that made them too expensive to acquire for almost anyone.)

What is evident, and relevant to Young is that he uses the "text, history, and tradition" test to validate, six times, that "concealed carry may be banned", or other words to that effect, usually in conjunction with other permissible restrictions such as banning ownership and possession by felons, etc.

If people are counting on Kavanaugh to somehow support any claim that a state may not ban concealed carry, or regulate it out of existence de facto, then they are going to be losing that argument (again) at SCOTUS. We don't know what Kavanaugh or the other justices view of unconcealed carry is, but it's pretty clear what Kavanaugh thinks about concealed carry. Unless he has changed his mind. And since he spent 60 pages making the case that the SCOTUS precedents that he is obliged to follow make the case (among other things) that concealed carry can be banned, it's not that likely he will suddenly discover some other interpretation.

Waste of time to argue concealed carry. Hope Young doesn't.
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 10-17-2018, 2:02 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 216
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

His opinion was not his own, but a direct read of Heller, which was binding to him. As a SCOTUS justice, his opinion could indeed be different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
".... And since he spent 60 pages making the case that the SCOTUS precedents that he is obliged to follow make the case (among other things) that concealed carry can be banned, it's not that likely he will suddenly discover some other interpretation.

Waste of time to argue concealed carry. Hope Young doesn't."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:37 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.