Young v. Hawaii (CA9); Petition for Cert to SCOTUS 5-11-2021

[marcusrn]

Godspeed! If not now,when?

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

GO GET EM WOLFIE!

[CCWFacts]

So what does this mean? I assume SCOTUS wouldn't handle this as a separate case, but would combine it somehow with the NY case? IANAL, so I don't know how these things can go.

[Kukuforguns]

A document purporting to be the Young petition was published on the internet on May 11, 2021. The Supreme Court's docket does not yet include a cert petition for Young. However, the Court's docket does include petitions filed as recently as May 17, 2021.

I do not know what this means.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

A document purporting to be the Young petition was published on the internet on May 11, 2021. The Supreme Court's docket does not yet include a cert petition for Young. However, the Court's docket does include petitions filed as recently as May 17, 2021.

I do not know what this means.

I'm assuming there wouldn't be a fake petition going around so my guess is that since the petition was applied for in light speed (only weeks after the CA9 ruling) that SCOTUS is behind in putting up the page for whatever reason, possibly to allow the state the normal time for a response or possibly they just weren't expecting it. WAG on my part.
It would usually be 90 days from judgment or mandate, plus another month or so for the state to respond.

[gunuser17]

Once in a while a brief won't get posted to the docket right away - often that is due to some minor technicality that results in the Court Clerk rejecting the brief. The appellant can refile the brief to correct the error usually. No clue if that has happened here.

[gumby]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html

Thank you 👍

[pacrat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html

Thank you 👍

gumby; when/where did "wolfwood" post this link?

I searched and could not find it.

[gumby]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Quote:





gumby; when/where did "wolfwood" post this link?

I searched and could not find it.

A few minutes before I quoted it. It's missing now, don't know why.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by gumby

A few minutes before I quoted it. It's missing now, don't know why.

Possibly wolfwood decided to maintain a low profile online considering the magnitude of this case.

[Kukuforguns]

In case prior links get deleted, here's the link to the Young petition for cert.

[gumby]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

In case prior links get deleted, here's the link to the Young petition for cert.

That's the one!

[darkwater34]

Now it is just time............

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by darkwater34

Now it is just time............

Until the next round of utter disappointment.

[Elgatodeacero]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

Until the next round of utter disappointment.

Proverbs 17:22, A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.

I don’t see how we cannot be hopeful, at least there is a chance!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nFTRwD85AQ4

[Paladin]

The state gets an extension to respond from June 24 to July 26. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html

[TiggyTiger]

Is this the case where the 9th Circuit cites a 13th century edict by the King of England limiting swords in public squares to justify infringing on the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms?

[dawgcasa]

So what are the possible outcomes of the cert petition?

1: Cert is denied: Then is that the end of the road for Young, regardless of the outcome of NYSRPA vs Corlett even if Corlett is decided in favor of plantiffs? Seems like a denial of cert would take the ‘G’ out of GVR, so then there’s no V & R either? Could Young file for a re-hearing with the 9th if there was new precedent set in a Corlett decision for plaintiffs?

2: Cert is granted: Then would it be consolidated with Corlett given the plea for relief is so similar? Or would it be held until there is a decision on Corlett and then GVR’d?

My hope (yes, hope) is that the conservative bloc granted cert of Corlett because they know they have the five votes already and they are going to write a strong opinion that finally eviscerates the “rational basis masquerading as intermediate scrutiny” game played by the 9th circuit (and others) over the past decade with all 2nd amendment cases. The 9th circuit’s butchery of Heller with the Young en banc opinion was such an egregious twisting of history and precedent that it screams for a SCOTUS slap down. I’m hoping the court takes Young … consolidated, whatever … just so Thomas can write a juicy section to the opinion that repudiates the whole thought process of the 9th circuit to serve notice to all of the liberal circuits.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by dawgcasa

So what are the possible outcomes of the cert petition?

1: Cert is denied: Then is that the end of the road for Young, regardless of the outcome of NYSRPA vs Corlett even if Corlett is decided in favor of plantiffs? Seems like a denial of cert would take the ‘G’ out of GVR, so then there’s no V & R either? Could Young file for a re-hearing with the 9th if there was new precedent set in a Corlett decision for plaintiffs?

2: Cert is granted: Then would it be consolidated with Corlett given the plea for relief is so similar? Or would it be held until there is a decision on Corlett and then GVR’d?

My hope (yes, hope) is that the conservative bloc granted cert of Corlett because they know they have the five votes already and they are going to write a strong opinion that finally eviscerates the “rational basis masquerading as intermediate scrutiny” game played by the 9th circuit (and others) over the past decade with all 2nd amendment cases. The 9th circuit’s butchery of Heller with the Young en banc opinion was such an egregious twisting of history and precedent that it screams for a SCOTUS slap down. I’m hoping the court takes Young … consolidated, whatever … just so Thomas can write a juicy section to the opinion that repudiates the whole thought process of the 9th circuit to serve notice to all of the liberal circuits.

Cert won't be denied, Young is too closely related to NYSRPA v Corlett. It will either be granted and consolidated with Corlett(best scenario) or put on ice then GVR'd as you already mentioned. Consolidation would be the best option for us because it would potentially widen the question presented in Corlett and/or hasten the process in the 9th.

[TruOil]

I also think that cert will be granted, whether or not it is consolidated with Corlett because the decision by the Ninth that there is no 2A right outside the home, whether or not there are conflicts among the circuits, raises an issue of such fundamental public policy and a clear question under the Constitutions that threatens to deprive millions of people of their rights along the coast and in Hawaii that the question simply cannot be ignored. It cannot wait for more years to roll by for another case or cases to raise the same issue. For example, if today the California legislature decided to eliminate the concealed carry law and a lawsuit was filed tomorrow, it will take several years before a petition could be presented to the Supreme Court.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by TruOil

the question simply cannot be ignored..

Just watch them.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by TiggyTiger

Is this the case where the 9th Circuit cites a 13th century edict by the King of England limiting swords in public squares to justify infringing on the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms?

Yep. The Statute of Northampton. CA9 is twisting it to fit their world view. The statute was basically a law against going armed to terrify the king's subjects. The law wasn't used to punish those simply going armed peacefully.
Even so, the earliest US state cases refute CA9's interpretation, so it's almost a moot point.
CA9's interpretation makes the Heller passage of sensitive places useless. The two cannot stand together.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

Just watch them.

Agreed. There is nothing the CA9 cannot (or must) do.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

Agreed. There is nothing the CA9 cannot (or must) do.

The legal gymnastics for CA9 would be unbelievable in the scenario we expect and that is that NY loses at SCOTUS.
They've taken a more extreme position than that of the 2nd Circuit. How would they come back and say that a ban is OK if SCOTUS says may-issue isn't?
I'll predict that this case doesn't get consolidated by SCOTUS. It'll be sent back to CA9 who may in turn kick it down to the district court where the judge will basically rule Young is entitled to a permit of some sort.

[TiggyTiger]

Originally Posted by press1280

Yep. The Statute of Northampton. CA9 is twisting it to fit their world view. The statute was basically a law against going armed to terrify the king's subjects. The law wasn't used to punish those simply going armed peacefully.
Even so, the earliest US state cases refute CA9's interpretation, so it's almost a moot point.
CA9's interpretation makes the Heller passage of sensitive places useless. The two cannot stand together.

I still don't understand the relevance of a 700 year-old British edict to limiting an American citizen's rights, I mean the whole revolutionary war, Declaration of Independence, Constitution, etc. seems kind of lost on the liberal progressive justices in the 9th circuit.

Imagine Paul Revere riding around Lexington and Concord pleading "to arms, to arms, the British are coming," and the local citizens respond "well, I'm sorry, Mr. Revere, but according to the Statute of Northampton in 1328, we do not have any arms that we are allowed to bear."

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

Just watch them.

Yes, SCOTUS can do what it wants, and often has, but this case is so fundamental to the application of the 2A that I cannot see at least four justices feeling compelled to address the issue head on.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Yes, SCOTUS can do what it wants, and often has, but this case is so fundamental to the application of the 2A that I cannot see at least four justices feeling compelled to address the issue head on.

They flatly ignored just as fundamental issues just a year ago.

[dawgcasa]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

They flatly ignored just as fundamental issues just a year ago.

And just a year ago there were four staunch liberals on the court with Roberts having become clearly unreliable on the 2nd amendment (or any conservative/originalist based opinion). Roberts is now more concerned with protecting his ‘legacy’ than he is with protecting the Constitution. It was a 4-1-4 court. The four conservatives would not vote for cert with the potential of Roberts joining the liberal group to unwind Heller or permanently wound it. Now, with ACB replacing RBG, Roberts is no longer a ‘swing’ vote who alone can tip the scales to eviscerate Heller, or blunt any attempt at a firm originalist opinion to reinforce Heller. Roberts is now irrelevant. Today it is a 5-1-3 court.

[Offwidth]

Prepare to be disappointed. 5-1-3 or not, they ain’t rocking the boat.

[abinsinia]

Amicus brief of Hawaii Rifle Association submitted.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...us%20Brief.pdf

[abinsinia]

Bunch more amicus briefs,

Jun 24 2021 Amicus brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation Center to Keep and Bear Arms submitted.
Jun 24 2021 Amicus brief of Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, and Eighteen Other States submitted.
Jun 24 2021 Amicus brief of Hawaii Firearms Coalition submitted.
Jun 24 2021 Amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Heller Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Restoring Liberty Action Committee submitted.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...c/20-1639.html

[abinsinia]

Jun 25 2021 Amicus brief of Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation submitted.

Another amici from FPC.

[Fyathyrio]

Stephen P. Halbrook dissects the Young decision in a well written piece here. Opening paragraph . . .

The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Young v. State of Hawaii (2021) holding that no
“right of the people to . . . bear arms” exists under the Second Amendment could perhaps win a
contest for the most faux histoire of any judicial decision on a Bill of Rights guarantee.1 The
Ninth Circuit previously held that no right exists to carry a concealed weapon.2 It now extends
its ruling to the only other way to bear arms – open carry. Without any linguistic analysis of the
text of the Second Amendment, the majority essentially holds that the right to bear arms is
outside “the historical scope” of the right to bear arms.3

[Paladin]

Jul 26 2021 Brief of State of Hawaii, et al. in opposition submitted.

Now we wait for it to get DISTRIBUTED for a Conference. (The Long Conference on Sept 27?)

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by Brief of State of Hawaii

openly carry small, concealable arms in public

they're being very specific about the type of arms. I don't think Young cares if it's small and concealable.

they rely on the same defect the judges relied on.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

they're being very specific about the type of arms. I don't think Young cares if it's small and concealable.

they rely on the same defect the judges relied on.

The brief is a redux of the opinion, and as such, falls into the same analytical errors as the opinion. I haven't read it in a few years, but I recall that Heller covered the same historical European sources and came to a very different conclusion about the nature of the right. I have to think that the failings of the en banc's analysis, which is so bad that an attorney could face Rule 11 sanctions for filing such crap, has to count for something in the determination of the petition.

[Paladin]

Young just got Distributed for the Long Conference, just like Russell.

Aug 11 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html

[Offwidth]

That was a badly written petition.

And such a weak sauce in NY case.

We will lose all of this.

[Elgatodeacero]

The Young cert petition seems cover the issues, not sure what you think is wrong with it?

If the People lose these cases it will be because the Supreme Court has abandoned the Constitution and decided that the 2nd Amendment should be erased.

[abinsinia]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...c/20-1639.html

Aug 23 2021 Reply of George K. Young, Jr. submitted.