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

[Elgatodeacero]

A short, direct and effective reply.

Young’s attorneys did a great job of summarizing the absurdity of the 9th Circuits en banc decisions in Young and Peruta.

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

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

Do you see anything wrong with this quote:

This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

Do you see anything wrong with this quote:

The court explicitly held that there was a right to KEEP, but only implied that there was a right to BEAR outside the home. It did after all define the term "to bear", thus insinuating that bearing was a part of the right, but neither Heller nor McDonald addressed whether the right to bear extended outside the home. Young therefore felt "free" to conclude that the right to bear is restricted to the home. Fortunately for us, its analysis was extremely shoddy and the authorities it relied upon do not support its position.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

A short, direct and effective reply.

Young’s attorneys did a great job of summarizing the absurdity of the 9th Circuits en banc decisions in Young and Peruta.

Absofreak'nlutely ^^^

[Elgatodeacero]

How can it be controversial to assert that there is a right to keep and bear arms, when the 2nd Amendment literally says “keep and bear”.

Good gracious people, it is plain as day.

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero

How can it be controversial to assert that there is a right to keep and bear arms, when the 2nd Amendment literally says “keep and bear”.

Good gracious people, it is plain as day.

I was referencing the word "bestow", defined as "to convey as a gift".

My apologies for the ambiguity of my concern.

[Elgatodeacero]

Haha, ok, I see, that was pretty subtle for meathead like me.

I don’t think it really matters, but yes, it would have been more correct to say “recognizes a pre-existing basic human right”.

Those sorts of things really don’t matter, the S.Ct. Will do whatever it wants.

As a society we have basically abandoned the idea of limited government, and we are all much poorer, financially and freedom-wise, because of it.

Will the government appointed Supreme Court Justices allow the peasants to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in a meaningful way? I’d like to believe it, but it is probably a mere triumph of hope over reason.

[curtisfong]

“If the Supreme Court … meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” - Williams v. Maryland

[CandG]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

“If the Supreme Court … meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” - Williams v. Maryland

That was definitely the biggest error/omission in the Heller decision. The language left it too open to everyone's own interpretation. We all know what it meant to say, but the inarguable fact of the matter is that it was too vague.

I'm saving a bottle of fine scotch for when the next SCOTUS opinion spells it out in plain English:

"This Court finds that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, including all lawfully owned firearms and, necessarily, their ammunition and magazines, both inside and outside the home, and this right CAN NOT be infringed by any state or local government."

...or something to that effect

And then after that, hopefully another SCOTUS ruling will spell out, in plain english, precisely what firearms, ammunition, and magazines can be lawfully owned.

[jwkincal]

Originally Posted by CandG

And then after that, hopefully another SCOTUS ruling will spell out, in plain english, precisely what firearms, ammunition, and magazines can be lawfully owned.

This is the one that really matters, and the one I wish had been queued up immediately after Heller. While I understand folks' concern around the interpretation of "bear," it's "arms" that is the key to vestiture of power in the People by the 2nd Amendment. Without SACF rifles, the People are not sufficiently armed to ensure accountability on the part of the Government.

Fingers crossed, though. We have an open window, I just hope that the SCOTUS is able to provide the appropriate clarity before things in DC go farther downhill.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by jwkincal

This is the one that really matters, and the one I wish had been queued up immediately after Heller. While I understand folks' concern around the interpretation of "bear," it's "arms" that is the key to vestiture of power in the People by the 2nd Amendment. Without SACF rifles, the People are not sufficiently armed to ensure accountability on the part of the Government.

Fingers crossed, though. We have an open window, I just hope that the SCOTUS is able to provide the appropriate clarity before things in DC go farther downhill.

Exactly - having the right to bear arms is pretty meaningless if the states can still say "well fine then, we'll effectively ban every gun then", a la handgun roster.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by CandG

That was definitely the biggest error/omission in the Heller decision. The language left it too open to everyone's own interpretation. We all know what it meant to say, but the inarguable fact of the matter is that it was too vague.

I'm saving a bottle of fine scotch for when the next SCOTUS opinion spells it out in plain English:

"This Court finds that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, including all lawfully owned firearms and, necessarily, their ammunition and magazines, both inside and outside the home, and this right CAN NOT be infringed by any state or local government."

...or something to that effect

And then after that, hopefully another SCOTUS ruling will spell out, in plain english, precisely what firearms, ammunition, and magazines can be lawfully owned.

1. SCOTUS in DC v. Heller already said the right is both inside and outside. With few exceptions, the cases referenced for "bear" or "carry" were for people out and about in the PUBLIC fined or arrested. As almost a rule, those fined or arrested for OC out and about in PUBLIC had their fines or conviction overturned or remanded. Those fined or arrested for CCW out and about in PUBLIC had their fines or convictions upheld.

2. They already said it in DC v. Heller: "Commonly held arms suitable for SELF-DEFENSE for the purpose of confrontation."

- That's for the preexisting PEOPLE.
- That's for the preexisting MILITIA of the PEOPLE.

It is Militias created by States and Congress under Article I, Sec. 8, Cls 12-13 that are better equipped including with weapons of war.

Don't argue with me, take it up with Scalia (dead)...or SCOTUS if you think you can make it that far.

=8-(

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

1. SCOTUS in DC v. Heller already said the right is both inside and outside. With few exceptions, the cases referenced for "bear" or "carry" were for people out and about in the PUBLIC fined or arrested. As almost a rule, those fined or arrested for OC out and about in PUBLIC had their fines or conviction overturned or remanded. Those fined or arrested for CCW out and about in PUBLIC had their fines or convictions upheld.

2. They already said it in DC v. Heller: "Commonly held arms suitable for SELF-DEFENSE for the purpose of confrontation."

- That's for the preexisting PEOPLE.
- That's for the preexisting MILITIA of the PEOPLE.

It is Militias created by States and Congress under Article I, Sec. 8, Cls 12-13 that are better equipped including with weapons of war.

Don't argue with me, take it up with Scalia (dead)...or SCOTUS if you think you can make it that far.

=8-(

Well, the Ninth en banc says you are wrong and that Heller said no such thing. The State of Hawaii is perfectly happy with that ruling, as, I suppose, is the State of California. Take it up with Judge Thomas. If I were to appear in a federal court tomorrow representing someone openly carrying in Hawaii or California, who do you think the judge will believe, you or the Ninth? (Actually it is a moot question; the trial judge is bound to follow the rulings of the appellate court in its district.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Don't argue with me, take it up with Scalia (dead)...or SCOTUS if you think you can make it that far.

“If the Supreme Court … meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” - Williams v. Maryland

Until SCOTUS rules otherwise, "most notably in the home" in the language of law means "exclusively in the home" in plain English.

Don't argue with me, take it up with your local (highly trained and super intelligent past mere mortals) lawyer and ask them why the language of the law often has the opposite meaning in plain English. They're the ones most proud of this disconnect, not me.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

“If the Supreme Court … meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” - Williams v. Maryland

Until SCOTUS rules otherwise, "most notably in the home" in the language of law means "exclusively in the home" in plain English.

Don't argue with me, take it up with your local (highly trained and super intelligent past mere mortals) lawyer and ask them why the language of the law often has the opposite meaning in plain English. They're the ones most proud of this disconnect, not me.

It is not the lawyers, it is the judges who disagree with a Supreme Court decision saying, "I think you got it wrong, and I'm not going there unless you expressly order me to go there. I will use any and all devices to ignore the intent of the opinion by limiting it to its facts." A classic example is that Ninth Circuit case about the SF "carry or lock it up" ordinance that went as close as it could to the express line drawn by Heller without crossing it, because the Ninth doesn't think that mere plebs should possess guns. The Ninth did it again in Peruta and again in Young v. Hawaii. Their excuse is, in essence, the express holdings in Heller and McDonald apply only to possession of workable firearms in the home, and no matter how broad Scalia's reasoning was, we will limit all gun rights to in the home until ordered otherwise. Since they'd gotten away with it twice, in Young they slapped Scalia's ghost in the face and threw down the gauntlet.

[press1280]

The beauty of it is that there are no parties in NYSRPA arguing for CA9's logic in Young. The court can pretty much rule the right extends outside the home and just decide on the good cause requirement which should be a pretty easy call since the few times a similar issue has come up (abortion or protest permit) SCOTUS has knocked it down.

[morrcarr67]

This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

I was referencing the word "bestow", defined as "to convey as a gift".

My apologies for the ambiguity of my concern.

Bestow can and does have varying meaning.

be·stow
/bəˈstō/

verb
verb: bestow; 3rd person present: bestows; past tense: bestowed; past participle: bestowed; gerund or present participle: bestowing

confer or present (an honor, right, or gift).

con·fer
/kənˈfər/

verb
verb: confer; 3rd person present: confers; past tense: conferred; past participle: conferred; gerund or present participle: conferring

1.
grant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right).

grant
/ɡrant/

verb
verb: grant; 3rd person present: grants; past tense: granted; past participle: granted; gerund or present participle: granting

1.
agree to give or allow (something requested) to.
2.
agree or admit to (someone) that (something) is true.

So, when you're reading this quote

This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.

I would say that they are saying and agreeing that the Second Amendment is an Individual's right to bear arms.

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by morrcarr67

Bestow can and does have varying meaning.

be·stow
/bəˈstō/

verb
verb: bestow; 3rd person present: bestows; past tense: bestowed; past participle: bestowed; gerund or present participle: bestowing

confer or present (an honor, right, or gift).

con·fer
/kənˈfər/

verb
verb: confer; 3rd person present: confers; past tense: conferred; past participle: conferred; gerund or present participle: conferring

1.
grant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right).

grant
/ɡrant/

verb
verb: grant; 3rd person present: grants; past tense: granted; past participle: granted; gerund or present participle: granting

1.
agree to give or allow (something requested) to.
2.
agree or admit to (someone) that (something) is true.

So, when you're reading this quote

I would say that they are saying and agreeing that the Second Amendment is an Individual's right to bear arms.

Imagine you are a lawyer. And your job is to clearly, and unambiguously persuade a court. Why would you use word that is, at best, ambiguous?

Moreover, your analysis is ridiculous. Let us substitute the least horrible definition of bestow (agree that (something) is true) for bestow in the quote:

This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment agrees that it is true that an individual has a right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.

The Second Amendment does not agree to anything. It limits the Federal Government's (and states by incorporation) power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. In your translation, you changed who was bestowing from the Second Amendment to the Court. I understand we don't like criticizing people doing important work. I respect that the attorney is doing this pro bono. I am not one of the cheerleaders that believes only the right people should bring these suits.

With all that being said, why are you trying to defend the indefensible? The quoted statement is clearly at odds with what the Court wrote (a pre-existing right) and what the Second Amendment plainly states. If the attorney had asked any of the many attorneys who specialize in 2A work or even the many more attorneys who are interested in the subject, he would have been advised to revise that statement. Such lawyers passionately want this lawsuit to succeed. Asking for help is one of the advantages to working with other lawyers and one of the disadvantages of being a solo.

[morrcarr67]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

Imagine you are a lawyer. And your job is to clearly, and unambiguously persuade a court. Why would you use word that is, at best, ambiguous?

Moreover, your analysis is ridiculous. Let us substitute the least horrible definition of bestow (agree that (something) is true) for bestow in the quote:


The Second Amendment does not agree to anything. It limits the Federal Government's (and states by incorporation) power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. In your translation, you changed who was bestowing from the Second Amendment to the Court. I understand we don't like criticizing people doing important work. I respect that the attorney is doing this pro bono. I am not one of the cheerleaders that believes only the right people should bring these suits.

With all that being said, why are you trying to defend the indefensible? The quoted statement is clearly at odds with what the Court wrote (a pre-existing right) and what the Second Amendment plainly states. If the attorney had asked any of the many attorneys who specialize in 2A work or even the many more attorneys who are interested in the subject, he would have been advised to revise that statement. Such lawyers passionately want this lawsuit to succeed. Asking for help is one of the advantages to working with other lawyers and one of the disadvantages of being a solo.

Be careful driving, it appears that shinny things get you going all over the place.

I was responding to your concern of ONE word, bestow.

As I mentioned that word; as do many, have different meanings. One is the meaning that has you concerned. Another is the meaning that I shared.

You are free to be concerned about anything you'd like to be concerned about. As you are free to use any definition of the word you want.

But take a look back at this thread and I bet that you'll be the only one that's using that definition and has that concern.

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by morrcarr67

Be careful driving, it appears that shinny things get you going all over the place.

I was responding to your concern of ONE word, bestow.

As I mentioned that word; as do many, have different meanings. One is the meaning that has you concerned. Another is the meaning that I shared.

You are free to be concerned about anything you'd like to be concerned about. As you are free to use any definition of the word you want.

But take a look back at this thread and I bet that you'll be the only one that's using that definition and has that concern.

Thank you for substantive and persuasive response.

[curtisfong]

FWIW I agree "bestow" is a problematic choice.

[pacrat]

Neither Alan Beck [wolfwood], or Stephen Stamboulieh are litigation virgins. Both are long time 2A gladiators in the National legal arena. They have taken on, and won, several 2A cases that the big orgs saw as unworthy. And now they jumped into the fray of a citizen's pro se case against Hawaii, and they are knocking on SCOTUS's door, in 9 yrs since June of 2012.

...........

As morrcarr67 pointed out "bestow" is not a single definition word. In retrospect, hindsight is closer to 20-20. Would using "AFFIRMS" rather than "bestows" possibly been a more concise choice?

Maybe, then again, I think/hope SCOTUS is ripe for a strong 2A finding, after decades of judicial abuse. And are intelligent enough to pick the right damn meaning for the purpose.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by pacrat

And are intelligent enough to pick the right damn meaning for the purpose.

The only reason to deliberately use "bestow" instead of "affirm" is if you are worried judges might feel "affirm" is too emasculating and/or threatening to the courts' authority and sense of self importance.

They certainly generally seem they not only interpret the Bill of Rights, but quite literally mete it out in limited quantities to the people as if they were doing a grand favor, and owe us nothing.

See also jury nullification.

There are some things judges hate to be called out on. One of them is to suggest that they are subject to something other than their own unilateral authority.

No, it is safer to pretend that we all agree that all rights are granted (akin more to a privilege that one has to grovel for) by judges, at their sole discretion, and nobody else.

We see this attitude in everything judges in the 9th do with regards to the 2A.

So yes, it is best to bow meekly before them, and ask "please, grant me my rights, but only if you see fit to". You are not allowed to ever demand anything from a court. Certainly telling them that they're only there to affirm a *preexisting* right, not created by the courts, is an insult and will doom your case.

[pacrat]

We see this attitude in everything judges in the 9th do with regards to the 2A.

Comparing Oranges to Road Apples. With the 9th Circus being the latter. Because the majority in the Circus are still Leftist Agenda Driven Hubris infused Turds. Even after Mr Trump's efforts.

I have hopes that the NEW SCOTUS is a vast Judiciary improvement over the Left Coast's Leftist Court.

I also have a lot of respect for the work Mr Beck has done in the 2A arena. To the point that, I would like to see an emoticon like this listed among the CG smilies with "wolfwoods" face. That would be a fitting tribute to "our own CG 2A defender".

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

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



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

[Paladin]

[stoogescv]

I'm with you Brother Paladin. Supreme Court watching is a lot like fishing. Little action .... wait, wait, wait ... wait wait wait ... wait wait wait .. little action ... wait wait wait... wait wait wait ... little action ... wait wait wait ... wait wait wait ... wait wait wait

[Paladin]

Sounds a lot like marriage….

[ShadowGuy]

I know it is a lot like reading tea leaves, but until we see some orders, transcripts or opinions, there is not much to go on.

How about this for timing. Young and a group of other 2A cases go to 9/27 conference, 3 days later Sotomayer is quoted in speaking to the ABA:

But the point is, there are going to be a lot of things you don't like

I concede, she is probably more concerned about abortion than gun rights, but the volume of 2A cases coming her way help to support the "alot" in her comment. Lets hope Kavanaugh stays healthy enough to keep working.

[menancyandsam]

That speech was given in front of want a be lawyers. Most likely to fortify them against "bad" decisions that they will encounter in their careers.

[Paladin]

15 hours….

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Paladin

15 hours….

And then the waiting begins for the next;

[Paladin]

For those CGN members who think SCOTUS in Heller declared a right to carry, either generally or specifically as OC and/or CC, this quote from J. Thomas’ denial of cert dissent in Peruta (also signed by Gorsuch), shows they don’t agree with you.

From II, B carry over sentence at bottom of p. 4:

This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) …

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf

Thomas does not say they held there was a RBA in Heller, much less a Right to OC specifically. Just that Heller “suggested” the 2A protects a RBA in “some fashion.” IOW Thomas is saying their dicta only suggested a RBA in public.

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by Paladin

For those CGN members who think SCOTUS in Heller declared a right to carry, either generally or specifically as OC and/or CC, this quote from J. Thomas’ denial of cert dissent in Peruta (also signed by Gorsuch), shows they don’t agree with you.

From II, B carry over sentence at bottom of p. 4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf

Thomas does not say they held there was a RBA in Heller, much less a Right to OC specifically. Just that Heller “suggested” the 2A protects a RBA in “some fashion.” IOW Thomas is saying their dicta only suggested a RBA in public.

Are you trying to counter Charles Nichol's extensive quotes by Thomas and Alito from DC v. Heller and MacDonald v. Chicago posted over on Facebook - here on Calgun's as though you'll be successful?

If so...it's kinda weird.

When you don't have an enforcement mechanism everything you publish - though authoritatively - is a suggestion.

DC v. Heller referenced dozens of 18th / 19th century cases for which convictions were overturned - and nothing stopped numerous states affected from keeping the questioned laws in place or putting the same in place later.

It's called politics.

Courts are NOT your saviors.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by Paladin

For those CGN members who think SCOTUS in Heller declared a right to carry, either generally or specifically as OC and/or CC, this quote from J. Thomas’ denial of cert dissent in Peruta (also signed by Gorsuch), shows they don’t agree with you.

From II, B carry over sentence at bottom of p. 4:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf

Thomas does not say they held there was a RBA in Heller, much less a Right to OC specifically. Just that Heller “suggested” the 2A protects a RBA in “some fashion.” IOW Thomas is saying their dicta only suggested a RBA in public.

So, the dissent quotes the majority and then backs it up with citation to a second case saying that to bear means to wear, carry, etc. and yet you believe the court didn't say it? That they only "suggested" it?

If so, then why the secondary cite in Heller to a previous case which says the same?


Or do you believe that when the court repeats itself, even in dicta, it means nothing at all?

And how does that square with Scalia saying that the 2a isn't meant for carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen? Adding all of those facts together should make you think about what the court is really telling you. Although I did encounter a judge once that told me in a similar situation that "that's not what the court said!!!!" At which time I pointed out to the judge his statement means that Sherlock Holmes could never have solved a single case if he relied on such a premise.

We take immutable facts, string them together, and come to the inescapable conclusion they lead us to. In this case, Heller did indeed say that you have a RTB. It didn't just come out and spoon feed us with those specific words in one sentence for everyone to quote unthinkingly. Probably because they assume (probably wrongfully) that we're intelligent beings who can rationalize our way through an argument with the facts we're given.

I liken this to a word problem: You have a pasture 1 acre square and you want to fence it in, how many feet of fencing do you need to go around the pasture?

The answer most people come up with? Take the bus to go around the pasture, there's even a schedule to tell you when the bus will be there so you don't have to wait for a long time.

Or, the CG version: What fence? Nobody said nuttin' 'bout no fence, they were asking for a referral to a contractor.

[kuug]

Young v Hawaii was not among the cases denied cert this morning on the orders list. Oddly enough, Russel v New Jersey was. Russel was the same issue as the case already granted cert, NYSRPA v Bruen.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...21zor_5357.pdf

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by kuug

Young v Hawaii was not among the cases denied cert this morning on the orders list. Oddly enough, Russel v New Jersey was. Russel was the same issue as the case already granted cert, NYSRPA v Bruen.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...21zor_5357.pdf

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by kuug

Young v Hawaii was not among the cases denied cert this morning on the orders list. Oddly enough, Russel v New Jersey was. Russel was the same issue as the case already granted cert, NYSRPA v Bruen.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...21zor_5357.pdf

This makes me think NYSRPA v Bruen is going down. If not, then why didn't the Supremes just hold Russel?

[mrrabbit]

Originally Posted by rplaw

This makes me think NYSRPA v Bruen is going down. If not, then why didn't the Supremes just hold Russel?

Perhaps because it was straight up a CCW case as presented by Petitioner and Respondent alike?

Unlike Bruen which was a "Right to Carry" case as presented by Petitioner, called a CCW case by Respondent, and reworded likewise when taken up on cert by SCOTUS?

Distinctions are important.

=8-|

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Perhaps because it was straight up a CCW case as presented by Petitioner and Respondent alike?

Unlike Bruen which was a "Right to Carry" case as presented by Petitioner, called a CCW case by Respondent, and reworded likewise when taken up on cert by SCOTUS?

Distinctions are important.

=8-|

"Right to Carry" would also include CCW as a basic premise until specifically excluded by the court being asked to hear the matter. At this point SCOTUS has not decided this particular issue. They've refused to hear it but that doesn't mean it's not included in "Right to Carry."

However, rewording a "Right to Carry" case as a CCW case then denying Cert to following CCW cases instead of holding them would indicate... what?