Young v. Hawaii (CA9); Dismissed with predjudice 12-16-22

[SteveH]

He’s going to settle?

[TruOil]

Not sure where you heard that, but it makes sense. He has already won. Indisputably, this County denied him and all similarly situated on the island for lack of good cause. With Bruen holding that there is a right to bear and that good cause cannot be required, Hi. has no basis under its current statute to deny him a license. Assuming that Hi. offers him a license, some modicum of damages for deprivation of his rights, and his attorney's fees, it makes sense to say, "OK, we are done here." He is no spring chicken, after all, and it may take a couple of years and thousands more $$$ to get the case to trial.

[curtisfong]

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1793327

Yakutake v Hawaii is still being litigated. Not sure of the overlap, and not sure what makes this belong in 2A national and not here...

[Sgt Raven]

Originally Posted by f80vm

Is the district court’s jurisdiction the same as the 9th’s? The reason I ask…is it possible that the 9th knowing these cases are losses for the states and that it will have to rule against them, remanding these cases back to the district courts so that once the cases come back to them, they’ll simply refuse to hear it thus limiting the decision to that specific state?

I hope my question makes sense.

Look up 1992 9th Circuit & Death Penalty cases.


SCOTUS Bitch Slapped the 9th & the District Courts, telling them to hear the cases in a timely manner. It sent shock waves thru the legal profession, in how strong the rebuke was.


It was glorious.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by f80vm

Is the district court’s jurisdiction the same as the 9th’s? The reason I ask…is it possible that the 9th knowing these cases are losses for the states and that it will have to rule against them, remanding these cases back to the district courts so that once the cases come back to them, they’ll simply refuse to hear it thus limiting the decision to that specific state?

I hope my question makes sense.

The 9th can't refuse to hear the case.

The only reason these are being sent back to the District Court now is that Bruen changed the whole 2A landscape, and the reasoning behind the district's (and CA9's) recent opinions is now more or less wrong, even though in some cases the final result may be the same as before.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1793327

Yakutake v Hawaii is still being litigated. Not sure of the overlap, and not sure what makes this belong in 2A national and not here...

IDK other than its the same circuit.

Yakutake seems to be challenging the aspects of the registration process, not the carry permit portion.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Not sure where you heard that, but it makes sense. He has already won. Indisputably, this County denied him and all similarly situated on the island for lack of good cause. With Bruen holding that there is a right to bear and that good cause cannot be required, Hi. has no basis under its current statute to deny him a license. Assuming that Hi. offers him a license, some modicum of damages for deprivation of his rights, and his attorney's fees, it makes sense to say, "OK, we are done here." He is no spring chicken, after all, and it may take a couple of years and thousands more $$$ to get the case to trial.

Here's the letter to the judge saying that all parties have agreed to a settlement: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Settlement.pdf
What that settlement looks like is unknown, but likely he got a CCW, as they've updated their standards so that concealed doesn't require "need" anymore, however open carry does still:
https://www.hawaiipolice.com/wp-cont...n-Proce.._.pdf

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

Here's the letter to the judge saying that all parties have agreed to a settlement: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Settlement.pdf
What that settlement looks like is unknown, but likely he got a CCW, as they've updated their standards so that concealed doesn't require "need" anymore, however open carry does still:
https://www.hawaiipolice.com/wp-cont...n-Proce.._.pdf

So has Hawaii County Counsel agreed to the proposed settlement yet?

ETA: IIRC, Flanagan gets going once Young is disposed.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1232726

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

So has Hawaii County Counsel agreed to the proposed settlement yet?

ETA: IIRC, Flanagan gets going once Young is disposed.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1232726

Its now end of the workday for Oct 31. November in the morning! Any word yet on whether a settlement was agreed to and signed by all parties???

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Its now end of the workday for Oct 31. November in the morning! Any word yet on whether a settlement was agreed to and signed by all parties???

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

[Sputnik]

Originally Posted by Paladin

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

Here's the letter to the judge saying that all parties have agreed to a settlement: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...Settlement.pdf
What that settlement looks like is unknown, but likely he got a CCW, as they've updated their standards so that concealed doesn't require "need" anymore, however open carry does still:
https://www.hawaiipolice.com/wp-cont...n-Proce.._.pdf

Less than 3 days until Dec 01. Young was supposed to be settled by Nov 01. Anyone know what happened?

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Less than 3 days until Dec 01. Young was supposed to be settled by Nov 01. Anyone know what happened?

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-l...nt-courtwatch/

According to the Giffords people (sorry it was the only place I could find any additional info) there was supposed to be a status conference at the District Court on November 17th. That's all I have right now.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by press1280

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-l...nt-courtwatch/

According to the Giffords people (sorry it was the only place I could find any additional info) there was supposed to be a status conference at the District Court on November 17th. That's all I have right now.

From their website:
"The gun lobby won’t stop pushing its radical interpretation of the Second Amendment in the courts. But we have common sense and evidence on our side, and we’re not backing down." To which I respond neither are we and we are better armed! True common sense is: No way are we going to allow you to take our guns.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-l...nt-courtwatch/

According to the Giffords people (sorry it was the only place I could find any additional info) there was supposed to be a status conference at the District Court on November 17th. That's all I have right now.

Thx.

Originally Posted by BAJ475

From their website:
"The gun lobby won’t stop pushing its radical interpretation of the Second Amendment in the courts. But we have common sense and evidence on our side, and we’re not backing down." To which I respond neither are we and we are better armed! True common sense is: No way are we going to allow you to take our guns.

Well, sounds like it is still in play. At least we haven’t lost.

[LonghornBob]

Young v. Hawaii is settled.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...04146.89.0.pdf

Don't know what Mr. Young got in the settlement.

I guess that means if you want the courts in the 9th circuit to rule that you can open carry, you are in the good hands of Mr. Nichols.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by LonghornBob

Young v. Hawaii is settled.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...04146.89.0.pdf

Don't know what Mr. Young got in the settlement.

I guess that means if you want the courts in the 9th circuit to rule that you can open carry, you are in the good hands of Mr. Nichols.

Hopefully, when our own 2A attack wolf gets a moment. Who is Mr Young's attorney in this matter, Alan Beck aka [WOLFWOOD] Can drop in and give us a synopsis of the overall outcome.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by LonghornBob

Young v. Hawaii is settled.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...04146.89.0.pdf

Don't know what Mr. Young got in the settlement.

I guess that means if you want the courts in the 9th circuit to rule that you can open carry, you are in the good hands of Mr. Nichols.

He should be getting a CCW. As far as a monetary settlement I don't know if that's something that will be made public, although I would think since the state/local government is on the hook it would be available somehow but IANAL.