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

[press1280]

Originally Posted by rplaw

It's been 5 months since orals. I'd hope at this point you're considering a request to SCOTUS to issue a mandate for the 9th to release it's opinion. This is a Constitutional Right at issue in more than 1 State, what with Nichols also being stayed pending Young, and a Right delayed is a Right denied. Which is the whole point of both suits.

I don't know as I'd file such a request yet but I'd have it drafted and pending for filing after the summer break.

Might be an interesting idea for Nichols to file it instead of Young. Nichols has been pending longer overall I believe and his case has been stayed twice now. The question in his particular case is at what point does the repetitive delay become an abrogation or denial of his right to justice as well as a continued denial of his Constitutional Rights.

Nowhere near time for that. Look at how long the Peruta opinions took. The 9th has sat on cases for years in some instances.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

Nowhere near time for that. Look at how long the Peruta opinions took. The 9th has sat on cases for years in some instances.

Word.

What was it, Palmer, in Wash DC, that took something like 4 years and 2 requests by Gura to SCOTUS/Roberts to get them to rule?

FWIW, personally I'm expecting it sometime between Aug 01 and Feb 01. If it's sooner than that, great. If it's later than that it will be disappointing, but not surprising (and no where near the time to bug SCOTUS over it).

JMO

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Young is a pro bono project. As such, I don't have time to take away from my normal practice for added motion practice.

Thanks for what you do! 👍

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Word.

What was it, Palmer, in Wash DC, that took something like 4 years and 2 requests by Gura to SCOTUS/Roberts to get them to rule?

FWIW, personally I'm expecting it sometime between Aug 01 and Feb 01. If it's sooner than that, great. If it's later than that it will be disappointing, but not surprising (and no where near the time to bug SCOTUS over it).

JMO

Correct, and the motion was denied at that.

So if 4 years isn't too long, 5 months won't be.

[marcusrn]

Go Wolfwood, long live the Republic!

[gumby]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

Go Wolfwood, long live the Republic!

Likewise! And Wolfwood, a big thank you sir!

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by press1280

Correct, and the motion was denied at that.

So if 4 years isn't too long, 5 months won't be.

The problem, as I see it, is that Nichols filed his suit in November 2011. At what point can he legitimately complain that he hasn't had fair treatment or justice? 4 years? Already been there. 6 years? Yep, passed that mark too.

For Nichols, it's been nearly 8 years. And the court is still sitting on it's hands in his case. Now there's Young and it's been 5 months since Nichols had oral arguments and not a peep from the 9th.

Does Nichols have to wait ANOTHER 1-5 years for a decision?

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by press1280

Correct, and the motion was denied at that.

So if 4 years isn't too long, 5 months won't be.

The problem, as I see it, is that Nichols filed his suit in November 2011. At what point can he legitimately complain that he hasn't had fair treatment or justice? 4 years? Already been there. 6 years? Yep, passed that mark too.

For Nichols, it's been nearly 8 years. And the court is still sitting on it's hands in his case. Now there's Young and it's been 5 months since Nichols had oral arguments and not a peep from the 9th.

Does Nichols have to wait ANOTHER 1-5 years for the courts to finally make a decision? I'd say he has a right to petition for a Writ of Mandate after SCOTUS' summer break.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by rplaw

The problem, as I see it, is that Nichols filed his suit in November 2011. At what point can he legitimately complain that he hasn't had fair treatment or justice? 4 years? Already been there. 6 years? Yep, passed that mark too.

For Nichols, it's been nearly 8 years. And the court is still sitting on it's hands in his case. Now there's Young and it's been 5 months since Nichols had oral arguments and not a peep from the 9th.

Does Nichols have to wait ANOTHER 1-5 years for the courts to finally make a decision? I'd say he has a right to petition for a Writ of Mandate after SCOTUS' summer break.

Now you're seeing why it is and was foolish "to put all your [Carry] eggs in [the federal court] basket."

Instead of pursuing political, and then judicial, and then back to political, and then ... we should have been pursuing both at the same time at whatever level we have an opening. The problem is everyone wants "progress" (that directly benefits them) but they don't want to work for it. They want someone else to do it for them. Sorry. Life just doesn't work that way.... And you can't wait until there's an opening to organize a group and start fighting, you've got to "Be Prepared!" ahead of time so that when the opening comes, you're up and ready to exploit it. Which brings up another grip: gunnies aren't willing to work for small gains, let's say taking a county from light red to yellow, because they still won't be able to get a CCW under it. They are too inpatient, too self-centered and short sighted to see that they are now halfway to light green where many of them can get CCWs.

Despite our foolish strategy, we HAVE made SIGNIFICANT gains in CA in re. to CCWing, as seen by these two maps. The first one was and is, IMO, mistaken in having San Mateo and San Joaquin light green: they probably were light red, or yellow at best. (Only Gene H. and Gray or Brandon citing/quoting Gene said SM was light green. No other posters from 2010 to 2014 Feb 13 (date of the CA9 3-judge opinion in Peruta), said they were light green.) If you want to see what it was like in early 2010 and before, make Sac dark red rather than dark green. (Sac was our first major win.)



So, now that you have that image in your mind as to what things were like in 2009 -- the coast from Sonoma and the SFBA to the Mexican border was one unbroken chain of anti counties --and look at the current map to see all the progress we have made. We're getting down to the "last holdout" anti counties in CA.

We are winning in CA! Start or keep fighting. Don't wait for the courts.

[marcusrn]

You have to love these cops talking out their arses. We have all experienced this arrogance. Great job getting it on camera! I wish I had taped some of the treatment I got at SDSO lic div in past. That's what's so great about Big ED Peruta in that he did tape all the staff at SD in 2009 and their heads exploded. He put it on his webpage and shared it with all. No one had ever really called bullshaet as loudly and openly as Peruta.

[sfpcservice]

I always wondered why imperial county is no issue... Seem pretty rural to me.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

I always wondered why imperial county is no issue... Seem pretty rural to me.

Because demographics matters.

Originally Posted by wiki

Hispanic or Latino of any race were 140,271 persons (80.4%)

I found a census source that put it at 85% Hispanic. It's basically Mexico and Mexico is a collectivist society with no concept of gun rights or other individual rights. It's the same reason why California went from a Republican-leaning state of Reagan to a state that no Republican will ever win again. The last time a Republican won in Imperial County was in 1988. I couldn't find demographic data from back then but I assume that was the last time Imperial had enough white voters

Imperial is the most Hispanic county in California.

Uncontrolled immigration will turn the rest of California into Imperial County and the rest of the US into California.

[marcusrn]

The reason we had CA. CCW law in circa 1920 was in large part to restrict mexican and chinese from carrying firearms. See arguments at that time.

[Kukuforguns]

Hey Wolfwood. It's looking like Young v. Hawaii has the right timing to be one of the first petitions to SCOTUS after the new justice is confirmed.

No pressure.

[HarryS]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

The reason we had CA. CCW law in circa 1920 was in large part to restrict mexican and chinese from carrying firearms. See arguments at that time.

Now they include everyone outside of the very wealthy and government apparatchiks.

They had to. Otherwise, the racist and classist reasons for the original laws would have been overturned and then even blacks could carry.

Can't have that. The progressive mentality can't allow it.

[kuug]

Question: How common is it for en banc panels to overturn a unanimous three judge panel?

[pistol3]

Originally Posted by kuug

Question: How common is it for en banc panels to overturn a unanimous three judge panel?

Unanimous? I don't know, but they went en banc with Peruta to prevent CA from becoming shall issue. However, their calculus may change with respect to 2A cases after Kennedy is replaced. They may prefer to have a pro-2A ruling stand in CA, rather than overturning it and risk SCOTUS taking up the case.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by kuug

Question: How common is it for en banc panels to overturn a unanimous three judge panel?

Kuug,

In every other circuit, it's fairly common for an en banc panel to overturn a panel decision. It's not difficult to understand the reasons for this. A majority of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals must vote in favor of rehearing the case en banc. That infers that a majority of those judges disagreed with the panel decision. Assuming that no (or not enough) of those judges change their view as a result of the re-hearing, their votes would be expected to remain the same.

The Ninth Circuit is a little different. Because of the large size of the court, they do not hold en banc rehearing in the traditional manner where all judges of the court participate. The Ninth Circuit uses an eleven judge panel to hear en banc cases. If a majority of those eleven were satisfied with the original holding, and remain unpersuaded after the rehearing, then the decision stands, even though a majority voted for the rehearing.

[BryMan92]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Kuug,

In every other circuit, it's fairly common for an en banc panel to overturn a panel decision. It's not difficult to understand the reasons for this. A majority of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals must vote in favor of rehearing the case en banc. That infers that a majority of those judges disagreed with the panel decision. Assuming that no (or not enough) of those judges change their view as a result of the re-hearing, their votes would be expected to remain the same.

The Ninth Circuit is a little different. Because of the large size of the court, they do not hold en banc rehearing in the traditional manner where all judges of the court participate. The Ninth Circuit uses an eleven judge panel to hear en banc cases. If a majority of those eleven were satisfied with the original holding, and remain unpersuaded after the rehearing, then the decision stands, even though a majority voted for the rehearing.

How is the 11-person panel determined?

[press1280]

Originally Posted by BryMan92

How is the 11-person panel determined?

Random, except for the chief judge.

[sfpcservice]

Seems like a lone wolf would resonate better than all the organizations.

[CAL.BAR]

Originally Posted by TruOil

After Peruta, it is too late for that, unless SCOTUS finally accepts a case for review. The Ninth in Peruta says there is NO second amendment right to carry a concealed weapon, and SCOTUS declined review. I am waiting to see if the Ninth will go all out and declare that there is no second amendment right to bear arms outside the home, and that the right enunciated in Heller is a right only in the home. The other likely alternative, in my view, is a declaration that there is a LIMITED right to carry outside the home SUBJECT TO the power of the state to regulate the bearing of arms in the public interest. If SCOTUS were to deny review of such a holding, the Second is effectively dead in the Ninth, 2d, 3d, and 4th Circuits.

Yep. This new case is already DOA no matter WHAT the 3 judge panel says as it WILL go to the en banc and they WILL take one look at it and say NO WAY (just like in Peruta) and SCOTUS has already ignored THAT case and thus will likely IGNORE this one as well.

[dwinters14]

Originally Posted by CAL.BAR

Yep. This new case is already DOA no matter WHAT the 3 judge panel says as it WILL go to the en banc and they WILL take one look at it and say NO WAY (just like in Peruta) and SCOTUS has already ignored THAT case and thus will likely IGNORE this one as well.

Right, but we're going to have a new conservative majority now. So that will most likely change.

[CAL.BAR]

Originally Posted by dwinters14

Right, but we're going to have a new conservative majority now. So that will most likely change.

Don't count on it. Even when we had a majority under Scalia, SCOTUS only took one or two firearms cases. Historically, SCOTUS takes 1 or 2 every 50-100 years.

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

What exactly is being won?

=8-|

About 10 years ago most of that map was dark red.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Now you're seeing why it is and was foolish "to put all your [Carry] eggs in [the federal court] basket."

Instead of pursuing political, and then judicial, and then back to political, and then ... we should have been pursuing both at the same time at whatever level we have an opening. The problem is everyone wants "progress" (that directly benefits them) but they don't want to work for it. They want someone else to do it for them. Sorry. Life just doesn't work that way.... And you can't wait until there's an opening to organize a group and start fighting, you've got to "Be Prepared!" ahead of time so that when the opening comes, you're up and ready to exploit it. Which brings up another grip: gunnies aren't willing to work for small gains, let's say taking a county from light red to yellow, because they still won't be able to get a CCW under it. They are too inpatient, too self-centered and short sighted to see that they are now halfway to light green where many of them can get CCWs.

Despite our foolish strategy, we HAVE made SIGNIFICANT gains in CA in re. to CCWing, as seen by these two maps. The first one was and is, IMO, mistaken in having San Mateo and San Joaquin light green: they probably were light red, or yellow at best. (Only Gene H. and Gray or Brandon citing/quoting Gene said SM was light green. No other posters from 2010 to 2014 Feb 13 (CA9 3-judge opinion in Peruta), said they were light green.) If you want to see what it was like in early 2010 and before, make Sac dark red rather than dark green. (Sac was our first major win.)



So, now that you have that image in your mind as to what things were like in 2009 -- the coast from Sonoma and the SFBA to the Mexican border was one unbroken chain of anti counties --and look at the current map to see all the progress we have made. We're getting down to the "last holdout" anti counties in CA.

We are winning in CA! Start or keep fighting. Don't wait for the courts.

San Mateo should be dark red.

[dwinters14]

Originally Posted by CAL.BAR

Don't count on it. Even when we had a majority under Scalia, SCOTUS only took one or two firearms cases. Historically, SCOTUS takes 1 or 2 every 50-100 years.

Times were different under Scalia. The dems weren't trying to ban firearms as a whole. I mean I'm being optimistic, but I really can't imagine they're not going to make some vital rulings in the coming years with all the terrible laws that have been passed in liberal states.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

If the 9th follows its own decision in Peruta - which complied with Heller in a cherry picking manner - then a narrow ruling will allow for Hawaii to continue to regulate concealed carry in the manner of a ban or in a may-issue manner.

Is that what you are hoping for?

Or are you hoping for an equal protection angle?

=8-|

I am hoping that the law gets struck as my client wants. He is fine carrying either concealed or openly. Peruta did not rule on open carry. So it is possible that the Ninth says Hawaii's ban on open carry is unconstitutional and to leave it at that. What happens later is a matter for the Hawaii legislature and potentially a subsequent lawsuit.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I am expecting and/or hoping for a narrow ruling on Hawaii's complete ban on handgun carry which won't produce a decision that the liberals will want to take en banc.

And I'm hoping for a unicorn to bring me supermodels who will feed me grapes while I watch today's World Cup game.

You need to get ready for SCOTUS. No time to be posting on CalGuns. #WorkWorkWork

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I am expecting and/or hoping for a narrow ruling on Hawaii's complete ban on handgun carry which won't produce a decision that the liberals will want to take en banc.

1) I expect the opinion in Young will not be released in the near or mid-future
2) I expect the opinion in Nichols to be released before the opinion in Young
3) I think the odds of a narrow victory in Young increased slightly as a result of Kennedy's retirement (I'm sad to believe this)
4) I think the odds of a true victory in Young, even on fairly narrow grounds, are low

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

1) I expect the opinion in Young will not be released in the near or mid-future
2) I expect the opinion in Nichols to be released before the opinion in Young
3) I think the odds of a narrow victory in Young increased slightly as a result of Kennedy's retirement (I'm sad to believe this)
4) I think the odds of a true victory in Young, even on fairly narrow grounds, are low

Nichols was vacated for Young.

[USMCmatt]

So is this going to be a good case in a good position to go to the new SCOTUS and unlock RKBA rights nationally?

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

Nichols was vacated for Young.

Thank you.

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I've got a little money saved up if I need to draft a cert petition. My plan is to try and take a couple weeks off work and just work on the petition. I worked on one opposition to cert a few years ago and those things take time.

Hopefully the gun rights orgs will file amicus briefs but I doubt it. I am pretty sure none of them want a lone wolf up there at the Supreme Court.

If that happens, ask for help here. I'm happy to help however I can.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

If that happens, ask for help here. I'm happy to help however I can.

Me too. And I really hope the major gun rights orgs will help out on this and everyone can put personal feelings aside and work together. This seems like our best case.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

What exactly is being won?

=8-|

More and more CA sheriffs are being "won" over to our side re. issuing CA CCWs!

More and more CA sheriffs, over the years, have tried liberalizing acceptable GC for their counties and NONE (that I can recall, other than OC for a short while), went back to restrictive issuance. Not only do the vast majority of sheriffs (45 out of 58) readily issue CCWs; not only can residents in the vast majority of the state's territory readily get CCWs, but since SDSO/Gore liberalized issuance last fall, for the first time that I know of, a majority of CA's population (53%) lives in counties where they can readily get CCWs. ETA: For the first time EVER, CA should be about to or has recently passed a total of 100,000 CCWers!

We are winning!

An aside to all: I don't usually check court case threads that are only active because of CGNers debating vs actual movement in the case. If you make a post directed to me and I don't reply a week later (trying to just visit on weekends), just PM a link of your question/comment to me and I'll try to reply.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

San Mateo should be dark red.

Rather than taking this Young thread further Off Topic, please PM me to explain why you believe that and what evidence you have to support your belief. Thx!

[phdo]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

If that happens, ask for help here. I'm happy to help however I can.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Me too. And I really hope the major gun rights orgs will help out on this and everyone can put personal feelings aside and work together. This seems like our best case.

I will also chip. PM me when the time comes.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

So, you take the position that greater access to what is considered or treated as a "privilege" that can be restricted or rescinded at any time "winning"?

=8-/

After the last couple years any movement at all that isn't to the left sure feels like winning. It is totally a case of battered "gun owner" syndrome.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by press1280

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7se...ature=youtu.be



Starts at 19:40



I think it went well for us, or another way to put it is VERY bad for Hawaii. Their counsel has basically conceded he can't win unless the panel finds the 2A is home bound. Not to mention he has also admitted to ZERO permits issued in 20 years.

Judges were not buying it.



This is an open carry lawsuit BTW.

Next stop the 9th circus that will uphold the ban, but this time a SCOTUS appeal may actually be certed and won if wishy washy Roberts grows a spine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk