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

[sfpcservice]

The anti's are going to have to weigh this carefully. They will probably loose the 9th, if they appeal they will probably loose the country. We are in a good time.

[Paladin]

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you take the position that greater access to what is considered or treated as a "privilege" that can be restricted or rescinded at any time "winning"?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

Yes. Don't confuse "winning" with having "won."

Since 1986 more and more states switched to "Shall Issue" for permission slips from the Nanny State to CCW. Similarly, within CA we're gaining territory and getting more CAians issued CCWs. In both cases, we are advancing and the antis are retreating. I don't consider that to be losing or a stalemate. "Shall Issue" permission slips prepared those states for eventually considering ConCarry. No state went directly from "No Issue" or "May Issue" to ConCarry.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by Blade Gunner

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

Roberts was not the problem as far as we know. It was Kennedy holding up cert of cases and Roberts did not want to risk losing an important case.

[Blade Gunner]

Originally Posted by kuug

Roberts was not the problem as far as we know. It was Kennedy holding up cert of cases and Roberts did not want to risk losing an important case.

Roberts has not been as reliable as thought. Remember he was the swing vote to uphold Obama Care as constitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[krucam]

Great news coming from CA9! Congrats to Wolfwood...

https://www.mdshooters.com/showpost....5&postcount=48

[Syntax Error]

Looks like the Plaintiffs won at the 9th Circuit 3-judge panel? Congrats to the plaintiffs. Expect the 9th to take the case up en-banc and screw us all like they did for Peruta. Could be a case that's fast-tracked to SCOTUS if we're lucky with Kavanaugh in the bench by then.


U.S. appeals court: Constitution gives right to carry gun in public

[Drivedabizness]

Great job Wolfwood!

And nice to see federal judges calling each other out on judicial malfeasance!

[sfpcservice]

Can I open carrying in California now??? I'm about to head out the door! ��

[ceedubG]

So what effect does this have on the Nichols case?

[Syntax Error]

Originally Posted by kuug

Roberts was not the problem as far as we know. It was Kennedy holding up cert of cases and Roberts did not want to risk losing an important case.

We're not 100% if it was Kennedy or Roberts being a squish on granting cert for 2A cases like Peruta which was denied cert. We know that Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas are likely gonna vote in our favor because they have all concurred with dissents on cert denials for 2A cases in the recent past, especially Gorsuch and Thomas with Peruta. Read their dissent on denial of cert for Peruta here - "The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

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


We will see if Roberts was the dissenting voice in granting cert if there are any 2A appeals in the docket and they deny cert for any one of them. It takes four votes to grant a case for cert. The conservatives on the bench do not want to take up a case if they feel like they don't have the majority of votes to rule favorably. I personally am not comfortable taking up an AWB case in front of SCOTUS even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, I feel like Roberts would be a squish, like he was on the Obamacare case. To be ultra-safe, best wait until RBG is replaced, but who knows when that will be. I do feel however that once Kavanaugh is confirmed, the time is ripe for a CCW case to finally be resolved in our favor in front of SCOTUS. It's about time.

[sfpcservice]

The anti's have a really tough choice now, take this loss or appeal and risk loosing the entire country in our new SCOTUS.

[sfpcservice]

I need wolfwood to explain how this affects us in CA regarding the loaded ban and the CA gun free school zone 1000' bubble...

Are those hurdles still remaining in CA?

[wolfwood]

I'll try and type something up later today. I am in NY for work so I am a little busy right now.

[HarryS]

Congratulations to Wolfwood and to Justice O'Scannlain!

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I'll try and type something up later today. I am in NY for work so I am a little busy right now.

Thanks again, and congrats!

[WingDings]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I'll try and type something up later today. I am in NY for work so I am a little busy right now.

Nice work!

[ritter]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

I'll try and type something up later today. I am in NY for work so I am a little busy right now.

Excellent work and reward for your efforts! Understanding the war is not over, thanks for this victory.

[Elgatodeacero]

Good opinion, great work by Wolfwood.

I expect Nichols to be held/stayed until after en banc shenanigans and cert petition by one or both parties.

Don’t open carry based on this decision yet, but maybe order that new gun belt and holster?!

[glockmen17]

How will this affect those of us behind enemy lines?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33502...t-hank-berrien

[Kukuforguns]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

I need wolfwood to explain how this affects us in CA regarding the loaded ban and the CA gun free school zone 1000' bubble...

Are those hurdles still remaining in CA?

Wolfwood's victory (WELL DONE!) has no immediate effect on the validity of California's regulatory scheme regarding public carriage of firearms. It applies to HI laws.

Moreover, the 9th Circuit has not actually held that HI's laws are invalidated as that question was not before the 9th Circuit (the 9th Circuit did explain that HI's laws are inconsistent with the 2d Amendment). The Young appeal arose from an order granting the County's motion to dismiss Young's action. The 9th Circuit reversed the trial court's order because the 2d Amendment does protect the right to carry guns in public (the District Court took the contrary view when granting the County's motion to dismiss). This is demonstrated by the second to last sentence of the opinion: "Young has indeed stated a claim that section 134-9’s limitations on the issuance of open carry licenses violate the Second Amendment."

The case will now proceed to the District Court (or it could go en banc) which will likely have to consider a motion for summary judgment by Young. While the opinion is technically limited to the issue of whether Young stated a claim, the 9th Circuit's opinion strongly points the way for the District Court ("REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion").

Moreover, the 9th Circuit's opinion does not criticize in any fashion a government's right to prohibit carriage of weapons in "sensitive" places. Whether the 1000' bubble around schools is a "sensitive" place is not addressed by the opinion.

In short, Wolfwood and his client have secured an important victory in the battle for open carriage. The war is not over though.

[Elgatodeacero]

“The war is not over though.”

True, but the Allies have successfully taken Normandy and the enemy is in retreat.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

Nice job, Alan. Congratulations.

[mit31]

See the thread literally right above yours: Young V. Hawaii

Originally Posted by glockmen17

How will this affect those of us behind enemy lines?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33502...t-hank-berrien

[CCWFacts]

Good job Wolfwood!

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

The anti's have a really tough choice now, take this loss or appeal and risk loosing the entire country in our new SCOTUS.

It's really not a tough choice. They will not appeal, for the same reason DC didn't appeal. Whatever logic DC had for not appealing, we have the same logic here, but more so, with Kennedy's replacement happening in the near term, and RBG possibly leaving the court any time, and now with a solid circuit split on concealed carry.

Will they go for en banc? They might but game theory says that's all risk. I don't think they will.

[BennyAdeline]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Good job Wolfwood!



It's really not a tough choice. They will not appeal, for the same reason DC didn't appeal. Whatever logic DC had for not appealing, we have the same logic here, but more so, with Kennedy's replacement happening in the near term, and RBG possibly leaving the court any time, and now with a solid circuit split on concealed carry.

Will they go for en banc? They might but game theory says that's all risk. I don't think they will.

Great analysis! Here’s hoping!

When should I order some rentention holsters?

[kuug]

It's very important to note that the majority does not seem to say specifically about a right to open carry, but that generally "the Second Amendment does
protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense."

Hopefully the Kavanaugh nomination scares the 9th circuit from going en banc. I want this to be in place soon so we can sue California and Sheriff Gore again.

[stix213]

Anyone have a link to the text that came out of the 9th?

edit: nevermind, its in the mdshooters link

[AdamVIP]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Good job Wolfwood!



It's really not a tough choice. They will not appeal, for the same reason DC didn't appeal. Whatever logic DC had for not appealing, we have the same logic here, but more so, with Kennedy's replacement happening in the near term, and RBG possibly leaving the court any time, and now with a solid circuit split on concealed carry.

Will they go for en banc? They might but game theory says that's all risk. I don't think they will.

The logic for DC was Los Angeles and NYC. This new ruling may take LA out of the equation but there's still a lot of political clout in NYC that want to keep their ban in place.

[stix213]

The opinion says that to bear arms is a core right protected by the 2A on the same level as to keep.

Originally Posted by 9th opinion

In sum, we reject a cramped reading of the Second Amendment that renders to “keep” and to “bear” unequal guarantees. Heller and McDonald describe the core purpose of the Second Amendment as self-defense, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 599; McDonald, 561 U.S. at 787, and “bear” effectuates such core purpose of self-defense in public. We are persuaded, therefore, that the right to carry a firearm openly for self-defense falls within the core of the Second Amendment. B

I don't see where it says what level of scrutiny they consider the bearing of arms, but the opinion basically says Young wins on Intermediate scrutiny regardless (the last few pages are a bludgeoning of the dissent's incorrect application of Intermediate scrutiny).

[glockmen17]

Originally Posted by mit31

See the thread literally right above this: Young V. Hawaii

Ware?

[wireless]

That opinion was excellent.

If I was the left I’d be very concerned. There is a circuit split on carry, a new conservative judge most likely, and this case is an open carry case. No way gettingn around concealed carry BS argument.

[Syntax Error]

Can CA plaintiffs sue over our CCW laws and have standing with this 9th circuit ruling cited as precedential, or do we have to wait for final judgment from the lower district court if the district court's judgment has been remanded back to the lower court?

[njineermike]

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Can CA plaintiffs sue over our CCW laws and have standing with this 9th circuit ruling cited as precedential, or do we have to wait for final judgment from the lower district court if the district court's judgment has been remanded back to the lower court?

If this holds, does it also nullify open carry bans?

[press1280]

Originally Posted by ceedubG

So what effect does this have on the Nichols case?

Nichols wins, unless the 9th goes en banc which is entirely possible.

[Mr. Snuffalupagus]

Originally Posted by Kukuforguns

Wolfwood's victory (WELL DONE!) has no immediate effect on the validity of California's regulatory scheme regarding public carriage of firearms. It applies to HI laws.

Moreover, the 9th Circuit has not actually held that HI's laws are invalidated as that question was not before the 9th Circuit (the 9th Circuit did explain that HI's laws are inconsistent with the 2d Amendment). The Young appeal arose from an order granting the County's motion to dismiss Young's action. The 9th Circuit reversed the trial court's order because the 2d Amendment does protect the right to carry guns in public (the District Court took the contrary view when granting the County's motion to dismiss). This is demonstrated by the second to last sentence of the opinion: "Young has indeed stated a claim that section 134-9’s limitations on the issuance of open carry licenses violate the Second Amendment."

The case will now proceed to the District Court (or it could go en banc) which will likely have to consider a motion for summary judgment by Young. While the opinion is technically limited to the issue of whether Young stated a claim, the 9th Circuit's opinion strongly points the way for the District Court ("REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion").

Moreover, the 9th Circuit's opinion does not criticize in any fashion a government's right to prohibit carriage of weapons in "sensitive" places. Whether the 1000' bubble around schools is a "sensitive" place is not addressed by the opinion.

In short, Wolfwood and his client have secured an important victory in the battle for open carriage. The war is not over though.

As a Hawaii Resident what does this mean for me?

Do I have to obtain a permit for Open carry? or is that right mine without needing to get Maui PD's blessing?

what do I do if I go into the Maui county Police station and ask for an Open carry permit application and they tell me to take a hike? (like they do when I ask for a concealed carry application?)

[press1280]

Originally Posted by njineermike

If this holds, does it also nullify open carry bans?

It only nullifies OC bans, no effect on CCW other than the county sheriffs may change their issuance policies to steer people away from OC.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Good job Wolfwood!



It's really not a tough choice. They will not appeal, for the same reason DC didn't appeal [Wrenn]. Whatever logic DC had for not appealing, we have the same logic here, but more so, with Kennedy's replacement happening in the near term, and RBG possibly leaving the court any time, and now with a solid circuit split on concealed carry.

Will they go for en banc? They might but game theory says that's all risk. I don't think they will.

and IL didn't appeal Moore....

But for now,

Two glasses of wine with dinner tonight!

Congrats & thanks, wolfwood!

[wireless]

Originally Posted by Mr. Snuffalupagus

As a Hawaii Resident what does this mean for me?

Do I have to obtain a permit for Open carry? or is that right mine without needing to get Maui PD's blessing?

what do I do if I go into the Maui county Police station and ask for an Open carry permit application and they tell me to take a hike? (like they do when I ask for a concealed carry application?)

They won’t issue permits until the possible en banc vote is voted down. I don’t know if this is technically legal but it seems to be widely accepted.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by Mr. Snuffalupagus

Do I have to obtain a permit for Open carry?

Young has indeed stated a claim that section 134-9’s limitations on the issuance of open carry licenses violate the Second Amendment.

They have ruled the restrictions on obtaining a license violates 2A, not the requirement of a license itself. As I read it, you still need to obtain a license

Originally Posted by Mr. Snuffalupagus

what do I do if I go into the Maui county Police station and ask for an Open carry permit application and they tell me to take a hike? (like they do when I ask for a concealed carry application?)

I would print out the opinion (if necessary) and show them the highlighted portion above so they knew they were violating a lawful court order (again, assuming the decision isn't stayed)

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Mr. Snuffalupagus

As a Hawaii Resident what does this mean for me?

Do I have to obtain a permit for Open carry? or is that right mine without needing to get Maui PD's blessing?

what do I do if I go into the Maui county Police station and ask for an Open carry permit application and they tell me to take a hike? (like they do when I ask for a concealed carry application?)

The permit itself was not ruled upon from my read, so you'll still have to get one, although they can't deny for lack of cause.
They'd be really stupid to tell you to take a hike at this point