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

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by 2ajunkie

When the time comes, don’t be these idiots, no point in open carrying a long rifle.

Not sure, but that may have been after the ban on handgun UOCing, and only long gun UOCing was permitted (although I think those guys were in Texas).

But for us, if things work out well, yeah, don't be those guys....

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

Yeah... aren’t UOC get togethers what got UOC banned? Probably best to stay under the radar with this one.

Yes, because UOCing was a public policy subject to the political branches. They/we were trying to desenitize the public to the carry of handguns. We wanted to get the public on the pro-gun carry side of the issue.

That's why, when I saw the MSM suddenly start talking about us and all using the same words/phrases against us (things flipped over just 1 weekend), I and others said time to stand down or Sacto will shut us down. The "uncompromising" UOCers didn't and when UOCing handguns got banned, some, like Charles Nichols, went to UOCing long guns until that too got banned....

This time we'll have federal court case law declaring a 2nd A constitutional right to do what we do before we do it. N.B.: we may be required to get LOC permits before any meet ups if Sacto responds in a timely fashion.

[2ajunkie]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Yeah that’s Texas

[abinsinia]

I don't think OC permits could be up-held against legit intermediate scrutiny. I mean we have another SCOTUS justice coming who will likely enforce the real requirement on the state. So how exactly does an OC permit prevent crime ? You can conjure up a possible scenario that an OC permit might help, but that rational basis review. They have to prove there is a connection between OC and crime, I don't see that.

[CurlyDave]

Originally Posted by press1280

... If the District court allows it, then I assume the issue comes back up for appeal to the exact same panel?

One problem is that O'Scannlain is 81. If it takes too long to come back, it may not be possible to have the same panel.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

I don't think OC permits could be up-held against legit intermediate scrutiny. I mean we have another SCOTUS justice coming who will likely enforce the real requirement on the state. So how exactly does an OC permit prevent crime ? You can conjure up a possible scenario that an OC permit might help, but that rational basis review. They have to prove there is a connection between OC and crime, I don't see that.

Agreed, except for the last line.

Under intermediate scrutiny, the state has to show that there is a reasonable fit between their law (OC only under our rules) and the compelling interest of the state (public safety, reducing gun violence, whatever).

So if the state had statistics which showed that before their law, OCers were accidentally shooting themselves in the foot 100 times a month (not a crime, but a public safety concern, which is also a legitimate state interest) and after their law, OCers were only shooting themselves in the foot 10 times a month, then the court would take those statistics under consideration.

Maybe the other side can explain those statistics in another light -- "it had nothing to do with the law, your honor, it was the introduction of anti-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot holsters which came onto the market, here we can see that in every case where an OCer shot themselves in the foot, they did NOT have the anti-foot-shoot holster..."

and back and forth it goes, but doesn't necessarily need to be related to crime. A small but important point -- public safety is the death of all civil rights when taken too far.

[Kokopelli]

Originally Posted by 2ajunkie

When the time comes, don’t be these idiots, no point in open carrying a long rifle.

[2ajunkie]

Originally Posted by Kokopelli

We don’t have the same threads as people in Israel

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

Agreed, except for the last line.

Under intermediate scrutiny, the state has to show that there is a reasonable fit between their law (OC only under our rules) and the compelling interest of the state (public safety, reducing gun violence, whatever).

So if the state had statistics which showed that before their law, OCers were accidentally shooting themselves in the foot 100 times a month (not a crime, but a public safety concern, which is also a legitimate state interest) and after their law, OCers were only shooting themselves in the foot 10 times a month, then the court would take those statistics under consideration.

Maybe the other side can explain those statistics in another light -- "it had nothing to do with the law, your honor, it was the introduction of anti-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot holsters which came onto the market, here we can see that in every case where an OCer shot themselves in the foot, they did NOT have the anti-foot-shoot holster..."

and back and forth it goes, but doesn't necessarily need to be related to crime. A small but important point -- public safety is the death of all civil rights when taken too far.

Your just stating something slightly more nuanced that what I stated. Crime or safety , either way there is a burden of proof, and the burden is on the government. They actually have to have substantial statistics, they can't just hand wave and win the case like it currently is in the 9th.

I don't see how OC permits get there. Most people don't OC, when people do they aren't typical committing crimes, and people don't typically get shot. OC is so rare I doubt statistics even exist. I don't know of any incident when someone was specifically open carrying and accidentally shot someone.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Kokopelli

Are they required to keep their mags rubber-banded to their pistol grips, and not allowed to use the sling attachment points on the buttstocks?

[ll-Rafael-ll]

So how much more time are we looking at now till it's legal in CA to open carry at will without a license?

Or ccw without waiting months?

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Your just stating something slightly more nuanced that what I stated. Crime or safety , either way there is a burden of proof, and the burden is on the government. They actually have to have substantial statistics, they can't just hand wave and win the case like it currently is in the 9th.

I don't see how OC permits get there. Most people don't OC, when people do they aren't typical committing crimes, and people don't typically get shot. OC is so rare I doubt statistics even exist. I don't know of any incident when someone was specifically open carrying and accidentally shot someone.

Kinda sorta, yeah, kinda
Just so we're on the same page, it doesn't have to be "proof", I know, small point, but again, important

I agree on the low probability of OC statistics, but again, that's where the "reasonable fit" comes in. The judge has a lot of leeway here. The 9th can actually do what you and I would call hand-wave, and say that a survey from Mother Jones magazine shows that Mother Jones readers wet their beds at the very thought of OC, so that shows that OC is terrifying, and thus an important public safety concern, and thus the law against OC meets intermediate scrutiny.

You think I'm joking, don't you? I wish I was. An article from Mother Jones magazine was submitted to a federal judge in a firearms case as evidence that the state anti-2A law met intermediate scrutiny. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...alif.Guns_.pdf

That's obviously a bit extreme, but the reasonable fit thing also means that the judge doesn't necessarily have to require that the statistics be about OC for the judge to find they show a reasonable fit. For example, concealed carry stats. The judge could easily declare those are "good enough", and thus apply to an OC case. IIRC, most CC stats paint a very favorable picture of CCers, but the point is that there's plenty of wiggle room in determining what "reasonable" means, so as always, it simply boils down to the political beliefs of the judge / Justice involved, which is why it was so important for Trump to win this election, and give us pro-2A Justices (that's also why it's so sad he dropped another anti into the 9th, but that's another thread).

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by 2ajunkie

We don’t have the same threads as people in Israel

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Are they required to keep their mags rubber-banded to their pistol grips, and not allowed to use the sling attachment points on the buttstocks?

I'm a bit tired of people posting pictures of cute IDF soldierettes with M4s in open carry discussions. Their guns aren't loaded. There are almost no women in IDF in combat positions. Like, nearly zero, despite all these images. The whole situation in Israel is so different from here that it's nearly irrelevant. Women are in support roles or do training or that kind of thing.

Yes I actually have a relative who is female and fought in Israel's war of independence and was taken as a POW. Yup. I know that there are cases of women there being in combat. But hardly any now and it's totally irrelevant to our situation here.

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

Kinda sorta, yeah, kinda
Just so we're on the same page, it doesn't have to be "proof", I know, small point, but again, important

I agree on the low probability of OC statistics, but again, that's where the "reasonable fit" comes in. The judge has a lot of leeway here. The 9th can actually do what you and I would call hand-wave, and say that a survey from Mother Jones magazine shows that Mother Jones readers wet their beds at the very thought of OC, so that shows that OC is terrifying, and thus an important public safety concern, and thus the law against OC meets intermediate scrutiny.

You think I'm joking, don't you?

No I don't think your joking in fact I know the case your talking about. However, my impression is that your idea of intermediate scrutiny is what happens in the 9th circuit right now. What I said in my original post is that since there is a new SCOTUS judge and SCOTUS will likely demand there be real intermediate scrutiny and proof, real proof.

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Similarly, in other recreation (biking, beach, jogging, etc), an exposed shoulder holster w/o cover garment might be the way to go.

This. I bikepacked and speed hiked across Sierras and coastal ranges quite a few times, keeping a gun handy if running across an agitated animal is a logistical challenge. One can OC now, but then there is a problem if you pass an incorporated area (and need to tuck in somewhere out of sight).

[putput]

I've asked before in other threads and don't recall any reply...

If 18 to 20 year old adult citizens are banned from purchasing handguns, and these adult citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, then what will 18 to 20 year old adult citizens open carry?

[2ajunkie]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I'm a bit tired of people posting pictures of cute IDF soldierettes with M4s in open carry discussions. Their guns aren't loaded. There are almost no women in IDF in combat positions. Like, nearly zero, despite all these images. The whole situation in Israel is so different from here that it's nearly irrelevant. Women are in support roles or do training or that kind of thing.

Yes I actually have a relative who is female and fought in Israel's war of independence and was taken as a POW. Yup. I know that there are cases of women there being in combat. But hardly any now and it's totally irrelevant to our situation here.

Like I said if and when the time comes. Don’t be the douch that carries an AR to the local market to grab a gallon of milk. Be professional, a side arm will do the job . IMHO

[CandG]

Originally Posted by putput

I've asked before in other threads and don't recall any reply...

If 18 to 20 year old adult citizens are banned from purchasing handguns, and these adult citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, then what will 18 to 20 year old adult citizens open carry?

Long guns, or nothing

You can look at any state with legal open carry to get your answer

[Rail]

My bet?

Hawaii goes shall-issue for licensed carry (open or concealed), same way Guam did.

California throws a fit and appeals a loss in their open-carry case to SCOTUS.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Long guns, or nothing

You can look at any state with legal open carry to get your answer

I'm not sure that any of those States require all transfers except intrafamilial to go through an FFL. PPTs usually don't have to be 21 for handguns, just 18. I think at least one State allows a lower age.

California's laws make it so that if you are under 21 and can't get one from an immediate relative, you simply can't get one without breaking the law. Not really something that is the case in unpermitted open carry (or general carry0 States.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Rail

My bet?

Hawaii goes shall-issue for licensed carry (open or concealed), same way Guam did.

California throws a fit and appeals a loss in their open-carry case to SCOTUS.

I could see both (assuming this holds) going to a general carry permit (OC or CC).

[GreggieBoy]

I'm not holding my breathe on any of it. It is going to get challenged and then the long wait begins.

Maybe I'll be retired and moved away before anything happens. It would be nice not to have to lock up my firearm before driving back into California.

[Sousuke]

Adam Winkler seems to think they will ask for en banc

[randomBytes]

congrats wolfwood - very nice opinion, really sticking it to the peruta en-banc ;-)

[OldBoldPilot]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I'm a bit tired of people posting pictures of cute IDF soldierettes with M4s in open carry discussions. Their guns aren't loaded. There are almost no women in IDF in combat positions. Like, nearly zero, despite all these images. The whole situation in Israel is so different from here that it's nearly irrelevant. Women are in support roles or do training or that kind of thing.

Yes I actually have a relative who is female and fought in Israel's war of independence and was taken as a POW. Yup. I know that there are cases of women there being in combat. But hardly any now and it's totally irrelevant to our situation here.

Speaking as one who served in the IDF in the '70s and '80s and whose two daughters also served in the IDF in combat roles, I can say with confidence that the only thing that was correct in your post is that their situation is irrelevant to ours here.

Israeli women serve in special forces units; they serve as dog handlers in frontline combat units; they serve in the border patrol; and they serve in other combat areas. They are not restricted to support roles. They are as well-trained and as effective fighters as their male counterparts.

Your condescension and disrespect in referring to them as "soldierettes" is a solid indication of your view of women in general.

Best if you post on things about which you have actual, personal knowledge and which don't reveal your personal prejudices next time.

[CandG]

Why are we talking about this here?

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Total that all up, and I get between 188 and 195 days - or sometime between January 28 and Feb 4, 2019. Obviously, I'm no lawyer, and I'm basing that strictly on my read of the Michel and Associates flowchart. I could be very, very wrong.

If the other side wants to be successful at an en banc, they should rush into it ASAP. Every day is another opportunity for a Trump appointee to get onto the 9th CCA. If Trump fills all the vacancies on the court, the en banc becomes roughly a coin toss for the other side, and they will not want that kind of risk.

I don't believe an en banc will happen. I think this is the last stage of this case.

[Metal God]

I feel so sad . After Peruta and that fantastic 3 judge panel decision and what followed , I have zero confidence this will work out in are favor .

[scbauer]

Didn’t see Chuck post this in this thread, but we’ll worth the 15 minutes to hear Chuck discuss this decision yesterday.

https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and...o-to-bear-arms

[CurlyDave]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

...I don't believe an en banc will happen. I think this is the last stage of this case.

Can you explain why you have so much faith in what the lower court will do on remand?

Not a lawyer, but I think the only result of this case will be a decision that there can be so many restrictions on an OC permit that it is still not useful to the general public.

This is clearly not the internet of the decision, but it is the result the lower court desires.

[Kokopelli]

Originally Posted by scbauer

Didn’t see Chuck post this in this thread, but we’ll worth the 15 minutes to hear Chuck discuss this decision yesterday.

https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and...o-to-bear-arms

Thank you for posting that.

[abinsinia]

I was watching the Chuck Michel NRATV spot, and he said in there that any three judge panel opinion in the 9th is binding to all other 3 judge panels. So that means that the Young opinion is effectively a win for Nichols and it should be immediate like 6 months.

Unless... Young goes En Banc, and the opinion is vacated.

The only way California can keep it's OC ban is for Young to go En Banc, and then it's reprieve will only last however long it takes for the SCOTUS to take it and rules on it.

[wireless]

This ruling has been surprisingly quite. Peruta was the main article on LA Times, SF Gate, SF Chronicle, and a few other CA news sources within hours of the opinion being released.

[krucam]

Originally Posted by wireless

This ruling has been surprisingly quite. Peruta was the main article on LA Times, SF Gate, SF Chronicle, and a few other CA news sources within hours of the opinion being released.

Only because the Young decision hasn't impacted CA....YET...wonderful precedent for y'all to be sitting under...

[CandG]

Originally Posted by wireless

This ruling has been surprisingly quite. Peruta was the main article on LA Times, SF Gate, SF Chronicle, and a few other CA news sources within hours of the opinion being released.

I've been seeing the news popping up all over the place

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by wireless

This ruling has been surprisingly quite. Peruta was the main article on LA Times, SF Gate, SF Chronicle, and a few other CA news sources within hours of the opinion being released.

Not a peep in the printed LA Times yesterday.

[Chewy65]

And yet a story attributed to The Los Angeles Times is being run by the Manhattan Mercury of Manhattan, Kansas. Kansas became a constitutional carry state a year or two back.

[Equitymind]

Great news for the fight. Thanks to Mr. Young and Mr. Beck for taking on this challenge.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

Not a peep in the printed LA Times yesterday.

They have to make room for the immigration sob stories they have been running every day for two years.

[x90]

Once this case proceeds to the next stage (en banc request or goes back to district court), someone with time on their hands should send a FOIA request to the county as well as the Hawaii AG for any communications about the ruling they've had with AGs from other states (California, Maryland, etc), including records of scheduled calls if such communication was by phone. It will be interesting to see which AGs were pushing for en banc and if any were against.