Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #841  
Old 11-17-2018, 3:24 AM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 663
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default SDCGO

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
First Amicus Brief filed. Its a history brief by San Diego County Gun Owners


https://www.scribd.com/document/3934...s-Amicus-Brief

SD Gun owners is a small local group Yet they stepped up and filed a very important historical brief to refute the Everytown brief. Please consider donating a couple dollars to them. A Big Thanks to Attorney John Dillon and SD County Gun Owners President Michael Schwartz for lending aid.
Great job on the brief Councilor John Dillon and Michael Schwartz! Makes me proud to be a member. You guys have really made a difference in San Diego, keep at it.
I think even the late Sheriff Bill Kolender (bottom left) would have been moved!
__________________

Last edited by marcusrn; 11-17-2018 at 3:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #842  
Old 11-17-2018, 8:58 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 543
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Wolfwood is there another link that does not require us to sign up to read the brief ?
Here is a link to it as posted courtesy of Charles Nichols:

http://californiaopencarry.com/wp-co...?189db0&189db0

And here is Mr. Nichols' site with all the Young documents:

http://californiaopencarry.com/young...-on-9-14-2018/
Reply With Quote
  #843  
Old 11-17-2018, 12:23 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,377
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
Sounds like a rehash of all their original bull crap. The fact that no one but a few security guards can get one kind of says it all.
If they have to put out that AG opinion it's a clear sign their own issuing officials didn't consider issuing permits to average citizens. So the court is right to assume that's the case.
But the state wants to convince everyone to believe they'll do something they have yet to do. Just trust them.
Reply With Quote
  #844  
Old 11-17-2018, 1:03 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 35
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

While the en banc decision waits, what’s going on in HI for issue especially if the AG has changed the rules at the 11th hour?
Reply With Quote
  #845  
Old 11-17-2018, 1:16 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 543
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
While the en banc decision waits, what’s going on in HI for issue especially if the AG has changed the rules at the 11th hour?
Nothing. Literally. It's exactly the same as it's always been. Never issued an open carry license to anyone but security guards. Never issued a concealed carry license to anyone since 2000 except for the judge and military member and the two "lost" licensees.

The one person I know of who applied for open carry after the AG "opinion" was denied, ostensibly because he failed to provide sufficient evidence "that he or she has a need for protection that substantially exceeds that held by ordinary law-abiding citizens".

So, to summarize, no "ordinary citizen" in Hawaii has, as far as we know, EVER been granted a license to lawfully exercise their right to bear arms outside their home or business. That won't change until there is some kind of precisely-worded inescapable ruling from a court requiring the legislature and police departments to recognize the rights of ordinary citizens. Don't hold your breath.
Reply With Quote
  #846  
Old 11-17-2018, 4:03 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 35
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks for that info.

Thinking a bit more, if open carry remains the right from the ruling does “good cause” stand or is it de facto overriden? Seems like if open carry is the right and the right is infringed, HI law has to be struck down. Does this case mention good cause? I don’t remember.
Reply With Quote
  #847  
Old 11-18-2018, 4:46 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,377
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Thanks for that info.

Thinking a bit more, if open carry remains the right from the ruling does “good cause” stand or is it de facto overriden? Seems like if open carry is the right and the right is infringed, HI law has to be struck down. Does this case mention good cause? I don’t remember.
The 3 judge opinion states that the case did not specifically decide that. The case would be remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings.

However, the 3 judge panel's opinion would be controlling authority, and no one can plausibly read it as green-lighting may issue. If that were the case then the state wouldn't need to try for en banc. Just allow the case to go back to the District Court and "find" that Young didn't prove a "good cause" for a license.
Reply With Quote
  #848  
Old 11-18-2018, 10:06 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,943
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The 3 judge opinion states that the case did not specifically decide that. The case would be remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings.

However, the 3 judge panel's opinion would be controlling authority, and no one can plausibly read it as green-lighting may issue. If that were the case then the state wouldn't need to try for en banc. Just allow the case to go back to the District Court and "find" that Young didn't prove a "good cause" for a license.
^^^ If you read between press1280's lines...

Regulating OC is possible, just the "how" would be under scrutiny.

Heller v. DC provided categorical hints...while making it clear that OC is the default mode for exercising the RIGHT...and cannot be prohibited like Concealed Carry.

- Sensitive places.
- Dangerous / Unusual Weapons (including concealable)
- Common use.

Hawaii knows if the case is allowed to go back to the district court - they will no longer be able in theory to practice the same restrictive standard and issuance for BOTH....one will have to be considerably relaxed...OC.


I'm still going with my prediction as here with California that is this happens, they'll pull the UOC crap....

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #849  
Old 11-18-2018, 12:37 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 35
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks guys for the synopsis! So if it’s remanded back to the District Court they would have to use the applied standard (basically, hey, here’s how you should have ruled) and then it stays precedent in the 9th. If the en banc occurs and affirms (or remands with a different standard) the District Court then it would have to be appealed to SCOTUS?

UOC seems to strike at the core of self defense, as would keeping one out of the chamber, so I would reckon the UOC is not a substitute. But we’ll save that for another day.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:48 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.