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

[press1280]

8 - 19 - 22
9th kicks the can back to District court,

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/19/12-17808.pdf

6 - 30 - 22
SCOTUS Grants Vacates and Remands to 9th

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4139322/george-young-jr-v-state-of-hawaii/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

5 - 25 - 21
SCOTUS page for Cert request docs, https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html

5 - 11 -2021 Certiorari requested

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5472/attachments/original/1620757707/Young_v_Hawaii_Cert_Petition.pdf

3 - 24 - 21 LOSS

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

9- 15- 20 Watch the Oral Args: https://youtu.be/YX71KI_VR14
h/t FirearmFino

9- 4 - 20 // Librarian

9th Circuit's Status of En Banc page : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/

Summary at that page Young v. State of Hawaii, No. 12-17808

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 896 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2018)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: February 8, 2019

Status: Virtual oral argument scheduled at 1:30 p.m. on September 24, 2020 [/QUOTE]

4 -30 - 20 // Librarian

Case Name: George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al
Case Number: 12-17808
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS): On February 14, 2019, this Court stayed en banc proceedings pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle& Pistol Association, Inc, v. City of New York, No. 18-820 and further order of this Court. The Supreme Court has now issued its decision. New York State Rifle & Pistol ***’n, Inc, v. City of New York, 590 U.S. ___, 2020 WL 1978708 (April 27, 2020).

Therefore, the stay of en banc proceedings in this case is lifted.

En banc argument will take place during the week of September 21, 2020,



========= 2 -12 - 2018 =========

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7seg8g6KKA&feature=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.

[Ubermcoupe]

No its not. Chuck just has copies of the pleadings on his website. ...

Didn't realize that.

I stand corrected.

[Drivedabizness]

IANAL and not trying to be a smart aleck or disparage the attorney representing "our" side. Did he seem well-prepared or persuasive?

[press1280]

IANAL and not trying to be a smart aleck or disparage the attorney representing "our" side. Did he seem well-prepared or persuasive?

I'll give my honest opinion and I'm no lawyer so FWIW......

He seemed a little rushed, a little nervous. I didn't hear anything necessarily where he LOST the case or conceded anything. The law was on our side, so he really didn't have to do anything spectacular or be smooth like Alan Gura to win. On a side note I was curious about the original Peruta 3 judge opinion and how much of that not-CCW related was applicable here.

The other attorney BLEW his side's case.

From what I've heard, you rarely will change a judge's mind with a great performance. OTOH, you most certainly can LOSE a case at orals.

[nicky c]

Didn't Heller suggest that the 2A does apply beyond the boundaries of ones home in some fashion? And that the details as such are still unknown?

Hasn't at least one SCOTUS Justice opined that the notion that the 2A only applies to the home as being complete BS?

[thorium]

Interesting. It seems the 3 judge panel realizes it will be hard for them to avoid finding that some sort of carry outside the home is part of the 2nd and that this law is effectively a full ban...

O’Scannlain - we know where he stands (author of original Peruta opinion that was overruled en banc)
Clifton and Ikuta -George W Bush appointees

So this should certainly go our way at the 3 judge panel, question is how far do they take it. They probably know like us it will go En Banc if they take it too far.

The question becomes En Banc and how an en Banc panel tries to either say 2nd doesn’t apply outside the home (hard to do given the sister circuits and other persuasive cases)or more likely how do they make this so narrow that Hawaii’s “near categorical ban” gets watered down only slightly to “you can ban everyone except for maybe 100 Hawaiians” a la LA county CCW rationing only to law enforcement and the like.

[nikonmike5]

[press1280]

But if they go down that road, then what, the federal courts takeover the permit process and decide how many are enough?
It's probably safe to say this is a de facto ban, and if the opinion says average people can't get it then the county really can't do anything other than shall issue.

[Paladin]

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

Starts at 19:40

and ends at 49:00

[FilmGuy]

Original link was bad. Here is the new one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=podPuHnX698

[mshill]

IANAL and not trying to be a smart aleck or disparage the attorney representing "our" side. Did he seem well-prepared or persuasive?

He seemed fairly well prepared, however, not entirely well spoken.

The county attorney got eaten alive. He stated that concealed carry was off the table due to Peruta and then was grilled for not issuing any open carry licenses except to security guards. The justices lit him up hard and cornered him to say that for the state to prevail "the 2nd amendment does not apply outside the home".

I see this as a huge loss for Hawaii and possibly an opening for the court to "explicitly" say that the RKBA DOES exist outside the home. If this goes En Banc the 9th will be cornered to explicitly state that the RKBA does NOT exist outside the home. If they go there I would only hope that SCOTUS would straighten them out.

[speedrrracer]

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.

Sounds to me like their counsel is a genius. Guaranteed the 9th will find that argument 100% persuasive, even if they have to go en banc again.

[rplaw]

You can see that the panel was really challenging the State over the "de facto ban" by the State not issuing any OC permits except for security guards. The State's explanation that the exception applied to the average person was weak and I would have like the Panel to point out that Heller said something to the effect that "no one knows when they may need a firearm for protection" thus not allowing private citizens to OC except when they are already in danger defeats the purpose of the 2A's "self defense" core purpose.

I also have an issue whereby the average person needs "an exception" before being given permission to exercise his enumerated Rights. I would have liked the Panel to have addressed that issue directly since this seems to place 2 obstacles in the path of the free exercise of Rights.

If the Panel decides in favor of Young, and depending on what happens with both Silvester and Nichols, the 9th will take this case en banc and overturn the panel. However, this would be a good case for SCOTUS to determine that bearing arms includes doing so outside the home and that blanket denial permit schemes negate the Right because they are not narrowly tailored toward the issue being regulated.

We shall have to see.

[DolphinFan]

National Reciprocity would take care of this. Call members of the Senate.

[spalterego]

National Reciprocity would take care of this. Call members of the Senate.

No it wouldn't. The National Reciprocity Bill does not make a state grant its own residents' CCWs.