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

[Paladin]

Young v Hawaii was not among the cases denied cert this morning on the orders list. Oddly enough, Russel v New Jersey was. Russel was the same issue as the case already granted cert, NYSRPA v Bruen.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...21zor_5357.pdf

[rplaw]

Young v Hawaii was not among the cases denied cert this morning on the orders list. Oddly enough, Russel v New Jersey was. Russel was the same issue as the case already granted cert, NYSRPA v Bruen.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...21zor_5357.pdf

This makes me think NYSRPA v Bruen is going down. If not, then why didn't the Supremes just hold Russel?

[rplaw]

Perhaps because it was straight up a CCW case as presented by Petitioner and Respondent alike?

Unlike Bruen which was a "Right to Carry" case as presented by Petitioner, called a CCW case by Respondent, and reworded likewise when taken up on cert by SCOTUS?

Distinctions are important.

=8-|

"Right to Carry" would also include CCW as a basic premise until specifically excluded by the court being asked to hear the matter. At this point SCOTUS has not decided this particular issue. They've refused to hear it but that doesn't mean it's not included in "Right to Carry."

However, rewording a "Right to Carry" case as a CCW case then denying Cert to following CCW cases instead of holding them would indicate... what?

[kuug]

This makes me think NYSRPA v Bruen is going down. If not, then why didn't the Supremes just hold Russel?

Because Russel failed to make a federal 2A claim until the case reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court likely denied cert because they lacked jurisdiction to review the case.

[Offwidth]

Perhaps because it was straight up a CCW case as presented by Petitioner and Respondent alike?

Unlike Bruen which was a "Right to Carry" case as presented by Petitioner, called a CCW case by Respondent, and reworded likewise when taken up on cert by SCOTUS?

Distinctions are important.

=8-|

No, it was because it was raising federal 2A issues at a wrong time. Young did not, and is not denied.

No one but you interprets CCW distinctions - not a single person with a brain and education necessary to understand law. Not a single judge.

[seaweedsoyboy]

No, it was because it was raising federal 2A issues at a wrong time. Young did not, and is not denied.

No one but you interprets CCW distinctions - not a single person with a brain and education necessary to understand law. Not a single judge.

[kuug]

Russel and his legal team failed to make a federal second amendment claim until they were applying for cert. NJ pointed out as much in their response to the request for cert grant. Russel was making state law claims against NJ's CCW issuance policy. So SCOTUS denied cert, since they didn't have jurisdiction to hear a matter of state law that didn't broach federal law claims.

Young did make federal 2A claims in his lawsuit, so Young v Hawaii was not denied cert.

[Paladin]

Anyone know why they aren’t updating the docket showing it being relisted? Today should have been it’s 2nd conference.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/20-1639.html

[press1280]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/20-1639.html

It's pretty much a given at this point that Young will be held until NYSRPA is decided.
NYSRPA wins, Young gets sent back to CA9 with instructions to "see NYSRPA". In the process the en banc opinion will be vacated and likely Peruta will also essentially be a dead letter.

[TruOil]

It's pretty much a given at this point that Young will be held until NYSRPA is decided.
NYSRPA wins, Young gets sent back to CA9 with instructions to "see NYSRPA". In the process the en banc opinion will be vacated and likely Peruta will also essentially be a dead letter.

There are two essential questions to be answered by the Court: 1) Does the 2A extend to concealed carry?; and, if it does, 2) Is the right to carry a concealed weapon subject to the reasonable regulation by the State (i.e., discretionary or "may issue" laws)?

If both questions are answered in the affirmative, then the holding of Young that there is no right is reversed but the ultimate outcome is likely affirmed, notwithstanding that an argument can be made that "no issue" is an abuse of discretion.

[curtisfong]

My prediction:

"Primarily" in Scalia's "primarily in the home" actually means "exclusively" (yes, you have to be trained in the law to understand this usage of the English word "primarily"). "Keep and bear" means "keep unloaded, secured, made entirely inert, and 1000 feet away from the nearest magazine and 2000 feet away from the nearest round of ammunition", where "bear" has no meaning whatsoever, because that makes total "logical" sense in the language of law (yes, you have to be trained in law to understand this usage of the English word "bear").

Loss with NYSRPA, Young vacated.

Best case, same as TruOil above.

Concealed carry is "protected" where "protected" means "not protected in any way, shape or form", since "may issue" can mean "no issue" (yes, you have to be trained in law to understand this usage of the English word "protected" and the word "may").

[003]

My prediction:

"Primarily" in Scalia's "primarily in the home" actually means "exclusively" (yes, you have to be trained in the law to understand this usage of the English word "primarily"). "Keep and bear" means "keep unloaded, secured, made entirely inert, and 1000 feet away from the nearest magazine and 2000 feet away from the nearest round of ammunition", where "bear" has no meaning whatsoever, because that makes total "logical" sense in the language of law (yes, you have to be trained in law to understand this usage of the English word "bear").

Loss with NYSRPA, Young vacated.

Best case, same as TruOil above.

Concealed carry is "protected" where "protected" means "not protected in any way, shape or form", since "may issue" can mean "no issue" (yes, you have to be trained in law to understand this usage of the English word "protected" and the word "may").

Wow,you are so negative. Given the current court make up, I good forward to substantial relief for honest gun owners.

[BAJ475]

Wow,you are so negative. Given the current court make up, I good forward to substantial relief for honest gun owners.

It was sarcasm or are you playing along?

[ulmapache]

Ok, have not posted in a while...here's my 2 cents worth... We hope all the "carry"hoopla comes down to this:
While the state may not restrict the bearing of firearms, (subject to reasonable restrictions as to location, ie, secure areas of airports) it may decide on the method of carry, either open or concealed. If permits (and required training) are required, a person who can legally purchase and own a firearm may not be denied a permit.

[lastinline]

Ok, have not posted in a while...here's my 2 cents worth... We hope all the "carry"hoopla comes down to this:
While the state may not restrict the bearing of firearms, (subject to reasonable restrictions as to location, ie, secure areas of airports) it may decide on the method of carry, either open or concealed. If permits (and required training) are required, a person who can legally purchase and own a firearm may not be denied a permit.