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

[Chewy65]

Perhaps the most important language of the decision is that holding that the core of the right to keep and bear arms is the right of self defense and the right of self defense exists outside of the home, even though the need for it may be most acute in the home.

It followed from Blackstone’s premise that such a right, the predecessor to our Second Amendment, “was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and
private violence.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 594

Young v. Hawaii at Supplement 18

Also

we afford little weight to Heller’s emphasis on the application of the Second Amendment to the home specifically, for the challenge there
exclusively concerned handgun possession in the home. 554 U.S. at 575–76; see also Drake, 724 F.3d at 445 (Hardiman, J., dissenting). And in any event, it may very well be the case that within the core of the Amendment, self-
defense at home is “most acute.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 628.

Supra at 48

[tenemae]

Perhaps the most important language of the decision

Technically, that language is from the Heller opinion, not Young, and is not new. Therefore somewhat meaningless, because if SCOTUS including that in their opinion has not changed policy after 8 years, what makes you think a 3-judge panel in 9CA requoting said text will?
EDIT: Nah, I walk that back. Obviously Heller didn't address carry so they were bound, but by including the unrelated text in the opinion, Scalia gave others SCOTUS weight to include in their own opinions on the pertinent issue.
I agree that it's clear where the 9CA panel wants to go here, but they still stopped short of going the full distance, leaving wiggle room to the DC to impose their own restrictions

[Metal God]

What happens when we actually get the right to carry outside the home and must enter a gun free zone like schools and federal/state buildings like DMV or SS office . Now with federal buildings they generally have security to protect me because they are requiring me to be unarmed even though I have a right to carry for self defense outside my home . What about other areas where there is little to no security and yet I can not properly defend my self do to it being a gun free zone .

Some of these gun free zones we all have to enter at some point in our lives . Maybe not every day but every day people do have to enter these gun free zones . If a person is required to be unarmed . I say unarmed because often these gun free zones are also knife free and pretty much any other traditional weapon free zones .

God forbid something happens but at some point it will to someone . If it is found to be constitutional to carry for self defense and a person is injured/shot in a gun free zone . Who is liable and or picking up the check for that persons hospital bill or family income ? It seems to me you can't have all three . Right to carry for self defense , gun free zones and the company , government or who ever it is that implements that gun free zone not reasonably responsible for everyone's safety in that zone ?????

[CandG]

If you live in an incorporated area, you most likely pass through several GFSZ's every single day without even knowing it. It's incredibly difficult, and often completely impossible, to stay 1000 feet from a school campus during normal travels. For many people, that happens the second you walk out your front door. On Google maps, draw the route from your home to your work, then see if there's a school within 1/5th of a mile from any part of that line, I can almost guarantee there is unless you live in a very rural area and work very close to home.

[Metal God]

There's a school across the street from me , another just 3 blocks away and if you count pre-schools , forget about it . My point was more directed to the actual places you must enter . Although I don't disagree with the point of the 1000' issue , I do find it unreasonable to ask anyone to control security for that large an area around there facility . Hell in theory they them selves can't violate that 1000' rule once they leave there property so how could they secure it and I just thought of that part just now haha .

[tenemae]

If you live in an incorporated area, you most likely pass through several GFSZ's every single day without even knowing it. It's incredibly difficult, and often completely impossible, to stay 1000 feet from a school campus during normal travels.

As an experiment, I decided to mark the schools in my neighborhood with a 1000' circle from the average school boundary, just to get a rough estimate of what the area covered would look like. Frankly, I'm even more surprised than I thought I'd be. At the risk of outing my location, I attached the result. There are only 3 roads in and out of this area. There is a GFSZ covering all three. I assume transporting in a vehicle through a GFSZ doesn't count, otherwise travel while armed during the normal course of the day would, indeed, be totally impossible. And these are just the schools I know about. There may be a few more (pre-K? etc)

Enjoy!

[BryMan92]

Gun-free zones would likely be held to something similar to these "buffer zones":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_protection_of_access_to_abortion#%22Buffer_zone%22_laws

[TruOil]

In this case this could be argued as a de facto ban on open carry.

Relief would be:

1. Confining GFSZ to the school property and public easement directly adjoining the school property.

2. Criminal jeopardy only when loitering in the public easement while open carrying, removing firearm without any self defense cause while in the public easement, or when proceeding onto school ground without the permission of an administrator.



Personally, I prefer it get tossed altogether...preexisting property laws public and private were good enough to begin with.

There are maps pout there for San Francisco and Fresno, may be a few others. The result is the same: it is virtually impossible to go anywhere with an openly carried gun without violating the law. I reasonably suspect that the same is true in all or virtually all urban areas of the state. Winning open carry in incorporated cities and towns is a moral victory with no practical effect unless the GFSZs are limited to actual campuses.

[tenemae]

There are maps pout there for San Francisco and Fresno, may be a few others.

Sounds like a good thing to link. Hope this isn't digressing to thread-jack status yet (still relates to the thread topic.... sorta)

https://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

The San Francisco map is ridiculous

[Drivedabizness]

The framers of the 14th Amendment didn't think it applied any of the Bill of Rights other than the 5th Amendment's due process clause to the States. That's something the courts came up with later. The legislative history just doesn't support that sort of thing. 14th Amendment is probably one of the most heavily abused parts of the Constitution, up there with the commerce clause. In this case, though, it's actually serving a benficial end, rather than being detrimental like such abuse usually is.

Except of course the clear record of one of the underpinnings of the 14A being an attempt to guarantee 2A rights to blacks in the South....

[ritter]

Sounds like a good thing to link. Hope this isn't digressing to thread-jack status yet (still relates to the thread topic.... sorta)

https://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

The San Francisco map is ridiculous

That is an interesting map. It would seemingly fall into the category of essentially denying the average law-abiding citizen the ability to exercise 2A rights.

[TruOil]

Actually, the other panels are bound by the Young panel until en banc says otherwise or SCOTUS says otherwise. It's already been posted (code /fed circuit judicial procedure) wise either in this thread earlier or another thread in the past day or so.

What too many seem to be forgetting here however, is that the next action is local - the lower district court and the chief in question...

Meanwhile we await Nichols v. Brown and then possibly Flannagan...and an activist 9CA judge looking for en banc.

=8-|

A few people have said it, but no one, to my knowledge, has cited a rule that so provides, and no such rule appears in the Ninth circuit's local Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Find a cite, I'd love to read it. The typical rule is simply that a court is bound by a decision of a higher court; but all panels are created equal. Only en banc and SCOTUS is a higher court. Certainly if this was a national rule, there would never be circuit splits, which we of course know exist.

[TruOil]

Something of note, which I'm going to cross post in Nichols v. Brown Update thread as well:

A CA9 panel can avoid a binding precedent from another panel by requesting the California State Supreme Court take up their case on Cert.

It's a thorny issue, and questionable - AND has been done before - but an activist judge or panel in the Nichols case can toss it to the California State Supreme Court in an attempt to dodge the Young v. Hawaii Panel decision.

=8-P

Cross-posted. The Ninth can send ONLY questions of state law to the California Supreme Court for the latter's determination of state law issues, the determination of which are binding on the Ninth. The Ninth CANNOT send questions of federal law to the state supreme court.

[TruOil]

Go read Nichols latest Newsblaze. He spells it out, including the "judge made rule". Again, in order to make certain you don't try to do strawman:

There's nothing stopping an "activist" from ignoring a rule, even their own.

I for one await "shenanigans". It's to be expected unfortunately.

=8-|

Nichols is not an attorney, and his opinions on matters of law are things I avoid at all costs. In other words, his opinions are worth exactly as much as you paid for them. And reading your other posts, it appears you know as much about the law as he does...

[Offwidth]

So they want en banc. And hire a competent attorney? Fu*k*rs. Would be curious to see what mental gymnastics en banc invents this time to reverse.

Two more years?