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

[Paladin]

Tomorrow is the deadline for Hawaii to file their appeal to the 9th circuit for en banc review. I believe the end of October is the deadline for the 9th circuit to go sua sponte and and sabotage the ruling like they did Peruta

Everything (so far) looks like HI will ask for en banc, so no need for sua sponte. But we won't know for sure until after (5:00 pm? midnight?) tonight Hawaiian time.

When does a mandate get issued?

Assuming HI asks for en banc today (or was it yesterday???), I'd say at least 2 months, more likely 3 to 4 for CA9 to decide whether to grant en banc. That's the next step.

If granted, then add 2 - 4 months to get to en banc orals (spring, 2019).

Then another year for the en banc decision to be released (spring, 2020).

ETA2: I'll assume "full court" en banc for CA9 either not requested or denied.

Then 90 days for the loser to decide whether to ask for cert from SCOTUS (late summer 2020).

Then time for SCOTUS to decided to take it. (If this is after MLK Day, it will be held until the following fall.) (fall 2020)

Then time until SCOTUS orals. (winter/early spring 2021)

Then SCOTUS decision will be released during the last week of the following June (2021)....

IOW, don't be cruel by even asking when the mandate will issue (summer 2021 at earliest, maybe as late as summer 2022 if cert granted after MLK Day).

ETA: added estimated dates assuming continued appeals sought and granted until exhausted.
ETA2: put info for both cert being granted before or after MLK Day: if we're lucky, before, if not, after, delaying everything another year.

[press1280]

So are they saying ?

We allow LEO's and Security Guards to open carry so that should satisfy Heller without allowing anyone else to.

They're essentially trying to say everyone is eligible for an OC permit but still under a may issue scheme so draconian that no one can show a proper cause.

[Robotron2k84]

@Paladin

You forgot to mention the follow-up lawsuits after the affirmative SCOTUS ruling (a la Janus) that forces the state to comply with what SCOTUS mandates.

That should put us squarely into the 2030's before the right is recognized and open carry allowed in any form, given the best circumstances.

[surfgeorge]

Courtesy of Mr. Nichols, here is the 114-page petition for re-hearing en banc:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Young-v.-Hawaii-Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

[TruOil]

The essence of the argument (when you get to the end of it) is that open carry "imperils public safety" and that therefore "public safety" trumps an individual right of self defense. How this squares with the language of "shall not be infringed" is beyond me.

[scbauer]

Courtesy of Mr. Nichols, here is the 114-page petition for re-hearing en banc:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...ng-En-Banc.pdf

Read about 3 pages and started getting so angry I had to stop.

[speedrrracer]

The essence of the argument (when you get to the end of it) is that open carry "imperils public safety" and that therefore "public safety" trumps an individual right of self defense. How this squares with the language of "shall not be infringed" is beyond me.

Doesn't square with the right
Wasn't supposed to square with the right

They aren't talking to you or me, they are talking to the progtards on the 9th
this is part of their language, where [whatever we want] is Constitutional because of [insert-subjective-BS-here]. In this case, as in many, the subjective BS will be public safety.

The state will "find" that public safety is best served by [whatever they want], and the progtards on the 9th will lap it up.

Said it for years, safety is the best way to destroy civil rights. Worked for the Patriot Act, it works against your 4A rights, it'll work against the 2A and anything else.

[homelessdude]

Is it really a 3-4 month time frame waiting on the court to decide whether to do en banc or refuse it?

[Paladin]

Is it really a 3-4 month time frame waiting on the court to decide whether to do en banc or refuse it?

Going by Peruta:
2014 Dec 03: sua sponte call for a vote
2015 March 26: en banc granted

I just noticed a mistake I made in that timeline, which I'll fix now. It changes estimate for SCOTUS decision by 1 year (because I'm guessing/hoping they'll grant cert before MLK Day). I thought I made a mistake, but I was wrong.

[press1280]

Is it really a 3-4 month time frame waiting on the court to decide whether to do en banc or refuse it?

If it starts dragging on longer than that it'll be a good sign-that dissents are being written and en banc was denied.
But this is CA9 we're talking about.

[press1280]

The essence of the argument (when you get to the end of it) is that open carry "imperils public safety" and that therefore "public safety" trumps an individual right of self defense. How this squares with the language of "shall not be infringed" is beyond me.

If the 9th takes this up then they'll have to do a crazy gymnastics move.

They won't just say the right doesn't apply outside the home. But then they'll have to explain why a regime that doesn't issue permits (OC or CC under each respective standard) is materially any different than the IL ban struck down in Moore.

[champu]

...But then they'll have to explain why a regime that doesn't issue permits (OC or CC under each respective standard) is materially any different than the IL ban struck down in Moore.

have to

[press1280]

If they don't try to differentiate between Moore than they are almost begging for SCOTUS to take it on appeal.

[champu]

If they don't try to differentiate between Moore than they are almost begging for SCOTUS to take it on appeal.

[CCWFacts]

I read their brief, all 26 pages of it. It was nuts. Basically the Peruta en banc said, "you should have asked for any kind of carry, not just concealed carry", and the Young case asked for exactly that, and so the Young panel decision was exactly what the Peruta en banc had said it should be. The AG's recent letter saying that, hey, if you've got a stalker problem, apply for an open carry permit! is ridiculous because there are zero examples of that actually happening in Hawaii and so on.

A lot of the en banc result has to do with luck. It's 11 judges drawn at random. Trump will have appointed a few more by the time an en banc gets seated, making this far from a sure victory for the other side.

I'm not convinced at all that this will be re-heard en banc.