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

[meanspartan]

Funny how the "star legal team" always presents themselves as the attorneys of choice . . . while missing the wagon at the outset.

And to talk about egos . . .

=8-(

The number of lawyers who can play effectively at this level, who are also experienced in 2A specifically, is very limited.

You can't expect Paul Clement to be leading every single charge himself from the initial filing. But when you get to that level, guys like him are who you go to if they offer to help. As an example, Clement's office assisted with Duncan (even though the original firm on the case did a fantastic job at the district court level) and won the three judge panel.

[SDCarpenter]

A pitcher should pitch. He may have made great briefs and wording, but let the guys who know what they are doing speak. All that time and money wasted.

[BeAuMaN]

While I agree that Clement would have been a much better choice at this stage, and that Young should have accepted said help... when did NRA and/or CRPA begin to offer help for Young v Hawaii? According to the Reuters Article there was none offered all the way up to the three judge panel decision. Was it offered immediately after the three judge panel decision?

[Offwidth]

6 Conservative appointees

One already voted against. So here we go with a 5-6 loss or worse. Arguments don't matter.

[Offwidth]

The state of hawaii will likely lose because it refused to give an inch.

They know they don't have to. It will be wrapped up on a silver platter for them.

[randomBytes]

too painful to listen

[abinsinia]

These two judges are the only ones where I don't know their 2A stance,

Kim McLane Wardlaw,66,Clinton
Michelle Friedland,48,Obama

At roughly minute 24 Friedland seems to claim Young doesn't have standing to bring the case. I don't think she's going to side with the constitution.

Wardlaw seemed uninterested the whole time, and said nothing as far as I recall. She was second row from the top, and second row from the left side.

[Elgatodeacero]

Katyal’s arguments were circular and absurd. The state of hawaii will likely lose because it refused to give an inch. This is a good factual predicate for a “bear” case.

[Offwidth]

I certainly hope the written stuff was better than the verbal stuff. Otherwise this is a loss for us.

Arguments don't matter.

[hoystory]

Ouch! That was painful to watch. I really do hope that the written briefs are what the decision is based on, rather than this C- performance.

Katyal is head and shoulders above the guy we had on our side. I follow this stuff rather closely and even I was confused by some of his arguments at times.

[press1280]

Yes, this was a disaster unfortunately. I think even some of the judges who are inclined to vote for our side just seemed tired and didn't pepper opposing counsel with questions like they should have. Namely, how can you claim a permit scheme that doesn't issue to citizens is somehow not a ban?

I think only Ikuta and Nelson asked tough questions of the opposing counsel. The Libs on the court seemed just fine with Hawaii's lies and misinterpretations.

[Paladin]

I agree w what Chuck said: if, for the good of the cause & country, you have to hand over to better hands the “baby” that you nurtured alone for years, hand it over.

Just as RBG should have retired back when O was in office and Dems controlled the Senate, so Thomas should have retired in time for his replacement to be on the bench by last New Years.

Egos may kill our cause and country.

The waiting game begins. My guess is between 3 months to 2 years for a decision. Back to county level CCW activism in non green counties.

Plus, fight for Trump, a GOP Senate and a GOP House.

[Elgatodeacero]

The fact that we are at an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit Federal Court of appeals should tell you Mr. Beck is doing fine. The pleadings, including amici briefs, are not hard to find.

[meanspartan]

I just lost a lot of respect for Mr. Michel.

Mr. Beck did fine and will do fine.

As if Clarence Darrow or Martin Luther King Jr. could sway any member of the panel.

I have not read his briefing, and maybe it is very good.

But even someone with no background in 2nd amendment law, or any law in general, could see this was a rough oral presentation. Some people are just not gifted public speakers. It was often hard to even follow what he was saying, let alone evaluate whether the argument was strong.

Maybe you are correct and the panel couldn't have been swayed even with a Paul Clement. But there is no reason to not put the best foot forward, especially in such a tough circuit for gun rights. Hope he prevails anyway, for all our sake.

[Elgatodeacero]

I just lost a lot of respect for Mr. Michel.

Mr. Beck did fine and will do fine.

As if Clarence Darrow or Martin Luther King Jr. could sway any member of the panel.