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

[gobler]

D.C v. Heller: Justice Scalia ruled that the firearm must be in a readily operable condition. With no more then one function to operate; magazine in gun with round in chamber or loaded revolver. So UOC is out as a choice for carriage.

[TruOil]

D.C v. Heller: Justice Scalia ruled that the firearm must be in a readily operable condition. With no more then one function to operate; magazine in gun with round in chamber or loaded revolver. So UOC is out as a choice for carriage.

I don't know the chronology, but I recall that the trial court in Peruta concluded that UOC was an "adequate" protection of 2A rights. Since Heller was decided in 2008, and UOC went out while the case was on appeal, I'd have to assume that the trial court decision was issued after Heller. Further, Heller by its terms specifically applies only to "keep," not "bear," which is why the Ninth has felt free to substantially restrict the exercise of the right outside the home. In short, we cannot assume that UOC is off the table without a "bear" decision from SCOTUS that addresses the question.

I think it is also important to note that as far as the Sheriff of Hawaii is concerned, all that the Young decision requires is that applications by non-security personnel to be considered, but that the "good cause" standard still applies. Young's post-decision application for a carry permit was denied.

[wolfwood]

I just filed a sur-reply.. A surreply s a reply to their reply. I basically am asking permission to file the brief. Then I attached the brief I want to file.

https://www.scribd.com/document/393822475/Young-Filed-Surreply

I relief heavily on the information obtained by the Hawaii Firearms coalition through a series of UIPA request which is Hawaii's equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act.

Please like their page on facebook and consider joining.

http://hifico.org/

https://www.facebook.com/hificoorg

[kcbrown]

Again TrueOil, you either haven't read Heller, or are deliberately misrepresenting Heller. It did cover bear, and cited/referenced many cases that made it clear that OC out and about in the public was protected.



=8-(

Then explain why cert was denied to Norman.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[press1280]

I don't know the chronology, but I recall that the trial court in Peruta concluded that UOC was an "adequate" protection of 2A rights. Since Heller was decided in 2008, and UOC went out while the case was on appeal, I'd have to assume that the trial court decision was issued after Heller. Further, Heller by its terms specifically applies only to "keep," not "bear," which is why the Ninth has felt free to substantially restrict the exercise of the right outside the home. In short, we cannot assume that UOC is off the table without a "bear" decision from SCOTUS that addresses the question.

I think it is also important to note that as far as the Sheriff of Hawaii is concerned, all that the Young decision requires is that applications by non-security personnel to be considered, but that the "good cause" standard still applies. Young's post-decision application for a carry permit was denied.

But now they have to consider Young's application with the 3 judge panel's ruling as precedent.
How will the district court (with a straight face) rule that Young isn't entitled to a carry permit?

[BAJ475]

But now they have to consider Young's application with the 3 judge panel's ruling as precedent.
How will the district court (with a straight face) rule that Young isn't entitled to a carry permit?

Easy, a straight face means nothing.

[surfgeorge]

But now they have to consider Young's application with the 3 judge panel's ruling as precedent.
How will the district court (with a straight face) rule that Young isn't entitled to a carry permit?

They won't rule that "Young isn't entitled to a carry permit" (point of information: in Hawaii it's a license and is issued or denied by the county police chief, not a sheriff (which, I believe, only exist on Oahu and are not elected)). They will rule that he is entitled to apply for a license under the permissible and lawful "regulations" in place as "clarified" by the AG "opinion", and if he meets the criteria established therein ("urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated" and "need...significacantly exceeds that held by an ordinary law-abiding citizen", etc.), he may be issued a license, if not, the license will be denied and lawfully so. And that will take care of that... until the next iteration of the lawsuit/appeal.

Just because no one ("ordinary law-abiding citizen") has ever gotten such a license in the past, and that no one will ever get one in the future, doesn't mean that it's not a logical possibility, it's just not a possibility in reality, and that reality is in conformance with the law (lawful "regulation") because there is the theoretical possibility that someone somewhere someday somehow could get one. Therefore, the right to bear arms has not been infringed. Q.E.D.

[TruOil]

They won't rule that "Young isn't entitled to a carry permit" (point of information: in Hawaii it's a license and is issued or denied by the county police chief, not a sheriff (which, I believe, only exist on Oahu and are not elected)). They will rule that he is entitled to apply for a license under the permissible and lawful "regulations" in place as "clarified" by the AG "opinion", and if he meets the criteria established therein ("urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated" and "need...significacantly exceeds that held by an ordinary law-abiding citizen", etc.), he may be issued a license, if not, the license will be denied and lawfully so. And that will take care of that... until the next iteration of the lawsuit/appeal.

Just because no one ("ordinary law-abiding citizen") has ever gotten such a license in the past, and that no one will ever get one in the future, doesn't mean that it's not a logical possibility, it's just not a possibility in reality, and that reality is in conformance with the law (lawful "regulation") because there is the theoretical possibility that someone somewhere someday somehow could get one. Therefore, the right to bear arms has not been infringed. Q.E.D.

Agreed. As I said above, I read that Young's post-decision application was denied for inadequate good cause. Sad that it takes so many little, time consuming, and expensive steps to achieve one big one.

[surfgeorge]

Agreed. As I said above, I read that Young's post-decision application was denied for inadequate good cause. Sad that it takes so many little, time consuming, and expensive steps to achieve one big one.

By the reasoning of the dissenting judge in Young, the state, and the AG, the fact that no one gets a license isn't proof that no one can or could get a license, simply that no one who has applied has met the lawful criteria (noted above). That means, by that reasoning, that every single person in Hawaii could apply, every single person be denied for not meeting the standards, and the law would still be constitutional. That is their argument, and if it goes before the Ninth en banc, it will be overturned (unless Young is upheld for some "strategic" reason), as that logic melds perfectly with the logic of the court majority. There may be a "right", but imposing standards upon the exercise of that right to the point of zero exercise due to "regulation"... well, that's perfectly reasonable commonsense gun safety regulation.

"No one can lawfully bear arms" fulfills the requisite "may not be infringed" clause of the Second Amendment. That's what passes for logic these days.

[TruOil]

I'd rephrase that slightly: "No one has sufficient good cause to bear arms".

[kuug]

The fact we could be waiting until fall 2019 for a decision on this en banc decision is extremely frustrating.

[phdo]

The fact we could be waiting until fall 2019 for a decision on this en banc decision is extremely frustrating.

Look on the bright side. Trump might stack the 9th in our favor by then.

[scbauer]

Look on the bright side. Trump might stack the 9th in our favor by then.

Anyone have a link that would show which 9th judges seats will open up and when?

[surfgeorge]

Anyone have a link that would show which 9th judges seats will open up and when?

I believe those are lifetime appointments and there is no requirement that a judge take "senior status" or retire at any particular age, so we don't really know how many more positions may become open in the next two years.

Trump's nominee and appointment from Hawaii garnered the full support of both senators, Hirono and Schatz, two of the most "progressive" members of the U.S. Senate, so I don't think we can expect much support from him. Let's hope Trump's other nominees are more on our side. Even then, no guarantees when it comes to the second-class Second Amendment.

[scbauer]

Yep, lifetime appointment. Today I learned something new.

Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term.

http://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges