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

[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.

[homelessdude]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[sfpcservice]

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

When does a mandate get issued?

[scbauer]

...we advise that a private individual would likely satisfy the statutory criteria for an unconcealed-carry license where he or she identifies a need for protection that significantly exceeds that held by an ordinary law-abiding citizen, and otherwise satisfies the statutory requirements for possessing and carrying a firearm.

Emphasis added by me... because this seems like the part that we are (Young is) fighting. Pretty sure it doesn’t say anything in the Second Amendment about having a need that significantly exceeds that of ordinary citizens.

[kuug]

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

[phdo]

[speedrrracer]

I have little doubt that this letter will be included as "additional authority" in the briefing on rehearing/en banc.

I'm sure it will, and the 9th will lap it up, but when it comes to a real court, it won't matter. SCOTUS won't GAF about some moron's opinion that the law is facially neutral when it comes to abridging rights. Is the AG trying to show HI has been violating equal protections?

[surfgeorge]

Suzuki is a ****ing liar. He talks about the reports from the county police chiefs as compiled by the AG office:

Although the Department of the Attorney General has
published statistics on firearm license applications, those
reports date back only to the year 2000... those reports, starting
in 2004, state only the number of private individuals who applied
for (and were granted or denied) a concealed_carry license; they
do not state the number of private individuals who applied for
(and were granted or denied) an unconcealed_carry license.

His whole argument that any private citizen at any time has been and is eligible for an "unconcealed carry" license is pure bull****. He fails to mention that the very forms used by his office that require the monthly reporting from the county police chiefs describe and annotate the types of licenses to carry firearms into two categories, and those categories are NOT "unconcealed" and "concealed", they are: "SECURITY" OR "CITIZEN". He's a ****ing liar, and he knows it. What a ****ing *******. I hate these people.

EDIT: Plus, Horowitz tried to say the exact same thing (as Suzuki claims in the letter that "Well, everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own.") at orals and O'Scannlain (I'd characterize his tone as disdainful, if not angry) immediately challenged him as to the preposterousness of such a claim.