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

[surfgeorge]

I guess they found a handkerchief to dry up all those crocodile tears about mainlanders interfering in island matters.

No. Those tears are pretty much constant, especially if you consider that the "sovereignty" faction considers all "non-Hawaiians" to be illegal occupiers and perpetrators of "war crimes".

I saw this a couple of days ago re the Young situation:

On Friday, Hawai‘i Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin [former AG until the last guy abruptly quit at the beginning of this year] announced that he’s requesting a legal opinion from the State Attorney General to clarify the authority of county police chiefs to issue licenses permitting individuals to carry unconcealed firearms.

“I care deeply about public safety and it’s very important that we uphold Hawai‘i firearm laws for everyone’s benefit, ” said Lt. Governor Chin, who was the State Attorney General, previously.

I wrote him an email stating that he has an odd way of "caring deeply about public safety" in the cases of the women raped and beaten outside their homes who are disarmed by his laws.

* * * * *
A "press release" also appears on his site re SB2046, signed into law on July 10, 2018 banning the possession, etc. of any "multiburst trigger activator" which is defined as "a device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger." The press release claims (re Las Vegas) "bump stocks were used to transform a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic firearm."

I've also inquired of various governmental agencies (cops, AG, county counsel, prosecutor's office, etc.) whether I have to turn in all my string/twine/shoelaces, rubber bands, any rigid object of a particular length (stick, board, dowel, plastic/metal pipe, etc.) and cut all the belt loops off all my pants, as all those meet the above legal definition. I also asked them, since a person can "bumpfire" without any device at all, why they didn't make bumpfiring illegal instead of just the "devices" that can aid bumpfiring, since now a person can commit a crime that includes bumpfiring and will receive no "extra" penalty if he didn't use a "device". Crickets.

[champu]

And the state is handing everything off to Katyal and his D.C. crew.

I guess they found a handkerchief to dry up all those crocodile tears about mainlanders interfering in island matters.

[surfgeorge]

Yes, the county is handing off everything to the state.

And the state is handing everything off to Katyal and his D.C. crew.

[press1280]

So long story short Hawaii is trying to get a special counsel on someone elses dime to take up the appeal of the 3 judge panel decision?

Yes, the county is handing off everything to the state.

[kcbrown]

Kinda makes you wonder what exactly the State Attorneys were hired and paid for.



"Oh Hi!, this is Henry, my third cousin - who's our new State Asst. Attorney. When the action gets too hot, we'll contract for a real one as needed."

[kuug]

So long story short Hawaii is trying to get a special counsel on someone elses dime to take up the appeal of the 3 judge panel decision?

[wireless]

Sure but in my layman's thinking if a State Constitution says concealed carry is bad. And a case comes forward reaffirming that concealed carry is bad. Then how can this case be sited to help establish history/tradition or anything, at least before incorporation of the 2A took place).

They are not established precedent but the Supreme Court uses history, tradition, and meaning of the words to establish what is constitutional or not. So yes, the State Supreme Court is not legally binding anywhere except for that State, but SCOTUS looks to those cases to make their decision.

The supreme court also looks at English Common Law prior to the ratifying of the constitution and recorded debates in the State Senates/House when the constitution was ratified. Papers written by out forefathers (The Federalist Papers for example), also help establish tradition and meaning.

[press1280]

So one thing that confuses me is the reliance on these old 19th century cases which are used to uphold 2nd amendment jurisprudence. Wasn't the 2nd A. a constraints on the Federal Govt. only. The 14th A. which is used to incorporate the 2nd was ratified in 1868. And wasn't directly a 2nd A. incorporation until McDonald in 2010.

So if the state of TN in 1860 for example ruled one way on concealed carry how was the 2nd inferred or relied upon in that case & how does its outcome which I'm guessing relied upon TN State Constitution directly affect other cases regarding the 2nd A.

Some of those state rulings also did make a determination on the scope of the Federal right (2A), like Nunn, Chandler, and In re Brickey. IMO the 19th century state cases that looked solely at the state RKBA are still relevant because they were modeled after the 2A. I haven't seen anything that suggests the founders of the numerous state constitutional amendments had something radically different in mind than their understanding of the 2A.

And since SCOTUS has barely touched the subject, relatively speaking, these old state cases are really the only authority on the subject.

[menancyandsam]

19th century cases such as State Supreme Court cases help establish the meaning of the text. It also establishes history and tradition, which is essential to the scope of the 2nd amendment in Heller and McDonald, especially since the majority in both of those cases specifically rejected an interesting balance test.

Sure but in my layman's thinking if a State Constitution says concealed carry is bad. And a case comes forward reaffirming that concealed carry is bad. Then how can this case be sited to help establish history/tradition or anything, at least before incorporation of the 2A took place).

[wireless]

So one thing that confuses me is the reliance on these old 19th century cases which are used to uphold 2nd amendment jurisprudence. Wasn't the 2nd A. a constraints on the Federal Govt. only. The 14th A. which is used to incorporate the 2nd was ratified in 1868. And wasn't directly a 2nd A. incorporation until McDonald in 2010.

So if the state of TN in 1860 for example ruled one way on concealed carry how was the 2nd inferred or relied upon in that case & how does its outcome which I'm guessing relied upon TN State Constitution directly affect other cases regarding the 2nd A.

19th century cases such as State Supreme Court cases help establish the meaning of the text. It also establishes history and tradition, which is essential to the scope of the 2nd amendment in Heller and McDonald, especially since the majority in both of those cases specifically rejected an interesting balance test.

[menancyandsam]

So one thing that confuses me is the reliance on these old 19th century cases which are used to uphold 2nd amendment jurisprudence. Wasn't the 2nd A. a constraints on the Federal Govt. only. The 14th A. which is used to incorporate the 2nd was ratified in 1868. And wasn't directly a 2nd A. incorporation until McDonald in 2010.

So if the state of TN in 1860 for example ruled one way on concealed carry how was the 2nd inferred or relied upon in that case & how does its outcome which I'm guessing relied upon TN State Constitution directly affect other cases regarding the 2nd A.

[kcbrown]

However, that doesn't change the fact that it is AUTHORITATIVE encompassing all SCOTUS, Circuit of Appeals and State precedents before it INCLUDING Bliss v. Commonwealth.

In terms of which case "wins", yes, that is obviously the case.

But you're ignoring that it is Heller which says that the scope of the right is that which was understood at the time of ratification. As such, it is Heller which implicitly makes Bliss authoritative for the scope of the right as regards concealed carry.

Now, I'm not claiming that if Heller contradicts Bliss, then Bliss must win. No, I'm claiming that unless Heller explicitly contradicts Bliss, Bliss wins.

And Heller does not explicitly contradict Bliss. Heller does not directly say that concealed carry is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. It cites carry cases that do, and does so for a couple of different purposes (firstly, to show that the right is not limited to militia service, and secondly to illustrate that courts have not historically treated the right as unlimited). But none of those purposes is to show how the right is limited, only that it is.


Now, that doesn't mean that the Court cannot or will not find in a followup case that concealed carry has no protection under the 2nd Amendment. That is obviously a possibility. But right now it has not held or explicitly said any such thing. One might attempt to infer that, as you have, but that is not the same thing. On the other hand, it has explicitly said that the scope of the right is that which the founding generation understood it to be.


So: either the scope of the right is that which the founding generation understood it to be, or it isn't. Which is it? If it's not, despite the fact that Heller explicitly says that it is, then why should we believe anything that Heller says?

[speedrrracer]

If you read Peruta, it references Bliss and Heller. Heller is a very long case to read, but in Heller the supreme court held states can regulate concealed carry.

It went further than that:

Held:
(big snip)
concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment...

Not just regulation, flat-out prohibition.

Scalia, despite what his "worshippers" like to claim revealed himself an activist judge by trying to "bootstrap" the GCA of 1968 as "longstanding".

I don't see any support for this. What have you got?

[kcbrown]

KCBROWN, Bliss is not authoritative. You're misunderstanding what "authoritative" means. Courts follow precedent. It is "authoritative" in a logical sense as you expressed the syllogistic meaning, but a court doesn't have to follow it.

Bliss as authoritative as regards the understanding of the founding generation as regards the right to arms.

That a court would make a pronouncement about the scope of the right, and then proceed to utterly ignore their own pronouncement, is no surprise. But that does not change the fact that in doing so, the court will be engaging in massive and blatant hypocrisy worthy of the greatest derision.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mooseboy84]

KCBROWN, Bliss is not authoritative. You're misunderstanding what "authoritative" means. Courts follow precedent. It is "authoritative" in a logical sense as you expressed the syllogistic meaning, but a court doesn't have to follow it.

Courts follow precedent. What that means is, when a case is decided in a jurisdiction or a higher court, all the following cases conform to the decision of that case. Bliss may be "persuasive" and something that is quoted or used in a judges reasoning as why she may or may not follow an opinion, but it is NOT authoritative.

"Authoritative" is when a court case or law is ruled on, and subsequent court cases must follow the rulings of higher courts (e.g. Supreme Court, or federal district court, or state supreme court). Whatever is good law/current must be followed and is "authoritative." Everything else is "persuasive" and may be something the court considers or talks about, but are not bound to follow.

Bliss v Commonwealth was cited in the Peruta v San Diego case as a persuasive "authority" in their rational of ruling AGAINST him. Bliss is not good law, because in its own time, it was overruled by state law.

If you read Peruta, it references Bliss and Heller. Heller is a very long case to read, but in Heller the supreme court held states can regulate concealed carry.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570,626 (2008) (emphasis added).

If you go to page 626 of the Heller ruling, you will read in the majority opinion (winning side of the case) and that is where they make that statement which is the current state of law regarding state regulation of firearms.

That is the Supreme Court of the US upholding those regulations. That is "authoritative" for any court in the US.