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

[nick]

I feel your pain. It’s tough being a law-abiding gun owner especially in CA and under the 9th’s rule. But, losing the court will affect the whole country. Sometimes it’s better to eat a little crap for the betterment of the collective whole. Worst case scenario for us will be an exodus from CA to a free state. Altering the makeup of the court might leave no states free.

In my opinion, "we" (the country, not CA) lost the Supreme court a while back, together with the rest of the federal government. I was referring to that, not to the issues specific to CA or Hawaii. If a top court can be successfully threatened to manipulate its decisions, and the people threatening it aren't punished (and those supposedly opposing it do nothing), it doesn't really matter what the composition of the court is. If the court ignores its duty based on threats or whatever other reasons/excuses they might have - it's the same thing, it's pretty much lost. If the lower courts and the executive branch can ignore its decisions with impunity - same thing. And all of this has been happening for a while now. This is why I don't think the restoration of our rights would come from any branch of our by now thoroughly corrupt government. It will either come from us or not at all.

ETA: I also don't think much would change with Republicans in power. Anytime they're in power, they do nothing or next to nothing (especially compared to what Dems do when they have even a shred of power). When they lose that power, THAT's when their rhetoric spikes, kinda like right now. Then when they regain power, they once again do nothing. They've long since become ok to be #2 in the 2-party race, and they merely pay lip service to their constituency, generally being to the left of it anyway. Supreme court does the same. Hence I'm not sure it's even worth saving.

[phdo]

In my opinion, "we" (the country, not CA) lost the Supreme court a while back, together with the rest of the federal government. I was referring to that, not to the issues specific to CA or Hawaii. If a top court can be successfully threatened to manipulate its decisions, and the people threatening it aren't punished (and those supposedly opposing it do nothing), it doesn't really matter what the composition of the court is. If the court ignores its duty based on threats or whatever other reasons/excuses they might have - it's the same thing, it's pretty much lost. If the lower courts and the executive branch can ignore its decisions with impunity - same thing. And all of this has been happening for a while now. This is why I don't think the restoration of our rights would come from any branch of our by now thoroughly corrupt government. It will either come from us or not at all.

ETA: I also don't think much would change with Republicans in power. Anytime they're in power, they do nothing or next to nothing (especially compared to what Dems do when they have even a shred of power). When they lose that power, THAT's when their rhetoric spikes, kinda like right now. Then when they regain power, they once again do nothing. They've long since become ok to be #2 in the 2-party race, and they merely pay lip service to their constituency, generally being to the left of it anyway. Supreme court does the same. Hence I'm not sure it's even worth saving.

Ah gotcha. On that note, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[bigstick61]

In my opinion, "we" (the country, not CA) lost the Supreme court a while back, together with the rest of the federal government. I was referring to that, not to the issues specific to CA or Hawaii. If a top court can be successfully threatened to manipulate its decisions, and the people threatening it aren't punished (and those supposedly opposing it do nothing), it doesn't really matter what the composition of the court is. If the court ignores its duty based on threats or whatever other reasons/excuses they might have - it's the same thing, it's pretty much lost. If the lower courts and the executive branch can ignore its decisions with impunity - same thing. And all of this has been happening for a while now. This is why I don't think the restoration of our rights would come from any branch of our by now thoroughly corrupt government. It will either come from us or not at all.

ETA: I also don't think much would change with Republicans in power. Anytime they're in power, they do nothing or next to nothing (especially compared to what Dems do when they have even a shred of power). When they lose that power, THAT's when their rhetoric spikes, kinda like right now. Then when they regain power, they once again do nothing. They've long since become ok to be #2 in the 2-party race, and they merely pay lip service to their constituency, generally being to the left of it anyway. Supreme court does the same. Hence I'm not sure it's even worth saving.

Republicans at the Federal level have an engrained culture of being the loyal opposition, and of the easier politics of saying no to things they can't stop, and not having to actually do anything, that comes from perpetual minority status. They are not used to governing, are not comfortable governing, and lack experience in doing so as well, and combined with the variety of groups within the party and other issues, you get what we see.

When it comes down to it, Republicans have only controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency for a grand total of eight years since the Hoover Administration. Two years under Eisenhower, four under Bush II, and two under Trump. In none of those cases have they had a filibuster-proof Senate majority. In no case of which I'm aware during this period have they had veto-proof majorities in Congress with a Democratic President. Never have they had control of Congress, control of the Presidency, and solid control of SCOTUS (although they've had Republican-appointee majorities). Democrats have been dominant since Hoover lost to FDR.

[press1280]

After everything that has occurred, you really think that SCOTUS will save us? Or is even interested in taking up such a case?

This farce by CA9 sets up a clear split. One side says NO right to carry a firearm PERIOD, the other says YES.
IMO, the choice for SCOTUS is whether to go ahead and hear the NY case now and put the issue to bed once and for all or whether they want to wait and hear this case specifically.
While this case is pretty basic in one sense, there are also numerous side issues that could make it messy for the court.
The NY case will be at conference TOMORROW and is pretty cut and dry and would have one of the best (Paul Clement) arguing for the plaintiffs.

[abinsinia]

8/15/2016 Court Order Denying Full Court En Banc Rehearing

6/23/2016 Appellants Appellants’ Petition for Full Court En Banc Rehearing

These are the full court denied times from Peruda.

1/18/2017 Court Notice Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed
1/12/16 Petitioner Peruta Final Cert Petition

Looks like 6 months till SCOTUS.

[ddestruel]

The 9ths use of lip service to "history, text and tradition", to blow this case up demonstrates the flaws in that system ... Since it was something referenced by several justices dissents recently, it probably was also a shot across the bow of SCOTUS advancing the idea of using that as a standard of review.

Just like other courts contorting around intermediate scrutiny.

[pacrat]

In SUMMARY;

7 robed leftists sitting on the 9th CIRCUS. AGAIN, lifted their robes and CH!T on citizens rights. Then wiped their collective Azzes on the US Constitution.

business as usual.

"MOVE ALONG NOW, NOTHING TO SEE HERE".

[pacrat]

FOUND THIS BIT

In post #32 of the "Roberts v Honolulu PD" thread.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1467530

FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member

Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 343
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Default
EO: On March 24, 2021, Plaintiff's attorneys Mr. Beck and co-counsel Mr. Stamboulieh filed: MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND RE-URGE SUMMARY JUDGMENT. (ECF No. 84 ).On August 14, 2020, the Court stayed proceedings in this case and issued a Minute Order stating: The Court will instruct the Parties how to proceed following the en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Young v. State of Hawaii, 12-17808, scheduled for hearing during the week of September 21, 2020. (ECF No. 82 ).On March 24, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its en banc decision in Young v. State of Hawaii, 12-17808. The mandate has not yet issued. The Court will not act until the Young proceedings have concluded. On March 24, 2021, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported that Attorney Alan Beck, who is Plaintiff's counsel in Young and is also Plaintiff's counsel here for Mr. Roberts, stated he will ask the United States Supreme Court to review the Young decision, asserting "We are hopeful the Supreme Court will grant review in Mr. Young's case."
(Associated Press, Ruling Upholds Hawaii's Limits On Carrying Guns In Public, Honolulu Star-Advertiser (Mar. 24, 2021) https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/...uling-upholds- hawaiis-limits-on-carrying-guns-in-public/) (last visited March 25, 2021). Plaintiff's MOTION TO LIFT STAY (ECF No. 84 ) is DENIED. (SENIOR JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR)

[B]It is my guess that Mr. Alan Beck is busy as a One legged Man in a Butt KICK"N Contest right now. Hats off to member "WOLFWOOD" as IMHO the hardest working 2A RIGHTS attorney on Planet Earth.




Hopefully he will have time in the near future to update CG on happenings.

[Ishooter]

That's a surprise when 2 judges appointed by Bush voted against the carrying.
Capture.jpg

[Offwidth]

Did anyone really thought there will be any other outcome, independent of what we do?

[abinsinia]

That's a surprise when 2 judges appointed by Bush voted against the carrying.
[ATTACH]999897[/ATTACH]

Clifton was on the original three judge panel, and he dissented (he's from Hawaii). So he was no surprise, but Bybee was a surprise.

Three bad ones that I know of,

Clifton
Bybee
Bennett

[abinsinia]

Did anyone really thought there will be any other outcome, independent of what we do?

I always thought it would be shades of black, but this one was pitch dark.

[nick]

Republicans at the Federal level have an engrained culture of being the loyal opposition, and of the easier politics of saying no to things they can't stop, and not having to actually do anything, that comes from perpetual minority status. They are not used to governing, are not comfortable governing, and lack experience in doing so as well, and combined with the variety of groups within the party and other issues, you get what we see.

When it comes down to it, Republicans have only controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency for a grand total of eight years since the Hoover Administration. Two years under Eisenhower, four under Bush II, and two under Trump. In none of those cases have they had a filibuster-proof Senate majority. In no case of which I'm aware during this period have they had veto-proof majorities in Congress with a Democratic President. Never have they had control of Congress, control of the Presidency, and solid control of SCOTUS (although they've had Republican-appointee majorities). Democrats have been dominant since Hoover lost to FDR.

That doesn't seem to phase the dems, they just plug at it until they get what they want, and then they move the goals further. Case in point: 1986. Republicans control the Senate, dems control the House, republican president. The dems pushed through the Hughes Amendment.

[Phiremin]

Preserve the majority on the court. Hopefully, for only four years. Would you rather they keep the status quo with the nine justices and we retain majority or would you rather they pack the court with two more liberal justices and we lose majority? A right delayed is a right denied but losing a battle to win the war is worth it in my book. Not to mention they control the House, Senate, and White House. A seat on that bench is a lifetime appointment. A seat in the Oval Office is eight years max.

[Phiremin]

That's a surprise when 2 judges appointed by Bush voted against the carrying.
[ATTACH]999897[/ATTACH]