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

[press1280]

Hopefully Scotus will take the NYC case and relegate this opinion to the trash heap

[DolphinFan]

Which of the four justices above will vote for cert on a concealed carry case that challenges exactly that which States use to regulated concealed carry?
Thomas
Kavanaugh
Gorsuch
Barret


Which of the five justices above will vote to overturn in part DC v. Heller AND Robertson v. Baldwin's recognition that prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional?
Thomas
Kavanaugh
Gorsuch
Barret


The issue here is simple. YES, "Prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld"

The problem IS, what "PROHIBITIONS"?
Many will claim the prohibition is with "CARRY", when it should be about "WHERE you can CARRY".

As an example, school zones and government buildings, good to prohibit, but the act of carrying can NOT be prohibited.

Then the game will become one of government officials continually limiting WHERE you can carry NOT that you can't

[Phiremin]

All the cases - except Young v. Hawaii - heading SCOTUS's way are concealed carry cases.

People can call them "carry" cases all they want - they're concealed carry cases.

So, knowing the following:

Thomas: Prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld - DC v. Heller 2008
Alito: Prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld - DC v. Heller 2008
Roberts: Prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld - DC v. Heller 2008
Breyer: Agreed in dissent - DC v. Heller 2008
Kagan: Bound by prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld - DC v. Heller 2008
Sotomayor: Unknown
Kavanaugh: Bound by prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld - DC v. Heller
Gorsuch: Bound by prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld - DC v. Heller
Barret: Bound by prohibitions on concealed carry may be upheld - DC v. Heller


Which of the four justices above will vote for cert on a concealed carry case that challenges exactly that which States use to regulated concealed carry?

Which of the five justices above will vote to overturn in part DC v. Heller AND Robertson v. Baldwin's recognition that prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional?

SCOTUS in 2008 was unanimous that concealed carry may be regulated and prohibited by the States.

What has changed since 2008?

=8-|

I can’t envision the Supreme Court mandating open carry.
I’d also argue that NYSRPA is not a concealed carry case. If you read the question presented, they don’t even mentioned the word “concealed”. Any petitioner today today would have learned the lesson from the 9th circuit in Peruta, where they basically said “you didn’t ask about a right to carry outside the home, you only asked if there was a right to conceal a weapon”. They decided their wasn’t a right to conceal and frankly, that is probably true. There is no constitutional right to conceal a weapon and as such states may prohibit concealment. However, that doesn’t mean there is necessarily a right to openly carry by default. Even if there is support in the historical text for this, I don’t see the court mandating open. So, where does that leave us? The court rules you have a 2A right outside the home. There is a right to carry. However, the manner of carry may be subject to state regulation. Want to prohibit concealed carry, then you have to allow open. Want to prohibit open carry, then you have to allow concealed.
That being said, I think there is an excellent chance they pass on NYSRPA and take Young instead. The 9th really threw down the gauntlet with their decision. SCOTUS may want to go after them directly versus through a proxy like NYSRPA. SCOTUS also seems to take pleasure in overturning the 9th. It also probably delays a decision until after the mid-terms, when hopefully the court packing risk has passed.

[command_liner]

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.

[Paladin]

So ... In Peruta CA9 en banc said there’s no right to Concealed Carry in public. Now in Young CA9 en banc says there’s no right to Open Carry in public. That forecloses any Right to Carry in public despite a “right of the people to keep “and bear Arms” (unless they think the 2nd only protects bearing in a private space). I think they overplayed their hand.

Let’s say SCOTUS GVR’s Young, does it go back down to a 3-judge panel? (That’s my assumption since SCOTUS voided the en banc panel’s decision.) Will it be the same 3-judge panel or a new one? Or does it go to the same en banc panel or a new one?

[abinsinia]

So ... In Peruta CA9 en banc said there’s no right to Concealed Carry in public. Now in Young CA9 en banc says there’s no right to Open Carry in public. That forecloses any Right to Carry in public despite a “right of the people to keep “and bear Arms” (unless they think the 2nd only protects bearing in a private space). I think they overplayed their hand.

Young only applies to open carry of handguns. So they haven't answered the question if you can open carry a long gun, but you can kind of expect what they will say. There is the Nichols case which deals with open carry of long guns.

[TruOil]

So ... In PerutaYoung

I don't know about "overplaying" its hand, the fight over carry of firearms in public had to come to a head at some point. Obviously a majority of the Ninth would like to see public carry in all urban areas banned or at least licensed by the government. Further, the composition of the Supreme Court isn't likely to change any time soon. Finally, any decision by the en banc panel would be binding on all judges in the Circuit absent being overruled by the Supreme Court. So it really was "it's now or never." If it was going to try to enact comprehensive gun control by judicial fiat, it had to rule in favor of the state or be barred from attempting to do so on another day, and it certainly was not going to be a court that would recognize a universal right to openly bear arms in public in every town and city in its jurisdiction.
Realistically, the Court had nothing to lose by deciding as it did. The loser was likely to seek Supreme Court review anyway. With the few number of cases taken up, there was certainly a decent possibility that the Supreme Court would not grant cert, and the decision would become permanently engraved in the law.
So to put it another way, the Ninth did not overplay its hand as much as it played the only hand it could, given its political bent and a moral belief that guns are bad.

[Harry Ono]

If Federal Voting Requirements goes through all is lost.

[IVC]

People can call them "carry" cases all they want - they're concealed carry cases.

The certiorari will present a constitutional question to the court and it will be "whether the right to carry outside the home exists."

It would be very silly for our side to present the question of "whether the right to carry a concealed weapon exists" because it is too specific and doesn't address what we need to find out, i.e., the scope of the "and bear arms" part of the 2A and whether it exists or not. It would be similarly silly to try to resolve all the issues about which guns, where, when and how can be carried. Once the court says "the right to carry exists," then the follow up cases can clean up any obtuse court reasoning.

Justices know this, our attorneys know this. We need the court to say that "bear" means "carry for self defense in public places." That's all.

As for the rest, the next step is AWB, magazine capacity and handgun rosters, which are the most restrictive "what" questions. The details of carry can be polished relatively easily after "bear" is defined, especially if states attempt to restrict carry by playing the "when/where" game *after* the ruling.

[curtisfong]

You forget they all rely on the same thing: "primarily in the home".

The holding itself is based on "in the home", since that was the complaint.

To that extent, expect all courts hostile to the right (and certain members of SCOTUS, including Roberts) to interpret "primarily" as "exclusively".

This is why you should never treat the "language" of law as English. It is not.

[abinsinia]

You forget they all rely on the same thing: "primarily in the home".

The holding itself is based on "in the home", since that was the complaint.

To that extent, expect all courts hostile to the right (and certain members of SCOTUS, including Roberts) to interpret "primarily" as "exclusively".

This is why you should never treat the "language" of law as English. It is not.

Here is a choice quote from the decent,

Heller described the“inherent right of self-defense” as “most acute” within the home, implying that the right does extend elsewhere, even if less “acutely.”

He had two similar to this from the Heller decision.


Here's the second one regarding the Heller opinion allowing regulation of arms in sensitive places,

But why bother clarifying the Second Amendment’s application in particularly sensitive public places if it does not apply, at all,in any public place?

[darkwater]

This is apparently not a quotation by Thomas Jefferson.

https://www.monticello.org/site/rese...ious-quotation

If MLK said it, that's even better...

[lowimpactuser]

I don't know about "overplaying" its hand, the fight over carry of firearms in public had to come to a head at some point. Obviously a majority of the Ninth would like to see public carry in all urban areas banned or at least licensed by the government. Further, the composition of the Supreme Court isn't likely to change any time soon. Finally, any decision by the en banc panel would be binding on all judges in the Circuit absent being overruled by the Supreme Court. So it really was "it's now or never."

This also has to do with a speeding up and lack of compromise on one side of the culture war that has never met with a permanent loss vs. a side that always meets with a loss. This speeding up has no brakes, and they are not shrinking from any fight they can pick. This is also a major issue, and they are waxing triumphant.

If it was going to try to enact comprehensive gun control by judicial fiat, it had to rule in favor of the state or be barred from attempting to do so on another day, and it certainly was not going to be a court that would recognize a universal right to openly bear arms in public in every town and city in its jurisdiction.
Realistically, the Court had nothing to lose by deciding as it did. The loser was likely to seek Supreme Court review anyway. With the few number of cases taken up, there was certainly a decent possibility that the Supreme Court would not grant cert, and the decision would become permanently engraved in the law.
So to put it another way, the Ninth did not overplay its hand as much as it played the only hand it could, given its political bent and a moral belief that guns are bad.

And what realistic chance is it that the court which has showed its true colors in backing down from controversy in the electoral cases wants to court the same forces and decide on behalf of history's losers? I'm a lot less confident in ideology nowadays than I am in people's personal courage. And the courage of Thomas was on full display for his hearing, and his subsequent silence likely because that kind of swaggering strength isn't respected or popular in a profession of obsequious belly-crawling and lying with pretty words.

If the recent rulings by the recent appointees don't give you pause then you completely miss what politics means. And this is why you don't have a prayer of winning.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Sun Tzu

[lastinline]

Case after case was referenced by SCOTUS in which a person was carrying concealed out and about in public - and their conviction or fine was UPHELD. There was even one in which the person was carrying concealed on their own property - and their conviction was upheld.

[lastinline]