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

[rplaw]

Why would ANYONE want to take a legally concealed carry firearm out of a concealment holster, unload it, and transfer it to an open carry holster?

TWO mistakes here:

One is that you assume that UNloaded carry is what I'm talking about. I'm not. MY POINT is that UNloaded carry for CCW permitees is stupid because we violate the law while attempting to comply with the law.

It's also ridiculous because, as a CCW holder, I'm legally authorized to go fully armed with a loaded firearm in public. Yet for open carry, I'm not considered trustworthy enough to do that unless the firearm is unloaded.

Secondly: Apparently you've never been outside in the summer while wearing a suit jacket. Believe me, you can't just take off your jacket and pull the tail of your shirt out while still expecting to meet with clients and not look like a rodeo clown.

Being able to take my jacket off when it's 100 degrees would be a huge bonus. Not having to unlawfully reveal and manipulate my carry pistol in order to unload it so I can do that would be logical.

Thus my opinion that IF Young and Nichols are both successful, Ca is in a world of hurt unless they create a carry permit system that allows permitees to carry loaded both concealed and openly. And IF Constitutionality requires that ALL citizens be allowed to bear arms, then the permit system cannot be weighted to only authorize those who meet "good cause" or fall within exceptions and/or have special status. (This is the basis for the decision in Young BTW.)

[Paladin]

Same here, except since I live in LA county where CCW is impossible, I'd lawfully carry all over LA county and let the police field lots of calls that waste their time until they figure out CCW licenses would help them.

For those readers who live not only in LA county, but also in LA city, the LAPD has a slightly more liberal issuance policy than LASD, making it light red/yellow on the CA CCW GC map. See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=21264476

[TruOil]

Sorry this is BS.

In a nutshell, The Law is that I cannot reveal my firearm in an angry, rude or threatening manner UNLESS I am defending myself or another from imminent great bodily injury or death or preventing a felony from being committed.


HOWEVER, pulling my firearm from the holster for the purposes of unloading it so that I could carry it openly, requires that I manipulate the arm and thereby risk a negligent discharge in public. Further, anyone who sees me manipulating the arm and not knowing what I was doing could mistakenly but honestly believe that I was LOADING the arm. Thus triggering the "threatening manner" prohibition.

Why would ANYONE want to take a legally concealed carry firearm out of a concealment holster, unload it, and transfer it to an open carry holster?

[surfgeorge]

Didn't they submit a request for en banc on the 16th?

On the 16th the state of Hawaii filed a motion to intervene. Only the county of Hawaii participated in the oral arguments. The state had filed an amicus after being dismissed from the complaint due to sovereign immunity.

The request for county funds to be used to hire outside counsel was not removed from the agenda due to the possible hurricane weather, it was removed due to necessary revision as it did not meet some unspecified reason that required it to be "re-written" (Office of Council Services).

The day the agenda came out, 6 days prior to the scheduled meeting for the 22nd, without the request in it, county attorney Horowitz (who argued the case for the county in the Ninth orals) thought it was still on the agenda. Supervisor of Litigation for Corporation Counsel Lorraine Martin stated that the item would be on the agenda "sometime in September". The agenda for the September 5 meeting will come out August 30. Then we'll know for sure about that meeting.

Individual testimony is limited to three minutes.

[rplaw]

I disagree. If you currently have a CCW, you cannot draw your firearm anyway except if you are in fear of imminent bodily injury of death to yourself or others, and maybe to effectuate a citizen's arrest. So none of that would change if open unloaded were legalized. Further, until about 5 years ago, open unloaded was legal but no one took advantage of it (but when some people did, the effluent hit the impeller).

Personally, I would MUCH rather carry a concealed (loaded) firearm that an unloaded openly carried one. And even if it were to be relegalized, I doubt that I would take advantage of an open (unloaded) carry law.

Sorry this is BS.

In a nutshell, The Law is that I cannot reveal my firearm in an angry, rude or threatening manner UNLESS I am defending myself or another from imminent great bodily injury or death or preventing a felony from being committed.

There is no law prohibiting me from transferring my loaded firearm from it's holster to a lockbox for storage since doing so would not be done in an "angry, rude, or threatening manner."

HOWEVER, pulling my firearm from the holster for the purposes of unloading it so that I could carry it openly, requires that I manipulate the arm and thereby risk a negligent discharge in public. Further, anyone who sees me manipulating the arm and not knowing what I was doing could mistakenly but honestly believe that I was LOADING the arm. Thus triggering the "threatening manner" prohibition.

Whatever your personal preferences for carry are, they are IRRELEVANT to this discussion. Please refrain from trying to make sweeping pronouncements on what everyone else "should do" because of your own ignorance of the law and personal biases.

[aeroAR]

Didn't they submit a request for en banc on the 16th?

[mark0805]

It did not have anything to do with that. The issue just got moved to the Sept 5th meeting in Hilo. I emailed the County lawyer today and that is what he said. There is that whole issue of the hurricane they are dealing with right now.

There goes mother nature getting in the way of our 2A rights, again. SMH.

[Paladin]

It did not have anything to do with that. The issue just got moved to the Sept 5th meeting in Hilo. I emailed the County lawyer today and that is what he said. There is that whole issue of the hurricane they are dealing with right now.

Thanks for the correction. I guess the person who said that was mistaken or I misunderstood what they meant.

[wolfwood]

It was the County of HI council meeting. The matter was taken off the agenda when the state of HI decided to intervene.

Next deadline to watch is Sept 14th, the last day for the county of HI to ask for en banc appeal.

It did not have anything to do with that. The issue just got moved to the Sept 5th meeting in Hilo. I emailed the County lawyer today and that is what he said. There is that whole issue of the hurricane they are dealing with right now.

[Paladin]

I've got a feeling Hawaii and antis around the national are busy trying to field a "Dream Team" of top NYC and/or Wash D.C. legal talent to fight this at CA9 and then at SCOTUS afterwards.

Assuming a 45 day extension is granted, I *think* we're looking at ~Jan to June 2020 for an en banc decision.

And then comes appeal to SCOTUS... So we're looking at June 2021 for a final decision!

So, for us in anti strongholds in CA, time for a big sandwich and long nap....

Here's the 2nd D.C. lawyer retained for HI's "Dream Team" (along with 2 HI AG lawyers): Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak of Hogan Lovells US LLP

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Young-v.-Hawaii_Notice-of-Appearance-for-Attorney-Colleen-Sinzdak-on-Behalf-of-State-of-Hawaii_140.pdf

[TruOil]

Addressing the bolded part, IF Ca were to allow UNloaded permitless carry, there becomes a HUGE problem for those with CCW's.

Young and Nichols combined have Ca in a situation where the Dem anti-gun agenda is in real danger of falling apart completely. I'm not sure the State truly understands that yet.

I disagree. If you currently have a CCW, you cannot draw your firearm anyway except if you are in fear of imminent bodily injury of death to yourself or others, and maybe to effectuate a citizen's arrest. So none of that would change if open unloaded were legalized. Further, until about 5 years ago, open unloaded was legal but no one took advantage of it (but when some people did, the effluent hit the impeller).

Personally, I would MUCH rather carry a concealed (loaded) firearm that an unloaded openly carried one. And even if it were to be relegalized, I doubt that I would take advantage of an open (unloaded) carry law.

[Paladin]

That Hawaiian legislative body was supposed to meet today to discuss the appeal of the Young decision, does anybody have any info on that?

It was the County of HI council meeting. The matter was taken off the agenda when the state of HI decided to intervene.

Next deadline to watch is Sept 14th, the last day for the county of HI to ask for en banc appeal.

[rplaw]

Reading tea leaves is not a scientific endeavor. However, should the motion be denied or en banc convened and uphold the panel's findings, it would solidify the opinion to where Nichols could proceed. It would then be up to the 9th, CA appeal, en banc cycle again to settle Nichols. If Nichols is upheld at the ninth, then CA would be compelled to find some avenue to permit open carry (loaded?).

That would have to go through the legislative process and may not adhere to any ruling in Nichols, where another round of lawsuits would ensue. It could take another 5-6 years post-Young, in the best case, to get California to comply.

As for SCOTUS, if any of these cases are appealed and granted cert., it could very well lead to shall-issue or permit-less open-carry based on their interpretation of how 2A and 10A interact. Or, they could simply uphold whatever finding the 9th produced.

The other unknown is how SCOTUS might grant a case cert. in order to overcome any circuit splits should CA9 reverse the panel's decision.

There are no certainties, it's all game theory at this point.

Addressing the bolded part, IF Ca were to allow UNloaded permitless carry, there becomes a HUGE problem for those with CCW's.

1. How do you publicly switch from loaded concealed to unloaded open without drawing the arm? Which instantly creates a criminal offense regardless of either statute or Constitutional Right. (You can't even do this when alone in a public bathroom since you're still "technically" in public.)

2. What would this mean for a "flash"? Half of one and half of another is neither and right now a "flash" is not a criminal offense. It might get your permit yanked if you do it too often, but it's not a crime. Yet.

IMO, given the current state of the gun laws in Ca, "Permitted Carry" is the only practical solution the State has. Such a permit would authorize both concealed and LOC. It would also have to do away with discretion and be shall issue to comport with the Constitutional mandate.

Otherwise, the current scheme will become white noise as no one complies and carries openly or concealed at a whim. (Not that people aren't already carrying concealed without permits anyway.)

Young and Nichols combined have Ca in a situation where the Dem anti-gun agenda is in real danger of falling apart completely. I'm not sure the State truly understands that yet.

[kuug]

That Hawaiian legislative body was supposed to meet today to discuss the appeal of the Young decision, does anybody have any info on that?

[sfpcservice]

Or Kurt Russel

From the article:



The vast Majority of Hollywood is Anti 2A, with the exception of a few like
film maker Clint Eastwood.

With that said, I would definitely see a movie based on the above,
directed by Eastwood....


Noble