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

[command_liner]

Does the 13th amendment exist outside the home? Last time I tried to expand this question, it got zapped by the moderators, so just think about it yourself.

What about the 19th? Can we restrict women to mail-in ballots only? Try and use the reasoning of the 9th to prove otherwise.

[press1280]

David Kopel examines some of the 9th's "selective editing" of historical laws used to prop up their claim in this Reason article. Makes me wonder if all the judges who agreed with the outcome actually read the references at all.

Probably not. They were flat out boxed into a corner and chose to create a split with Moore on a pretty fundamental question rather than rule for open carry (alternatively they could have overruled Peruta but that was a longshot).

[Phiremin]

Why not do what most of the other circuits have done, which is basically “

...Is there a right to carry in some form? Maybe. There could be. Who knows, but it’s irrelevant anyway because “justifiable need” is a reasonable restriction that passes intermediate scrutiny...”

It’s mundane. It doesn’t create any new splits and SCOTUS has taken a pass on every case that used this argument.
If I were a pro-gun control liberal judge on the 9th circuit, I’d be looking to make the fewest waves. If Harris/Biden get to replace 1 of the 5 conservative justices, we probably go back to guaranteed inaction on the 2A. Replace 2 and the 5 liberal majority can permanently shut the door on a right to carry.
So, why throw the gauntlet down with such a bold decision when SCOTUS is the most conservative it will probably ever be?
Was there something in Peruta that would prevent an “intermediate scrutiny” ruling? Do they think ACB isn’t the real conservative many hope she is?
Do they think the threat of court packing will cause SCOTUS to take a pass?
Are they tossing a hand grenade hoping to blow the whole thing up? In other words, dare SCOTUS to require “must issue” or constitutional carry because they think it will generate major backlash against conservatives and become conservative version of Roe v Wade?

[press1280]

They were painted in a corner thanks to Peruta and HI's draconian issue policy. Since HI hasn't issued to regular citizens, it seems a bridge too far even for CA9 to say that the right is satisfied to just have a permit process, even if NO ONE ever gets a permit.
HI could have possibly eased up at some point and issued a few token permits and claim they're just like NY and NJ, but stayed greedy and chose to play hardball.

[Drivedabizness]

And they appear to have won. SCOTUS will not take this up

[BaronW]

And they appear to have won. SCOTUS will not take this up

How do you know that? Has SCOTUS even been petitioned yet? It seems a bit early to throw in the towel.

[dawgcasa]

And they appear to have won. SCOTUS will not take this up

[IVC]

If SCOTUS turns down all of these public carry cases in a repeat of what happened last summer after NYSRPA v NYC was mooted ...

I wouldn't conflate the two. The last year's case was indeed mooted and it was technically a correct decision.

Agreed with the rest of your post - we will see what's going on at the SCOTUS level and we will know that soon.

[dawgcasa]

I wouldn't conflate the two. The last year's case was indeed mooted and it was technically a correct decision.

Agreed with the rest of your post - we will see what's going on at the SCOTUS level and we will know that soon.

What I meant by a repeat was after SCOTUS mooted NYSPRA, they then denied cert to a whole slew of gun-rights cases. To me that meant that Roberts had flipped from his support of Heller, and the four solid conservatives didn’t want to risk being on the losing side of a bad decision that unwound Heller. Today, Roberts is no longer the ‘swing’ vote. And if the conservatives have a solid 5-vote majority on a pro-gun rights opinion without Roberts, then Thomas gets to determine who writes the opinion ... unless Roberts joins those five simply so he can exercise some control to moderate the opinion.

Roberts is the one who is more concerned about the ‘legacy’ of ‘his’ court than he is with ensuring the words and original intent of the Constitution are preserved regardless of the political Sabre rattling ... all this ‘court packing’ drum beating by Democrats is intentionally targeted at intimidating Roberts ... because he’s shown he can be intimidated.

[johnireland]

We all know where this is heading. A nation without a Constitution is a nation without laws. At that point, people have the right to take what ever action is necessary to defend themselves...including against the "government."

[abinsinia]

04/15/2021 316 MANDATE ISSUED.(SRT, DFO, MMM, KMW, WAF, RRC, JSB, CMC, SSI, MTF and RDN) [12074949] (DJV) [Entered: 04/15/2021 07:31 AM]

Is this the final mandate needed for SCOTUS appeal ?

[darkstar2000]

Hopefully it gets sent to SCOTUS fingers crossed

[curtisfong]

States may regulate those - including to the point of prohibition (ban).

States may regulate anything they please until SCOTUS says otherwise. What you think is irrelevant. Even a literal reading of any/all precedent is irrelevant, since SCOTUS can do as they please, whenever they please, disregarding anything that is inconvenient to the conclusion they want to make. Indeed precedent is contradictory, and literally any conclusion is possible via appropriately selective reading.

Again, your certainty that the courts are bound by... anything... is naive.

[curtisfong]

Looks like SCOTUS took Corlett, though.

[pacrat]

Looks like SCOTUS took Corlett, though.

I firmly believe that the 9th Circus's assinine YOUNG finding was instrumental in SCOTUS giving cert in Corlett.