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

[kcbrown]

Now that's the nuanced distinction I wish could be had with rabbit. You are exactly right. Now maybe you can clarify what I may be misunderstanding. In order to moot a case, there must be no live dispute for a court to resolve. While the live dispute can narrowly be stated as the license for Young, I have an extremely hard time believing this would play out:

Hawaii: Your Honors, we are granting Young the license he's petitioning for and request the case mooted.
Judge X: Your reason for reconsidering after this lengthy fight?
Hawaii: We don't want this case going up to SCOTUS and screwing over all our gun-control brothers in non-arms.
Judge Y: Ok that's fine. Are you going to leave the existing laws and policies in place that brought forth this case in the first place?
Hawaii: Yes.
Judge Z: Ok great, case mooted. We'll see everyone again tomorrow with the next identical case.

It is absolutely possible it plays out like that, but...

There's no way Hawaii would actually be truthful about their reasons, of course. But all they have to do is come up with a plausible reason that would satisfy the Democrat-nominated majority in the 9th Circuit, which would likely accept very nearly anything as "sufficient".

At that point, the case would be done.

Yes, there needs to be a "live dispute", but if Hawaii gives the plaintiff what it wants, and plaintiff doesn't ask for anything else, then there won't be a "live dispute" anymore.

There is precedent that says that just because the government gives in this time doesn't mean that the case is automatically mooted. That was one of the considerations in NYSRPA v NYC. In that case, the Supreme Court decided to moot the case, claiming that the change to state law precluded the city from reverting back to its old ways That, of course, wouldn't be in play for the hypothetical case we're discussing, but nothing forces the court to refrain from mooting even if it had strong evidence that the defense would revert back to its old behavior.

[press1280]

Now that's the nuanced distinction I wish could be had with rabbit. You are exactly right. Now maybe you can clarify what I may be misunderstanding. In order to moot a case, there must be no live dispute for a court to resolve. While the live dispute can narrowly be stated as the license for Young, I have an extremely hard time believing this would play out:

Hawaii: Your Honors, we are granting Young the license he's petitioning for and request the case mooted.
Judge X: Your reason for reconsidering after this lengthy fight?
Hawaii: We don't want this case going up to SCOTUS and screwing over all our gun-control brothers in non-arms.
Judge Y: Ok that's fine. Are you going to leave the existing laws and policies in place that brought forth this case in the first place?
Hawaii: Yes.
Judge Z: Ok great, case mooted. We'll see everyone again tomorrow with the next identical case.

It is absolutely possible it plays out like that, but...

If that scenario plays out then the next applicant doesn't even need the 2A. An equal protection lawsuit will succeed as there was no stated need by Young, and Hawaii will not be able to hide this info from the public.

Just look at how that guy Billy Jack was able to get people CCWs. He found out what was accepted as good cause and had his people put theirs down as the same.
And also look at how most of the anti-gun states keep CCW info hidden from public view (specifically good cause statements). It's obvious they are trying to shield themselves from EP lawsuits.

[Citizen_B]

DC didn't. But DC could have. There is nothing preventing the government from forcing people to litigate for a license.

Will we see Hawaii do that? We won't know that until it happens, will we?

But note here that there's a subtle difference between Heller and Young that is in play. In Heller, we got a decision on the merits of the case. But here, we're talking about the possibility of Hawaii mooting the case before a decision on the merits is made.

No decision means no legal obligation to issue a license to anyone else.

Now that's the nuanced distinction I wish could be had with rabbit. You are exactly right. Now maybe you can clarify what I may be misunderstanding. In order to moot a case, there must be no live dispute for a court to resolve. While the live dispute can narrowly be stated as the license for Young, I have an extremely hard time believing this would play out:

Hawaii: Your Honors, we are granting Young the license he's petitioning for and request the case mooted.
Judge X: Your reason for reconsidering after this lengthy fight?
Hawaii: We don't want this case going up to SCOTUS and screwing over all our gun-control brothers in non-arms.
Judge Y: Ok that's fine. Are you going to leave the existing laws and policies in place that brought forth this case in the first place?
Hawaii: Yes.
Judge Z: Ok great, case mooted. We'll see everyone again tomorrow with the next identical case.

It is absolutely possible it plays out like that, but...

[kcbrown]

Did DC give Heller his license, then go back to denying everyone else who applied for the same license?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Read Heller

DC didn't. But DC could have. There is nothing preventing the government from forcing people to litigate for a license.

Will we see Hawaii do that? We won't know that until it happens, will we?

But note here that there's a subtle difference between Heller and Young that is in play. In Heller, we got a decision on the merits of the case. But here, we're talking about the possibility of Hawaii mooting the case before a decision on the merits is made.

No decision means no legal obligation to issue a license to anyone else.

[kcbrown]

p.59

"We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

You quoted from the decision! That's awesome! Please keep doing this. See how it makes your point so much better than merely citing the page number?

Yes, the above makes it clear that issuance of a license will take care of the instant case in Young, absent additional asks in the prayer for relief.

Frankly, I don't understand why the prayer for relief cannot include an insistence upon a judgment on the merits of the case, thus forcing the court to actually provide such a judgment.

[Citizen_B]

Did DC give Heller his license, then go back to denying everyone else who applied for the same license?

a) Yes
b) No
c) Read Heller

[Citizen_B]

p.59

"We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

As I've stated many time as it regards DC v. Heller . . .

You must comprehend DC v. Heller in it's entirety AND it's particulars. Not just one or the other. To do so is to misrepresent DC v. Heller.

If you had read the ENTIRE concluding section you would have known this.

DC's sudden issuance of a permit AND acceptance by Mr. Heller mooted any move if any was intended to stricken DC regulations.

Rabbit, slow down and try to understand what is being said. Contrary to what you may believe, I have read Heller and the concluding section you refer to. You missed my point. The petitioner conceded that they're not challenging the licensing scheme, they just want a license. SCOTUS says (after the lengthy constitutional justification), you shall be granted the license. You are correct that the ruling wasn't to stricken DC regulations. So my simply question to you is...

Did DC give Heller his license, then go back to denying everyone else who applied for the same license?

This is important because this is what you are suggesting will happen in Young if Young is granted a permit.

If the County in Hawaii or State of Hawaii offers Young a permit - and Young accepts, CA9 does not have to strike the county regulations in question. They can remain in place . . .

You are correct again, but if the case is mooted, it must be shown that the moot isn't an attempt to skirt dealing with the underlying issue at hand so a thousand more lawsuits just like it (and more) flood back into the courts.

[Librarian]

Gentle members, please try to keep on topic.

[Citizen_B]

Explain how he is wrong. What does he have no idea about? How can he expand his knowledge and understanding if you won't engage any further?

The problem is he HAS been shown where his explanation is unsubstantiated and he ignores requests for supporting evidence (other than "read Heller" of course). KC went into length about the Heller OC issue. I even tried to steel man rabbit's position and point out the flaws, with no response. That exchange was deleted for being off of this topic, and I get the feeling we're straying once again into delete land...

Like I said earlier, I get how we're all jaded about the state of the 2A in CA. It is a sorry state. But this is an open discussion board full of people who have different perspectives on current events. That's why we debate it.

[Aldo The Apache]

Until public opinion on the 2nd amendment reaches the level that abortions and gay wedding cakes can reach... the 9th and SCOTUS do not care.

^^^This nailed it 100%

Calguns is a great tool for sharing ideas and insight through discussion but shouldn’t be used to bash one another as if what we say on here has any impact out there!
I mean WTF?! Why??? Why aren’t we discussing when/how/where we’re meeting up en mass every goddamn week to take this fight out in the streets??? Making plans to March 2 miles straight to the steps of city hall of our cities. I’ve seen it done recently for President Trump, in every culture and city so WHY AREN’T WE DOING THAT FOR OUR RIGHTS???!!!

Let’s ****ing start RIGHT NOW!!!

Tired of this BS talk about “oh geez I wonder if the courts will grant us our rights back? It’d be great if they did?”

Grant us? Our rights? You mean just sit back and wait for our lord and savior Benitez to fight for us? I got news for everyone: No one is saving you but you!

The time for action is NOW! NOW! The framers would roll over in their graves by seeing us allow ourselves to be violated and have our rights raped right before our eyes and we’re doing nothing. NOTHING!

Let’s get out there and protest til they grow def from our chants and can’t ignore us anymore goddamn it!!!

We have gunners here in every city in California and parts outside. We can, we must start coordinating on when the talk stops and action begins. Not tomorrow but yesterday!

[Citizen_B]

Nothing requires the court to ask the reason why.

All the court has to note is that the defendant's offer of a permit satisfies the appellant request for remedy - that the appellant has accepted and close the case with no further action.

Just as it happened in DC v. Heller.

=8-|

What are you talking about?? I don’t know where to begin, so I’ll just say this... In Heller, SCOTUS ruled:

“... the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

Are you saying that after Heller the man was issued a license, that DC went right back to denying EVERYONE ELSE licenses and let them pound sand? Please, just answer that simple question...

[violentmouse]

Explain how he is wrong. What does he have no idea about? How can he expand his knowledge and understanding if you won't engage any further?

Is what he said not EXACTLY how no less than 6 previous cases have ended?

Did you miss the last episode of New York Moots N Stuff?

On the topic of mootness, they need not do anymore than provide a permit to moot the claim (OC or CC) This settles the ENTIRE issue at hand.

On the topic of damages, what damages are there outside of legal fees? once the permit has issued, there is no further damages. This is not "The People v. Hawaii", so we cannot claim further damages to the right to carry at that point because nobody else is party to the case... His claim is not to damages of his constitutionally protected right, his claim is purely that he has been denied issuance of any form of carry, he is not challenging the permit scheme at all beyond issuance, once a permit issues, HE CAN CARRY.

The fact that SCOTUS allowed New York to moot, set the bar pretty low....the 9th will ride that shiny new pony until it collapses from exhaustion, and they are required to consume mind altering drugs to come up with another way to ignore reality, and facts so they can rule on high against us by twisting logic into a deranged and useless play thing.

Time and Time again, I have watched for YEARS as members on this forum have argued to the point of insanity, how the 9th would decide a case.

Time and Time again, the 9th has proven that it DOES NOT CARE "what" or "how" you think, they will make a decision based purely on "feels" and they fear SCOTUS about as much as a teenage girl on a tanning bed fears skin cancer.

You would pretend to not want to suffer Rabbit any further, but the truth is, like myself, he was watched, and he has learned how these things actually turn out.

So if he is so wrong... please.... explain, I would love to hear exactly how you think this will go any other way "IF" they issue a carry permit of any sort.

Which in doing so would open the floodgates for hundreds, if not thousands of new suits being filed almost instantly, and probably result in millions of wasted tax dollars fighting each and every one until they cannot moot them anymore,
finally yielding and creating a very nasty and super restrictive scheme to just deny permits using excessive fees, and a requirement to approve based on some impossible to reach, imaginary level of need.

The facts that you ignore are simple.... "the 9th ignores facts."

I am wrong, Rabbit is wrong, and YOU are wrong.

It will always be this way and the 9th will never stop amazing us in it's ability to limbo under an ever lowing bar, because we spend so much time taking shots at each other.

Until public opinion on the 2nd amendment reaches the level that abortions and gay wedding cakes can reach... the 9th and SCOTUS do not care.

The state is not going to allow themselves to be bombarded with a thousand lawsuits for permit issuance, I highly doubt they would try to moot the case, without some well laid plans to restrict the snot out of issuance showing that they are trying to issue, but people just cannot meet the standard and therefore it is not a restriction on the right.

The Real problem?

No matter how this case ends... the downright piss poor treatment of each other here will continue on. We are all supposed to be in this together, and we need to learn from and lean on each other.

Seems to me that thinking you will know the outcome of a case, is now more important than understanding the real problem.

How a case is supposed to be handled vs. how the 9th actually handles cases.

In any case, I have wasted too much energy on this anyways as you will probably just take a massive crap on me for trying to point out something you will obviously overlook anyways.

There is what you expect to happen based on rules.
There is what really happens because we now live in a society where having a badge or being a politician puts you in a class of "more" equal citizens.

[press1280]

[Elgatodeacero]

Mrrabbit, you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. I won’t engage with you further because you do not seem inclined to expand your knowledge or understanding, but suffice it to say you are wrong.

[Elgatodeacero]

For those that are unclear on the point, by seeking damages, even if issued a permit Mr. Beck’s client will still be entitled to a decision on the merits to establish his claim for money damages.

In this instance, there would be no mootness because even with a permit in hand, Mr. Beck’s client will be able to seek and obtain a final judgment on the scope of the right to “bear” arms, since it is essential to his claim for damages.