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

[Fat Old Guy]

I truly would like to be able to get a CCW and not have to prove that I have cause. I watched the arguments that were presented to the 9th circus court, and I have to tell you that I was not impressed with the lawyer for Mr. Young (our side). He seemed unpolished and not in command of what he wanted to present.


Armed Scholar's thoughts: https://youtu.be/_oIGvt-zBW0

Arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cg_1J3Dj0E

[vaka]

If Young vs Hawaii goes our way

I would like to see what other Calgun members would like to see out of a positive ruling for our side in Young Vs Hawaii . Is the ultimate goal to force California's hand and have them start issuing conceal carry permits because California could not fathom the thought of its citizens openly carrying firearms in public or is the actual goal for us to openly carry regardless if California starts issuing ccw's ?

[speedrrracer]

Yes -- everyone always forgets to mention that it also means the "living Constitutionalists" couldn't trust him, either. But I do hope the new Court embraces and protects the 2A, and Roberts squirms and fidgets and suffers as a result of the media storms which will proclaim the tired, old, blood-in-the-streets tropes.

With ACB on to soon be on the bench Roberts becomes a non-factor.

I sure hope so, but remember, neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh have opined on a 2A case, let alone a fireams 2A case, since they've been on SCOTUS. Kav had a nice enough decision at the Circuit level, but he's not bound by anything anymore. Neither of them are, same with Barrett. We'll see the truth, which I hope is that they're all pro-2A originalists, but we don't know until an opinion comes through.

I suspect there will be a flood of 2A certs as Thomas & Aliso want to elevate the status, treatment, and respect of the 2A to the same level as the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

90 years of bad guns laws may be swept away in 4 years with a few strategic rulings.

I hope so. The 2A certainly needs years of TLC before it can be said to be at the same level as abortion, let alone an actual enumerated right.

[champu]

A computerized "expert" system - the ultimate in impartiality! So fast laws every proposed law can be tested before its passed.

[speedrrracer]

Caetano v. Massachusetts 2016

=8-|

Caetano was a stun gun case, and that's the only reason it got cert

SCOTUS knew it would be read in exactly that way, and that's exactly how it has been read. Otherwise Biden wouldn't be able to talk about AWBs, would he?

[Epaphroditus]

A computerized "expert" system - the ultimate in impartiality! So fast laws every proposed law can be tested before its passed.

[sirgrumps]

Much easier than what? I'd love to hear the basis for this claim. We were 0-10 in cert grants last session alone. No firearms case has gotten cert since McDonald, which doesn't even count since that was just cleanup from Heller, so 12 years and counting. There is no formula for what makes an easier cert grant, or at least their wasn't for the Court has it was composed over the past decade +.

At this point, 2A proponents are so flustered we're simply hoping that better Justices will change the status quo of the Court shirking it's duties of defending our 2A rights.




Without agreeing or disagreeing on your analysis of his oral argument skills, do you seriously think it matters at all? If Mississippi passed a law reinstating slavery, and I was forced to defend the pro-slavery law before the Court, do you think the law would stand simply because I was so incompetent during orals?

No, the law would get struck, and my incompetence would be a non-issue. The Justices might be movable on issues about which they don't care, like some obscure section of tax code, but on social issues / civil liberties issues, their minds have been made up for decades.

The Court is going to read the briefs, the oral arguments are just for the Justices to play cat-and-mouse with each other.

[speedrrracer]

It is much MUCH easier to get a cert grant if ...

Much easier than what? I'd love to hear the basis for this claim. We were 0-10 in cert grants last session alone. No firearms case has gotten cert since McDonald, which doesn't even count since that was just cleanup from Heller, so 12 years and counting. There is no formula for what makes an easier cert grant, or at least their wasn't for the Court has it was composed over the past decade +.

At this point, 2A proponents are so flustered we're simply hoping that better Justices will change the status quo of the Court shirking it's duties of defending our 2A rights.

And I need not restate the obvious; while I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Beck for making this case happen for the plaintiff, his oral argument skills simply will not cut it if this goes to SCOTUS.

Without agreeing or disagreeing on your analysis of his oral argument skills, do you seriously think it matters at all? If Mississippi passed a law reinstating slavery, and I was forced to defend the pro-slavery law before the Court, do you think the law would stand simply because I was so incompetent during orals?

No, the law would get struck, and my incompetence would be a non-issue. The Justices might be movable on issues about which they don't care, like some obscure section of tax code, but on social issues / civil liberties issues, their minds have been made up for decades.

The Court is going to read the briefs, the oral arguments are just for the Justices to play cat-and-mouse with each other.

[rkt88edmo]

How can anyone read all these pages and pages and pages and thread and threads and threads about the legal games and Constitutional dishonesty going on, and still have an ounce of respect or belief in our courts. It is time to replace all the judges with average citizens, and replace all the lawyers with same. No one serves more than six months...and no case takes longer than that to be resolved.

mmmmmmkay...I will definitely sign up to be a referee in this new form of MMA you are proposing.

[curtisfong]

an ounce of respect or belief in our courts

When the calculus falls down to simply counting judges to get an accurate prediction, I couldn't agree more.

[johnireland]

How can anyone read all these pages and pages and pages and thread and threads and threads about the legal games and Constitutional dishonesty going on, and still have an ounce of respect or belief in our courts. It is time to replace all the judges with average citizens, and replace all the lawyers with same. No one serves more than six months...and no case takes longer than that to be resolved.

[Elgatodeacero]

This nonsense will not end until the Supreme Court ends it.

[LVSox]

With that reasoning, there's basically not much of a point of pursuing RKBA cases in the 9th Circuit at all, whether argued by Paul Clement or someone else, with or without the backing of any large organizations.

I mean, pretty much any RKBA case in this circuit has a very high chance of a loss on appeal, either at the 3-judge panel, or en banc. Chances have improved a bit very recently, but still, the chances of a loss are higher. And SCOTUS has consistently turned down these cases when appealed there (that may soon change, however).

They haven’t just improved “a bit,” they’ve improved exponentially. When this panel was drawn, there were 16 Dem appointees, and 7 Republicans, one of whom being anti-gunner Bennett. In addition, Clifton and O’Scannlain were eligible as Senior Judges on the 3-judge panel. So that leaves a total of a likely 17 anti-gunners (16 D-appointees minus Thomas who is an autopick plus Clifton and Bennett who are anti-gunning R appointees) against 7 sympathetic judges (7 R appointees minus Bennett, plus O’Scannlain) vying for the 10 remaining spots, which we would need to win 6 of.

That means the hypergeometric probability of us drawing a sympathetic panel last February was less than 1%, or 0.008494557.

On the other hand, currently there are 16 D appointees and 13 R appointees. Subtracting Thomas again and moving Bennett to the anti-side gets us to 16-12 for the pool of candidates to be among the 10 selected to sit with Chief Judge Thomas on the Duncan v. Becerra en banc panel.

That’s a hypergeometric probability of us drawing a good panel today of almost 13%, or .128146453.

To be sure, a 13% chance is still a long shot, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the impossibility that was this case, and discretion is the better part of valor.

At this point, it seems clear that the best hope is ACB’s swift nomination and confirmation, and a cert grant.

[OverturnWickard]

With that reasoning, there's basically not much of a point of pursuing RKBA cases in the 9th Circuit at all, whether argued by Paul Clement or someone else, with or without the backing of any large organizations.

I mean, pretty much any RKBA case in this circuit has a very high chance of a loss on appeal, either at the 3-judge panel, or en banc. Chances have improved a bit very recently, but still, the chances of a loss are higher. And SCOTUS has consistently turned down these cases when appealed there (that may soon change, however).

Yes, no Second Amendment case is ever likely to prevail in the Ninth Circuit with Chief Judge Thomas on his crusade to abolish the 2A. The point of getting Paul Clement to take the case is to make sure the appeal record is clean and directly limited to a core Second Amendment question. It is much MUCH easier to get a cert grant if the state cannot simply state in its opposition brief that "the en banc court did not squarely address the merits of the Second Amendment claim since it was too busy trying to make sense of what the plaintiff was actually arguing" or something along those lines. Young's due process argument also does not strike me as particularly helpful.

And I need not restate the obvious; while I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Beck for making this case happen for the plaintiff, his oral argument skills simply will not cut it if this goes to SCOTUS. If he petitions for cert without retaining specialized appellate counsel, it would be best if it were denied.

[CalAlumnus]

On ARFCOM, the attorney who was working on the case with wolfwood and was sitting off to his side during the arguments (off-camera) said this in response to some of the stuff I'd reported as posted here (addressing help being offered from other orgs).

This is basically an argument about respect and honor. "Dance with the one who brung ya" and all that. No one was interested in Young's case until Beck did some good work, and then suddenly they come calling to try to take over. I get it.

The point remains that when Hawaii County lost, they hired Neal Katyal, who was an acting Solicitor General under Obama. Solicitor General is arguably one of three most prestigious positions for an attorney (the other two being US Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice). They brought in the big guns.

Honor be damned. This case could have broad implications for 2A jurisprudence in the 9th Circuit. We needed someone at Katyal's level. Would it have made a difference to have a Clement do orals? Maybe, maybe not. But now we'll never know.