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

[CCWFacts]

Harris' proclivities during her rise in power are well known. "Golfing" with Sydney could be one of the "activities" she pursued at the time. Only the hotel maid knows for sure.

Just so everyone understands this reference regarding our next Democratic presidential candidate, she slept her way into power. She was the girlfriend of SF's Mayor Brown (30 year age gap!). She got her way into bed with the Democratic machine, literally. #metoo and all that doesn't apply to Democrats, especially not black Democrats. They can be as vile as they want towards women because they're so woke. And intersectional.

[TruOil]

As a matter of statutory construction, the AG is probably right--but ignores the fact (falling back on the absence of records) that ONLY security guards ae considered for such licenses, the chiefs apparently uniformly interpreting "engaged int he protection of life or property" as being limited to such guards. So in practice it is an actual ban. Just as is the concealed carry law that has the same exceptional need requirement.

But the AG also ignores the substance of the opinion, as well as completely ignores the recent D.C. carry decision, that eliminates the "need" analysis, since that analysis summarily precludes that vast bulk of applicants/citizens and prevents them from exercising their 2A right. As we have all said at one time or another, it is a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

I have little doubt that this letter will be included as "additional authority" in the briefing on rehearing/en banc.

[Paladin]

Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...they-Seem.aspx

WTHeck.... Isn't the horse out of the barn? Hasn't the plane already taken off? Shouldn't the State have made this argument during the appeal before the 3-judge panel instead of waiting until after that panel's decision? I know they weren't a party at the 3-judge panel, but weren't they given that option? Didn't you or the defense invite/notify them?

Isn't HI too late to present this new interpretation of the HRS OC law???

While this novel interpretation may change the law as understood by CA9, IIRC, it does NOT change that facts that zero OC permits have been issued as this law has been applied by the State of Hawai'i, at least to non-security guards.

[71MUSTY]

Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...they-Seem.aspx

So are they saying ?

We allow LEO's and Security Guards to open carry so that should satisfy Heller without allowing anyone else to.

[wolfwood]

Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22292/categoryId/118/AG-Opinion-Hawaii-Gun-Laws-Not-as-Restrictive-as-they-Seem.aspx

[rplaw]

Thanks for this. Harris and Thomas must be golf buddies.

Harris' proclivities during her rise in power are well known. "Golfing" with Sydney could be one of the "activities" she pursued at the time. Only the hotel maid knows for sure.

[surfgeorge]

TWO DAYS!

[ritter]

Harris was denied the opportunity to intervene and carry the case to an en banc appeal on Feb 27, 2014 (less than two weeks after the 3-judge ruling) by the 9CA with Judge O'Scannlain (who wrote the decision in that ruling) sitting in the Chief Judge's chair.

On December 1, 2014, O'Scannlain's term as Chief was over (they have a limit), and the next Chief (which is selected by seniority) was Thomas (who wrote the dissent in the 3-judge opinion).

On December 3, 2014 there was suddenly a call for sua sponte en banc, the vote was held and the right to intervene was granted to Harris and the case was queued for the re-hearing... we all know what happened since.

The context is important. The process was highly unusual and was clearly driven by the caprice of a single individual. When they talk about "activist judges," they mean Sidney Thomas. When SCOTUS denied cert, the dissent specifically called this out:

That case is a pretty ugly example of how unscrupulous the people who want to disarm the populace really are.

Here's hoping Wolfwood has a better path forward.

Thanks for this. Harris and Thomas must be golf buddies.

[jwkincal]

Harris was denied the opportunity to intervene and carry the case to an en banc appeal on Feb 27, 2014 (less than two weeks after the 3-judge ruling) by the 9CA with Judge O'Scannlain (who wrote the decision in that ruling) sitting in the Chief Judge's chair.

On December 1, 2014, O'Scannlain's term as Chief was over (they have a limit), and the next Chief (which is selected by seniority) was Thomas (who wrote the dissent in the 3-judge opinion).

On December 3, 2014 there was suddenly a call for sua sponte en banc, the vote was held and the right to intervene was granted to Harris and the case was queued for the re-hearing... we all know what happened since.

The context is important. The process was highly unusual and was clearly driven by the caprice of a single individual. When they talk about "activist judges," they mean Sidney Thomas. When SCOTUS denied cert, the dissent specifically called this out:

The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address.

That case is a pretty ugly example of how unscrupulous the people who want to disarm the populace really are.

Here's hoping Wolfwood has a better path forward.

[champu]

On Harris' plea.

...sort of.

[ritter]

I don't believe it was. If I remember correctly the state wanted no part of Peruta until they lost at the three judge panel. SD Sheriff was going to leave the case at that but the 9th circuit voted to take the case up en banc.

On Harris' plea.

[kuug]

I'm pretty sure the government was late in peruta and allowed to file anyway. Rules are more like guidelines when the judiciary is on your side.

I don't believe it was. If I remember correctly the state wanted no part of Peruta until they lost at the three judge panel. SD Sheriff was going to leave the case at that but the 9th circuit voted to take the case up en banc.

[sfpcservice]

I believe they have until the 14th to file.

I'm pretty sure the government was late in peruta and allowed to file anyway. Rules are more like guidelines when the judiciary is on your side.

[ritter]

I believe they have until the 14th to file.

[SPGuy]

So did I miss it in the previous posts or are we still waiting on Hawaii’s/court’s decision to go en banc?