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

[JunkYrdDog]

Doesn't Nichols think Heller is binding on all courts and judges?

If so, why didn't he just file a MSJ saying "No factual disputes. Heller held that OC of a functional firearm (i.e., LOC) is 'The Right' to bear arms. (insert citation here LOL!) I want to exercise my 2nd A Right to LOC. CA bans LOC and even UOC. Therefore, CA OC ban/s are unconstitutional violating the 2nd A RKBA per Heller. I rest my case."

Apparently Heller did not issue an opinion directly about #OpenCarry outside the home

[CCWFacts]

Doesn't Nichols think Heller is binding on all courts and judges?

If so, why didn't he just file a MSJ saying "No factual disputes. Heller held that OC of a functional firearm (i.e., LOC) is 'The Right' to bear arms. (insert citation here LOL!) I want to exercise my 2nd A Right to LOC. CA bans LOC and even UOC. Therefore, CA OC ban/s are unconstitutional violating the 2nd A RKBA per Heller. I rest my case."

It's a brilliant legal strategy which no one has ever thought of before.

After Nichols crushes our open carry ban with that simple MSJ filing, I hope he will next move on to destroying the IRS by pointing out that the constitution doesn't allow income tax and that tax compliance is voluntary. A simple MSJ should do the trick. Wow it's great to have someone like that fighting for liberty.

[Paladin]

The opinion is binding on all courts and judges until en banc is granted i thought

Doesn't Nichols think Heller is binding on all courts and judges?

If so, why didn't he just file a MSJ saying "No factual disputes. Heller held that OC of a functional firearm (i.e., LOC) is 'The Right' to bear arms. (insert citation here LOL!) I want to exercise my 2nd A Right to LOC. CA bans LOC and even UOC. Therefore, CA OC ban/s are unconstitutional violating the 2nd A RKBA per Heller. I rest my case."

[CCWFacts]

Wolfwood, THANK YOU again (endlessly) for your work in this. And thanks for the explanation. I'm not an attorney and I learn from your (and the other attorneys here) explanations. I do have common sense to understand that no one is going to issue an injunction or TRO to the state of California based on a case that doesn't have a guaranteed outcome and is far from settled. Until the mandate issues, we have to wait.

[wolfwood]

Awesome, thanks for that reference to a rambling, highly inaccurate speech by a non-attorney. I won't even go through and analyze it because a) I'm not an attorney and b) I don't have time but even as a non-expert I can tell it's far off. Ok, I'll analyze one point that he makes right in the beginning, which was all I could listen to. He says that the day the Young decision came out, open carry was legal in California and it was binding on every judge in the 9th and so attorneys here should have started filing motions and the gun rights orgs were fools for not doing that. Or something like that. Great, yeah, anyone could have filed a bunch of motions, and maybe they would be granted, but they would ALL BE STAYED until Young reached a final state (appeals exhausted, deadlines passed, mandate issued) and that's why no one bothered to file those motions because it wouldn't do anything. Better results from waiting until Young is finalized, rather than filing motions which will be either futile (we lose Young) or unnecessary (we win Young).

He also thinks the "so-called gun rights orgs" have lots of money and hate open carry and hate their donors. Yeah these groups are... a conspiracy to deny you your right to walk around South Coast Plaza with a shotty! It's a conspiracy, they're in it for the money and because they just hate open carry! Look... these groups are run by people who understand that our legal system isn't a computer programming language, and society and social views matter, and open carry isn't going to be a thing in urban California, and despite all the court cases Nichols cites, there isn't support for the idea that "open carry is the right", and there isn't social support to back up whatever legal support there might be. Sorry Mr. Nichols, you're not going to be allowed to walk around Costa Mesa or wherever carrying a shotty.

Anyway... thanks for the awesome reference, I hope you don't file any pro se cases, and I hope you learn some more so you can not make the foolish mistakes in thinking that Nichols makes.

This is why a TRO/PI likely would not work. Preliminary injunctions are a "extraordinary remedy" that is not granted as a right. It is up to the judge whether or not to grant one even if there is precedent that says the litigant must win at the merits stage of his case.

In ruling on a preliminary injunction a court balances a four factor test. The four factors are: (1) the threat that the moving party will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (2) the moving party’s likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the possible hardships to the moving party if the injunction is not granted outweigh the possible harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted (also called the balance of equities); and (4) granting the injunction will be in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted).

The Court has every right to tell someone that files a PI that you are likely to win on the merits of the case based upon current precedent but that precedent may change soon due to en banc proceedings. Thus, it is in the public interest to not enjoin the law through a TRO or Preliminary injunction. Or the Court can say the balance of hardships do not weigh in your favor because it would be a hardship on the State to enjoin a law prior to the en banc proceedings being decided.

Those are just a couple of many ways the Court can rule against you. It is up to the judge you are in front of to issue you a PI despite Young being on the books. Courts tend to wait for a ruling on the merits before doing anything much less enjoining a law. Here, the PI will likely denied. Then the Court will likelystay the case to wait for the Ninth in Young prior to ruling on the merits. Anyone that suggests the Courts are chomping at the bit to enjoin California's carry laws is mistaken.

[CCWFacts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwij...&feature=share

Awesome, thanks for that reference to a rambling, highly inaccurate speech by a non-attorney. I won't even go through and analyze it because a) I'm not an attorney and b) I don't have time but even as a non-expert I can tell it's far off. Ok, I'll analyze one point that he makes right in the beginning, which was all I could listen to. He says that the day the Young decision came out, open carry was legal in California and it was binding on every judge in the 9th and so attorneys here should have started filing motions and the gun rights orgs were fools for not doing that. Or something like that. Great, yeah, anyone could have filed a bunch of motions, and maybe they would be granted, but they would ALL BE STAYED until Young reached a final state (appeals exhausted, deadlines passed, mandate issued) and that's why no one bothered to file those motions because it wouldn't do anything. Better results from waiting until Young is finalized, rather than filing motions which will be either futile (we lose Young) or unnecessary (we win Young).

He also thinks the "so-called gun rights orgs" have lots of money and hate open carry and hate their donors. Yeah these groups are... a conspiracy to deny you your right to walk around South Coast Plaza with a shotty! It's a conspiracy, they're in it for the money and because they just hate open carry! Look... these groups are run by people who understand that our legal system isn't a computer programming language, and society and social views matter, and open carry isn't going to be a thing in urban California, and despite all the court cases Nichols cites, there isn't support for the idea that "open carry is the right", and there isn't social support to back up whatever legal support there might be. Sorry Mr. Nichols, you're not going to be allowed to walk around Costa Mesa or wherever carrying a shotty.

Anyway... thanks for the awesome reference, I hope you don't file any pro se cases, and I hope you learn some more so you can not make the foolish mistakes in thinking that Nichols makes.

[wolfwood]

The case is not binding until it is final. Yes, there is a decision, but it isn't final until it is returned to the district court, which is delayed pending the en banc and subsequent appeals process, if any. Therefore the case cannot yet be cited as binding precedent by any district court case, meaning filing another case will change nothing. It would not likely be decided in time, and any appeal would be joined with this case and stayed, just like the Nichols case was.

From Page 14 of the linked birdt v san bernardino sheriffs department opinion. I am just throwing this out. I don't know a lot about this issue but it appears that the judge in Birdt's case felt that Peruta was binding on it even though the mandate had not issued. I am not looking to get into a multi page debate about this. I just remembered this opinion and decided to toss it out as food for thought.

Nonetheless, for the time being, Peruta is governing Ninth Circuit law that lower courts must follow. See Nichols v. Harris, — F. Supp. 2d — , 2014 WL 1716135*1 (C.D. Cal.) (panel decision is binding on lower courts as soon as it is published and remains binding even if the mandate is stayed, citing Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 389 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)).

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Birdt-v.-San-Bernardino-Sheriffs-Dept._Report-and-Recommendation-of-United-States-Magistrate-Judge.pdf

[TruOil]

What happens if en banc is granted after you file a new case?
What is the likelihood that a case could be filed and resolved before the deadline to grant en banc passes?
Even if a case could be filed and resolved before the deadline to grant en banc passed, what would be the validity of such a decision if the 9th Circuit subsequently announced it would review the opinion en banc?

Would I prefer concealed carry to open carry? Duh. Among other things, concealed carry by license resolves the whole school zone issue.

You be you.

The case is not binding until it is final. Yes, there is a decision, but it isn't final until it is returned to the district court, which is delayed pending the en banc and subsequent appeals process, if any. Therefore the case cannot yet be cited as binding precedent by any district court case, meaning filing another case will change nothing. It would not likely be decided in time, and any appeal would be joined with this case and stayed, just like the Nichols case was.

[Kukuforguns]

The opinion is binding on all courts and judges until en banc is granted i thought

What happens if en banc is granted after you file a new case?
What is the likelihood that a case could be filed and resolved before the deadline to grant en banc passes?
Even if a case could be filed and resolved before the deadline to grant en banc passed, what would be the validity of such a decision if the 9th Circuit subsequently announced it would review the opinion en banc?

Would I prefer concealed carry to open carry? Duh. Among other things, concealed carry by license resolves the whole school zone issue.

You be you.

[kuug]

So what's next, we wait for the county of Hawaii's appeal and the eventual sua sponte by the full 9th circuit?

[JunkYrdDog]

Do you mean, TRO (temporary restraining order), or injunction? IANAL but my understanding is TROs are filed against people as an order for them to stay away, and it's not relevant at all in this case.

A request for injunction sounds great but it would be stayed until after the en banc question is settled, so it wouldn't do anything.



So basically the state is a party to this, no intervenor status needed? It sounds reasonable and logical to me, as a non-lawyer. Obviously this case isn't about the County of Hawaii but rather about a state law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwijy32YHvA&feature=share

[JunkYrdDog]

You are not a lawyer. If I explained the reasons to you, you would just ignore my post and continue to feel persecuted. So ... here's my easier answer: There are good reasons.

Also, what's the difference between 6 exclamation points and 10 exclamation points?

https://youtu.be/Bwijy32YHvA

[JunkYrdDog]

There is nothing to cite until the decision in final and it is final if and when the mandate issues, which isn't going to happen if an en banc is granted.

The opinion is binding on all courts and judges until en banc is granted i thought

[Kukuforguns]

What I would like to know is why there are no pro #SecondAmendment groups here in CA filing a TRO against the CA #Opencarry laws since this decision.

The time it is going to take for this case to possibly go en banc means with a granted TRO, citing this decision, means that Californians could be utilizing open carry while we wait a year or so.

Get with the program, get that TRO filed!!!!!!


I will even pay the $400 filing fee if needed!!!!!!!!!!

You are not a lawyer. If I explained the reasons to you, you would just ignore my post and continue to feel persecuted. So ... here's my easier answer: There are good reasons.

Also, what's the difference between 6 exclamation points and 10 exclamation points?

[CCWFacts]

The time it is going to take for this case to possibly go en banc means with a granted TRO, citing this decision, means that Californians could be utilizing open carry while we wait a year or so.

Do you mean, TRO (temporary restraining order), or injunction? IANAL but my understanding is TROs are filed against people as an order for them to stay away, and it's not relevant at all in this case.

A request for injunction sounds great but it would be stayed until after the en banc question is settled, so it wouldn't do anything.

Somewhat interesting order came down

So basically the state is a party to this, no intervenor status needed? It sounds reasonable and logical to me, as a non-lawyer. Obviously this case isn't about the County of Hawaii but rather about a state law.