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

[Elgatodeacero]

How can it be controversial to assert that there is a right to keep and bear arms, when the 2nd Amendment literally says “keep and bear”.

Good gracious people, it is plain as day.

[Kukuforguns]

I was referencing the word "bestow", defined as "to convey as a gift".

My apologies for the ambiguity of my concern.

[Elgatodeacero]

Haha, ok, I see, that was pretty subtle for meathead like me.

I don’t think it really matters, but yes, it would have been more correct to say “recognizes a pre-existing basic human right”.

Those sorts of things really don’t matter, the S.Ct. Will do whatever it wants.

As a society we have basically abandoned the idea of limited government, and we are all much poorer, financially and freedom-wise, because of it.

Will the government appointed Supreme Court Justices allow the peasants to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in a meaningful way? I’d like to believe it, but it is probably a mere triumph of hope over reason.

[curtisfong]

“If the Supreme Court … meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” - Williams v. Maryland

[CandG]

“If the Supreme Court … meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” - Williams v. Maryland

That was definitely the biggest error/omission in the Heller decision. The language left it too open to everyone's own interpretation. We all know what it meant to say, but the inarguable fact of the matter is that it was too vague.

I'm saving a bottle of fine scotch for when the next SCOTUS opinion spells it out in plain English:

"This Court finds that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, including all lawfully owned firearms and, necessarily, their ammunition and magazines, both inside and outside the home, and this right CAN NOT be infringed by any state or local government."

...or something to that effect

And then after that, hopefully another SCOTUS ruling will spell out, in plain english, precisely what firearms, ammunition, and magazines can be lawfully owned.

[jwkincal]

And then after that, hopefully another SCOTUS ruling will spell out, in plain english, precisely what firearms, ammunition, and magazines can be lawfully owned.

This is the one that really matters, and the one I wish had been queued up immediately after Heller. While I understand folks' concern around the interpretation of "bear," it's "arms" that is the key to vestiture of power in the People by the 2nd Amendment. Without SACF rifles, the People are not sufficiently armed to ensure accountability on the part of the Government.

Fingers crossed, though. We have an open window, I just hope that the SCOTUS is able to provide the appropriate clarity before things in DC go farther downhill.

[CandG]

This is the one that really matters, and the one I wish had been queued up immediately after Heller. While I understand folks' concern around the interpretation of "bear," it's "arms" that is the key to vestiture of power in the People by the 2nd Amendment. Without SACF rifles, the People are not sufficiently armed to ensure accountability on the part of the Government.

Fingers crossed, though. We have an open window, I just hope that the SCOTUS is able to provide the appropriate clarity before things in DC go farther downhill.

Exactly - having the right to bear arms is pretty meaningless if the states can still say "well fine then, we'll effectively ban every gun then", a la handgun roster.

[TruOil]

1. SCOTUS in DC v. Heller already said the right is both inside and outside. With few exceptions, the cases referenced for "bear" or "carry" were for people out and about in the PUBLIC fined or arrested. As almost a rule, those fined or arrested for OC out and about in PUBLIC had their fines or conviction overturned or remanded. Those fined or arrested for CCW out and about in PUBLIC had their fines or convictions upheld.

2. They already said it in DC v. Heller: "Commonly held arms suitable for SELF-DEFENSE for the purpose of confrontation."

- That's for the preexisting PEOPLE.
- That's for the preexisting MILITIA of the PEOPLE.

It is Militias created by States and Congress under Article I, Sec. 8, Cls 12-13 that are better equipped including with weapons of war.

Don't argue with me, take it up with Scalia (dead)...or SCOTUS if you think you can make it that far.

=8-(

Well, the Ninth en banc says you are wrong and that Heller said no such thing. The State of Hawaii is perfectly happy with that ruling, as, I suppose, is the State of California. Take it up with Judge Thomas. If I were to appear in a federal court tomorrow representing someone openly carrying in Hawaii or California, who do you think the judge will believe, you or the Ninth? (Actually it is a moot question; the trial judge is bound to follow the rulings of the appellate court in its district.

[curtisfong]

Don't argue with me, take it up with Scalia (dead)...or SCOTUS if you think you can make it that far.

“If the Supreme Court … meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.” - Williams v. Maryland

Until SCOTUS rules otherwise, "most notably in the home" in the language of law means "exclusively in the home" in plain English.

Don't argue with me, take it up with your local (highly trained and super intelligent past mere mortals) lawyer and ask them why the language of the law often has the opposite meaning in plain English. They're the ones most proud of this disconnect, not me.

[TruOil]

It is not the lawyers, it is the judges who disagree with a Supreme Court decision saying, "I think you got it wrong, and I'm not going there unless you expressly order me to go there. I will use any and all devices to ignore the intent of the opinion by limiting it to its facts." A classic example is that Ninth Circuit case about the SF "carry or lock it up" ordinance that went as close as it could to the express line drawn by Heller without crossing it, because the Ninth doesn't think that mere plebs should possess guns. The Ninth did it again in Peruta and again in Young v. Hawaii. Their excuse is, in essence, the express holdings in Heller and McDonald apply only to possession of workable firearms in the home, and no matter how broad Scalia's reasoning was, we will limit all gun rights to in the home until ordered otherwise. Since they'd gotten away with it twice, in Young they slapped Scalia's ghost in the face and threw down the gauntlet.

[press1280]

The beauty of it is that there are no parties in NYSRPA arguing for CA9's logic in Young. The court can pretty much rule the right extends outside the home and just decide on the good cause requirement which should be a pretty easy call since the few times a similar issue has come up (abortion or protest permit) SCOTUS has knocked it down.

[morrcarr67]

This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.

I was referencing the word "bestow", defined as "to convey as a gift".

My apologies for the ambiguity of my concern.

confer or present (an honor, rightgrant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right).

grant
/ɡrant/

verb
verb: grant; 3rd person present: grants; past tense: granted; past participle: granted; gerund or present participle: granting

1.
agree to give or allow (something requested) to.
2.
agree or admit to (someone) that (something) is true.

So, when you're reading this quote

This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.

I would say that they are saying and agreeing that the Second Amendment is an Individual's right to bear arms.

[Kukuforguns]

confer or present (an honor, rightgrant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right).

grant
/ɡrant/

verb
verb: grant; 3rd person present: grants; past tense: granted; past participle: granted; gerund or present participle: granting

1.
agree to give or allow (something requested) to.
2.
agree or admit to (someone) that (something) is true.

So, when you're reading this quote

This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.

I would say that they are saying and agreeing that the Second Amendment is an Individual's right to bear arms.

Imagine you are a lawyer. And your job is to clearly, and unambiguously persuade a court. Why would you use word that is, at best, ambiguous?

Moreover, your analysis is ridiculous. Let us substitute the least horrible definition of bestow (agree that (something) is true) for bestow in the quote:

This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment agrees that it is true that an individual has a right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.

The Second Amendment does not agree to anything. It limits the Federal Government's (and states by incorporation) power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. In your translation, you changed who was bestowing from the Second Amendment to the Court. I understand we don't like criticizing people doing important work. I respect that the attorney is doing this pro bono. I am not one of the cheerleaders that believes only the right people should bring these suits.

With all that being said, why are you trying to defend the indefensible? The quoted statement is clearly at odds with what the Court wrote (a pre-existing right) and what the Second Amendment plainly states. If the attorney had asked any of the many attorneys who specialize in 2A work or even the many more attorneys who are interested in the subject, he would have been advised to revise that statement. Such lawyers passionately want this lawsuit to succeed. Asking for help is one of the advantages to working with other lawyers and one of the disadvantages of being a solo.

[morrcarr67]

Imagine you are a lawyer. And your job is to clearly, and unambiguously persuade a court. Why would you use word that is, at best, ambiguous?

Moreover, your analysis is ridiculous. Let us substitute the least horrible definition of bestow (agree that (something) is true) for bestow in the quote:


The Second Amendment does not agree to anything. It limits the Federal Government's (and states by incorporation) power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. In your translation, you changed who was bestowing from the Second Amendment to the Court. I understand we don't like criticizing people doing important work. I respect that the attorney is doing this pro bono. I am not one of the cheerleaders that believes only the right people should bring these suits.

With all that being said, why are you trying to defend the indefensible? The quoted statement is clearly at odds with what the Court wrote (a pre-existing right) and what the Second Amendment plainly states. If the attorney had asked any of the many attorneys who specialize in 2A work or even the many more attorneys who are interested in the subject, he would have been advised to revise that statement. Such lawyers passionately want this lawsuit to succeed. Asking for help is one of the advantages to working with other lawyers and one of the disadvantages of being a solo.

Be careful driving, it appears that shinny things get you going all over the place.

I was responding to your concern of ONE word, bestow.

As I mentioned that word; as do many, have different meanings. One is the meaning that has you concerned. Another is the meaning that I shared.

You are free to be concerned about anything you'd like to be concerned about. As you are free to use any definition of the word you want.

But take a look back at this thread and I bet that you'll be the only one that's using that definition and has that concern.

[Kukuforguns]

Be careful driving, it appears that shinny things get you going all over the place.

I was responding to your concern of ONE word, bestow.

As I mentioned that word; as do many, have different meanings. One is the meaning that has you concerned. Another is the meaning that I shared.

You are free to be concerned about anything you'd like to be concerned about. As you are free to use any definition of the word you want.

But take a look back at this thread and I bet that you'll be the only one that's using that definition and has that concern.

Thank you for substantive and persuasive response.