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

[Elgatodeacero]

It would not be unreasonable to vacate and remand all these cases to the district courts, since the Supreme Court has just announced a new rule for analyzing gun laws and in fairness all parties should have a chance to modify their claims and augment their evidence.

This text/history analysis is going to cause the civilian disarmament lobby to pull out their hair, because almost no gun laws existed prior to the late 1960s (the 1911 Sullivan Act in NY has already been determined by the Supreme Court to be an unconstitutional anomaly).

My read is that this test is much harder than strict scrutiny for the govt, and govt usually loses strict scrutiny. When you start researching old gun laws before 1968, it quickly becomes clear that while some weird law may have existed in a single town or city, they almost never were statewide laws, and even when you find a weird 1800’s state law, it is always a single state. The Supreme Court was crystal clear that outliers are exactly that - outlier jurisdictions that do not reflect the broad and general history of American gun rights or gun laws.

It may take 10 more years, but Bruen was a disaster for the people who want to disarm America.

[rplaw]

California is going to "shall issue" with complete restrictions on where one can carry. All public places will be restricted and every private facility will be off limits unless the proprietor displays signage stating carry is allowed.

I'm not sure the signage thing is constitutional since it mandates that private property owners engage in a specific type of speech they may not want to speak. Taken to extremes, this type of signage requirement could be considered akin to keeping minorities out of private businesses unless the business posts a sign letting minorities affirmatively know they can shop there. Basically, it's nothing more than State mandated segregation.

Secondly, since when does the authority to force private citizens to "allow" only certain citizens to enter their property/business? If someone in engaged in commerce and I wish to contract with them over their goods/services, the State cannot say I can't do that unless the subject of the contract is illegal. Requiring a business to post a specific sign to "allow" me specifically to enter is ridiculous. That's what "OPEN" means.

[FirearmFino]

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL

[rplaw]

In the future, if it's a PDF download rather than a web address, please put (dot) .PDF at the end so that people who are viewing on phones know not to click the linky and start the download.

Other than that, I have minor quibbles because I'm in Ca and not Hi. Since I'm here and not there, they don't really impact Mr. Young as much as they do me. In this I'm referring to the fact that the court said clearly that we the people don't need to ASK for permission to bear arms in public. Having to apply for a permit for OC is indeed "asking" regardless of how easy/cheap/shall issue said permit would be. The language is right there in black and white, let's start hammering the 9th with it.

[press1280]

In the future, if it's a PDF download rather than a web address, please put (dot) .PDF at the end so that people who are viewing on phones know not to click the linky and start the download.

Other than that, I have minor quibbles because I'm in Ca and not Hi. Since I'm here and not there, they don't really impact Mr. Young as much as they do me. In this I'm referring to the fact that the court said clearly that we the people don't need to ASK for permission to bear arms in public. Having to apply for a permit for OC is indeed "asking" regardless of how easy/cheap/shall issue said permit would be. The language is right there in black and white, let's start hammering the 9th with it.

The opinion is somewhat contradictory. It mentions "asking" permission but the Kavanaugh/Roberts concurrence green lights shall issue permits. IMO, you're right, you can't just go out and carry w/o the permit. I'm guessing they mean "asking" as in may-issue; when you ask someone you can get one of two answers. Shall-issue means you clear the background and minimum requirements like training, the government cannot say no.

[randomBytes]

They might try, it won't stand. FPC is already informing AG Bonta that they are going after any sheriff who tries to circumvent GC with GMC, and we certainly won't allow anyone to play "sensitive places" game in the way that Bruen explicitly forbade (declaring large public areas as sensitive places).

Do you really think he GAF ? The stupid new rules will have a chilling effect - as intended.

CA is as close to shall issue as Biden is to mentally competent - or honest.

Somehow we need a way to make those in contempt of SCOTUS and The People, suffer more than embarrassment.

[IVC]

Do you really think he GAF ? The stupid new rules will have a chilling effect - as intended.

CA is as close to shall issue as Biden is to mentally competent - or honest.

I don't think he GAF, but I do think there are *many* more judges like Benitez and do think the composition of CA-9 has changed under Trump when he stopped asking CA senators for approval of appelate judges in their states.

The threat pattern to the anti gun ideology is changing, from what we used to have with years of litigation, to the world of quick preliminary injunctions so the waiting game works *against* them. They won't change their ideology and they will always look at us as "those people," so the question is not whether they see us as subhumans who should be treated like cockroaches - they most certainly do - the question is whether the delay game will remain their ally.

In a way, the most important change (by far) that we are looking for is not even the cases that were GVR-ed, but whether we have the ability to start getting PI-s at district courts and whether we should start filing literally dozens of similar cases until we find that *ONE* judge who will issue a PI and let us breathe while the court *system* plays games.

Nothing will stop Newsom/Bonta faster than getting PI-ed quickly, so they not only lose, but have an uneventful years through the court system while their law is enjoined. This is exactly how abortion laws were handled during Roe, no fanfare, no effect on the people. And make no mistake, those legislators hated abortion more than these clowns hate guns and gun people. Another example is the mask mandate on airplanes. Biden administration is still appealing the injunction, but we are free to travel without masks and it's almost certain that Biden's court effort will just fizzle away in a year or two.

Somehow we need a way to make those in contempt of SCOTUS and The People, suffer more than embarrassment.

Won't work in this case, so best to leave this line of reasoning alone. To get to the point of "civil rights violations" we would need at least a different federal government, which is at best years away. And even then it wouldn't be the highest priority while the courts are sorting out the issue.

[rplaw]

The opinion is somewhat contradictory. It mentions "asking" permission but the Kavanaugh/Roberts concurrence green lights shall issue permits. IMO, you're right, you can't just go out and carry w/o the permit. I'm guessing they mean "asking" as in may-issue; when you ask someone you can get one of two answers. Shall-issue means you clear the background and minimum requirements like training, the government cannot say no.

A concurrence is not the majority opinion, unless you're using multiple concurrences in order to make a plurality. So, if the concurrence differs from the majority opinion, the majority opinion language is what counts.

The Maj Op was clear that we shouldn't have to "ask" before being able to exercise our rights. Further, even a very liberal shall issue system for OC means that visitors must first enter the state, stripped of their Right to bear arms and then "ask" for a permit before they can exercise that Right.

For OC, based on the language of the Maj Op, that won't fly. It might for CC, but for OC I don't see how it's not "asking for permission" to exercise a Right since exercising the Right without the permit would be a criminal offense.



Re: Training and background checks.

Since when do you need to "pass an exam" in order to exercise your rights? That again is akin to having to "ask" for permission. They can mandate training for CC, because there are some not so obvious differences between OC and CC. OTOH, OC is OC and if you're going to do it then the State can't put artificial hurdles in your way. Not only because of THT, but because of that unconstitutional requirement to "ask" before you can exercise that Right.

Background check? Didn't you do that when you purchased your firearm? Why is it required again? And then again and again each time you renew? Is this the new euphemism for good cause or GMC?

[Paladin]

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL

That was filled with crunchy goodness!

Hats off to Alan Beck for his tireless work and continually successful 2A litigation around the country.

[ShadowGuy]

This Court should not delay the relief Mr. Young seeks. Mr. Young has been on appeal in this court since 2012. He is 72 years old. Now that Mr. Young’s rights have been vindicated by the Supreme Court of the United States, this Court should immediately grant this Motion and reverse with instructions to the district court to enjoin Hawaii’s “exceptional case” or “urgency or need” statute and order to the Defendants to issue Mr. Young his permit immediately. He’s waited long enough for relief. Mr. Young’s constitutional rights have been demonstrated to be violated by Defendants’ actions. How much longer should he have to wait to have his case adjudicated and obtain his relief? This Court should stand up for people like Mr. Young, someone who fought bravely for his county in Vietnam, has led an exemplary life, and seeks to simply exercise his constitutional rights as guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Thank you to Mr. Young!

[Paladin]

I wonder what sort of argument the state will make to claim they should win?

[abinsinia]

I wonder what sort of argument the state will make to claim they should win?

That's something I'm waiting for also. Some of these cases I don't know what they can say to argue anymore.

[lastinline]

That's something I'm waiting for also. Some of these cases I don't know what they can say to argue anymore.

They will need time to analyze, study, contemplate, and ponder the ruling, and what effect it might bring. This will take another decade.

[pacrat]

That was filled with crunchy goodness!

Hats off to Alan Beck for his tireless work and continually successful 2A litigation around the country.

^^^ AMEN THAT ^^^

[randomBytes]

I wonder what sort of argument the state will make to claim they should win?

They don't need to - just delay another 20 years and the case will be mooted