Jump to content

Young v Hawaii...


Texasgrillchef

Recommended Posts

At the writing of this post, we dont yet have the outcome of the En Banc 11 panel judge ruling in The 9th circuit case of Young V Hawaii.

 

Obviously a positive decision for Young from the 9th circuit wont have much legal Bering or impact on states outside of the 9th circuit. However if case is appealed to the US Supreme Court, and assuming they agree to hear the case and assuming they find in favor of Young. In terms of open carry this would have a huge impact nationwide on those states such as Illinois, Florida and a few others that dont allow for open carry. It may not allow for permitless open carry, but it would at least allow for open carry with a permit.

 

I of course am hoping and praying for the outcome to be in Youngs favor, I also hope that Supreme Court hears the case and finds in youngs favor as well. But I hope the En Banc hearing is in his favor as well. This would make big changes for California as well.

 

Thoughts? If all the courts find in favor of young, how do you see it impacting Illinois and the right to open carry in the state?

 

We can only hope that with a new conservative judge soon to be appointed, it will help our cause!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't think it will make much of a difference at this point, as long as the state allows concealed or open they are probably going to pass current court muster with either or allowed.

 

What really needs to happen at the Supreme Court is for the court to say strict scrutinity applies to all gun laws that infringe the right, once that is done it could be applied to open vs concealed laws and I don't think prohibitions on open carry will meet that level of scrutinity at that time.

 

  1. is necessary to a "compelling state interest";
  2. is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and
  3. uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well on doing an in depth reading of the arguments that both sides gave at the En Banc hearing it is interesting to note that Hawaii conceded and admitted to the fact that they view open carry as a constitutional right. They are at this point only defending the point that they can require a “good cause” reason and requirement prior to issuing a permit to open carry.

 

Thus the court only has to decide if a “good cause” requirement is constitutional or not. A three judge panel has already ruled that it was unconstitutional. Hawaii will of course appeal to the Supreme Court as well as Young if the en Banc doesn’t find in their favor. It’s anyone’s guess if SCOTUS will hear the case. But if they do odds are that they will find in young’s favor due to Amy Barrett being appointed to be a justice soon. Hawaii is aware of that, and may get pressured by California and other states not to take it there if they loose, because at that point it becomes national. Although there will soon be some lawsuits filed both in Illinois and Florida for open carry based on the outcome of Young v Hawaii.

 

Currently as far as I am aware. Open carry is not allowed at all in Illinois, with or without a permit. Thus if this case makes it to SC and they find in favor of young, Illinois will have to allow open carry, as well as Florida and every other state. Odds are even if your looses at SC level, since Hawaii has admitted that open carry is constitutional, most courts would not make a ruling that it isn’t constitutional when both young and young and Hawaii claim the that it is.

 

However, if it doesn’t make it to the SC, Then it won’t affect anyone other then the 9th circuit states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well on doing an in depth reading of the arguments that both sides gave at the En Banc hearing it is interesting to note that Hawaii conceded and admitted to the fact that they view open carry as a constitutional right. They are at this point only defending the point that they can require a “good cause” reason and requirement prior to issuing a permit to open carry.

 

Thus the court only has to decide if a “good cause” requirement is constitutional or not. A three judge panel has already ruled that it was unconstitutional. Hawaii will of course appeal to the Supreme Court as well as Young if the en Banc doesn’t find in their favor. It’s anyone’s guess if SCOTUS will hear the case. But if they do odds are that they will find in young’s favor due to Amy Barrett being appointed to be a justice soon. Hawaii is aware of that, and may get pressured by California and other states not to take it there if they loose, because at that point it becomes national. Although there will soon be some lawsuits filed both in Illinois and Florida for open carry based on the outcome of Young v Hawaii.

 

Currently as far as I am aware. Open carry is not allowed at all in Illinois, with or without a permit. Thus if this case makes it to SC and they find in favor of young, Illinois will have to allow open carry, as well as Florida and every other state. Odds are even if your looses at SC level, since Hawaii has admitted that open carry is constitutional, most courts would not make a ruling that it isn’t constitutional when both young and young and Hawaii claim the that it is.

 

However, if it doesn’t make it to the SC, Then it won’t affect anyone other then the 9th circuit states.

 

Illinois allows open carry when out in the fields and woods IF you have a valid hunting license and it isn't Deer season , unless it is a caliber accepted for deer hunting and it is pistol season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well on doing an in depth reading of the arguments that both sides gave at the En Banc hearing it is interesting to note that Hawaii conceded and admitted to the fact that they view open carry as a constitutional right. They are at this point only defending the point that they can require a “good cause” reason and requirement prior to issuing a permit to open carry.

Thus the court only has to decide if a “good cause” requirement is constitutional or not. A three judge panel has already ruled that it was unconstitutional. Hawaii will of course appeal to the Supreme Court as well as Young if the en Banc doesn’t find in their favor. It’s anyone’s guess if SCOTUS will hear the case. But if they do odds are that they will find in young’s favor due to Amy Barrett being appointed to be a justice soon. Hawaii is aware of that, and may get pressured by California and other states not to take it there if they loose, because at that point it becomes national. Although there will soon be some lawsuits filed both in Illinois and Florida for open carry based on the outcome of Young v Hawaii.

Currently as far as I am aware. Open carry is not allowed at all in Illinois, with or without a permit. Thus if this case makes it to SC and they find in favor of young, Illinois will have to allow open carry, as well as Florida and every other state. Odds are even if your looses at SC level, since Hawaii has admitted that open carry is constitutional, most courts would not make a ruling that it isn’t constitutional when both young and young and Hawaii claim the that it is.

However, if it doesn’t make it to the SC, Then it won’t affect anyone other then the 9th circuit states.

 

Illinois allows open carry when out in the fields and woods IF you have a valid hunting license and it isn't Deer season , unless it is a caliber accepted for deer hunting and it is pistol season.

Is there still the exception for fishing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well on doing an in depth reading of the arguments that both sides gave at the En Banc hearing it is interesting to note that Hawaii conceded and admitted to the fact that they view open carry as a constitutional right. They are at this point only defending the point that they can require a “good cause” reason and requirement prior to issuing a permit to open carry.

Thus the court only has to decide if a “good cause” requirement is constitutional or not. A three judge panel has already ruled that it was unconstitutional. Hawaii will of course appeal to the Supreme Court as well as Young if the en Banc doesn’t find in their favor. It’s anyone’s guess if SCOTUS will hear the case. But if they do odds are that they will find in young’s favor due to Amy Barrett being appointed to be a justice soon. Hawaii is aware of that, and may get pressured by California and other states not to take it there if they loose, because at that point it becomes national. Although there will soon be some lawsuits filed both in Illinois and Florida for open carry based on the outcome of Young v Hawaii.

Currently as far as I am aware. Open carry is not allowed at all in Illinois, with or without a permit. Thus if this case makes it to SC and they find in favor of young, Illinois will have to allow open carry, as well as Florida and every other state. Odds are even if your looses at SC level, since Hawaii has admitted that open carry is constitutional, most courts would not make a ruling that it isn’t constitutional when both young and young and Hawaii claim the that it is.

However, if it doesn’t make it to the SC, Then it won’t affect anyone other then the 9th circuit states.

Illinois allows open carry when out in the fields and woods IF you have a valid hunting license and it isn't Deer season , unless it is a caliber accepted for deer hunting and it is pistol season.

Is there still the exception for fishing?

 

I do not know about that. I would assume but you know what that makes of us. If I were thinking about doing so , I would contact the local game warden since that is who could be putting the shinny bracelets on you .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law enforcement officers are not lawyers. They are especially not your lawyer.

 

Also, letting cops do whatever they want (like arrest people for carrying firearms in conformance with all laws, of which the cops may or may not be ignorant) is the opposite of freedom.

 

I never meant to imply that they were . However if you can't afford a lawyer or can't afford to loose work because of sitting in a jail cell , then knowing how the local warden felt about things could save you some trouble. Even if you do have a lawyer and he , or she , tells you it is legal , you might still get to make a trip with the shiny bracelets on.

 

I agree with what you have said but I won't tell someone to go ahead and do something when I am not sure of the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can ask a cop any question you want, you can do the same with a lawyer as well.

 

But here’s the problem... in asking either. Cops don’t always know the law, they haven’t studied law to the same degree a lawyer has. So a lawyer can tell you something is legal, but if a cop thinks it’s illegal, he will still arrest you, even if later the charges get dismissed. Even if the da drops the charges before you have even got a lawyer. Your still dealing with a trip to the slammer.

 

On the other hand... if a cop believes it’s legal, even when it isn’t. He isn’t going to arrest you. At least not right then. He may come back and try to arrest you if later he finds out you broke the law, or even the da may issue a warrant for your arrest later. That happened to me once. Cop didn’t think it was illegal, but filed a report. About a week later, I received a ticket in the mail by the officer with a note that said he discovered it was illegal, and was directed by the da to write a ticket. I called my lawyer and got the ticket dismissed. But still cost me $300.

 

So ask a lawyer. At least he will tell u if it’s legal or not and to call him if a cop arrests you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here’s the problem... in asking either. Cops don’t always know the law, they haven’t studied law to the same degree a lawyer has.

 

From my interactions with police, they generally know no more or just slightly more then the average Joe inregards to the actual laws.

 

One has to accept that probably 90% of police work is answering public disturbance calls like dogs barking, suspicious this or that, domestic disturbance calls, retail theft and enforcing traffic violations. That isn't to say some police don't have a better grasp of the laws, but for a vast majority, their training is mostly focused on police procedures and protocol not interpretations of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...