Jump to content

Young v Hawaii - May-issue carry license


Euler
 Share

Recommended Posts

There were two previous topics on Young v Hawaii, but both are now locked.

Young v. Hawaii Orals (CA9)

Young v Hawaii - Ninth Circuit Panel decision upholds right to public carry

 

CA9 reversed itself en banc. Now the case has been petitioned to the Supreme Court.

 

Docket

...

This petition presents the same issue presented in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. Corlett, .... Like the New York statutory scheme at issue in NYSRPA , Hawaii maintains a statutory scheme that denies permits to ordinary law-abiding persons who seek to carry a firearm (openly or concealed) outside the home for self-defense. Indeed, unlike the New York scheme, where some permits actually have been issued, Hawaii's scheme is a permitting system in name only, because the statute has been used to deny all permit applications during the nine years this case has been in litigation.

...

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 7 months later...
  • 1 month later...

 

Ninth Circuit Sends the Hawaii Concealed Carry Challenge Back Down to District Court

EUGENE VOLOKH | 8.19.2022 4:30 PM

The en banc panel majority (seven judges) ordered today, in Young v. Hawaii:

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of this Court, 992 F.3d 765, and has remanded this case to us "for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)," Young v. Hawaii, 2022 WL 2347578, at *1 (U.S. 2022). We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings pursuant to the Supreme Court order.

Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, joined by Judges Consuelo Callahan, Sandra Ikuta, and Ryan Nelson, dissented, arguing that the Ninth Circuit should have resolved the question itself:

I respectfully dissent from our failure to resolve the straightforward legal issues presented by this case. The Supreme Court has vacated the judgment of this Court and remanded this case to us "for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __ (2022)." But today, we decline to give further consideration to the question presented to us and we decline even to deal with it.

more here:  https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/19/ninth-circuit-sends-the-hawaii-concealed-carry-challenge-back-down-to-district-court/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2022 at 9:35 PM, mab22 said:

So the majority of sane judges sent it back to be dealt with using Bruen, I guess that is a positive?
 

 

Not really, they should have summarily ruled at thier level setting precedent across the entire 9th circuit inline with the Supreme Court.  It's about as black and white a case as any court will ever see and after Bruen they know full well how they are required to rule on the question they were asked, but by kicking it back down they avoid setting precedent in the ninth circuit that is inline with the Supreme Court, that was their goal, they kicked the can down the road instead of ending the question instantly because they clearly don't want to rule as they are required since the Supreme Court just white gloved slapped thier excuses for not following Heller/McDonald already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2022 at 5:02 PM, Euler said:

Unfortunately the CourtListener copies of appeals dockets tend to be incomplete. In this case, it's missing any order sending the case back to the district. It would be informative to see what the order actually says.

 

They didn't say anything they just kicked the can, except for the annoyed dissenters they said a mouthful!

 

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-08-19-Order-for-Publication.pdf

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This move by the ninth makes sense (whether I like it or not).  Bruen has created a nominally new test (or clearly laid out the test for all parties and the courts) focusing on text, history and tradition.  The district courts are the finders of facts, and both sides should be able to focus their arguments on the text, history and tradition such that matters of law can be handled upon appeal.  Sadly, this does reset the clock for justice, but I am optimistic that the district court will rule for Young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 11:31 AM, Silhouette said:

This move by the ninth makes sense (whether I like it or not).  Bruen has created a nominally new test (or clearly laid out the test for all parties and the courts) focusing on text, history and tradition.  The district courts are the finders of facts, and both sides should be able to focus their arguments on the text, history and tradition such that matters of law can be handled upon appeal.  Sadly, this does reset the clock for justice, but I am optimistic that the district court will rule for Young.

I fully beg to differ, Heller already laid down the line that carry is part of the enshrined right and already laid down the text/tradition test, there is no reason to revisit this under text/tradition that was already the test but being blindly ignored, if the defense failed to argue the case properly because they chose ignorance or willful blindness that is their fault and they should not get a redo because they didn't understand Heller or assumed the court would ignore Heller.  It's simply not the 9ths or the courts job to give someone a do over because they failed to argue the case properly the first time.

 

If they want a redo because they were confused and argued it wrong, that is would be better suited as an appeal to the SCOTUS after the 9th ruled, not the 9th kicking it back down.

 

We have to remember, Bruen didn't create the test, the test was created in Heller, Bruen just spelled it out more clearly to the dolts that refuse to comprehend and follow it!  And I'm 100% convinced that the 9th still refuses to follow it.

 

 

 

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 4:18 PM, Euler said:

 

There's a decade of precedent after Heller, though, which the Supreme Court declined to review, even when Scalia was still alive.

 

All of that is now irrelevant since Bruen. 
 

Justice Thomas clearly stated in his Bruen opinion a clear explanation of Heller and McDonald and went on to clarify many other issues. 

 

Then next 10-15 cases in the next 1-3 years will start to define the new era of “gun control” and what laws will stand and those that will be enjoined and overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 4:18 PM, Euler said:

 

There's a decade of precedent after Heller, though, which the Supreme Court declined to review, even when Scalia was still alive.

 

The 9th is and was only bound by the precedent set in Heller, not the "incorrect" precedent set by lower or equalt courts for the last decade even if they favored that "incorrect" precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 5:41 PM, Euler said:

 

They're bound by their own precedent, too.


Any 2nd case they have ruled on since Heller that they did not apply history and tradition only but instead wrongfully applied means is not and was not lawful precedent.

 

The 9th had no reason to not rule on this open and ongoing appeal based on lawful precedent that dates back 10 years to Heller, that is the only precedent they are currently bound by, not the wrong decisssions that have been made by them.  If they were worried about the wrong argument being presented they could have simply allowed for new arguments before ruling.  Kicking the can down to a lower court was and is nothing but a a cop-out, it had nothing to do with their wrong historical precedent it had everything to do with them NOT wanting to set proper precedent at the 9th level that they would as you said be bound by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2022 at 5:40 PM, Euler said:

 

The arguments in Young were formulated pre-Bruen.


That’s another reason the En Banc court wants it to go back to district to have an opinion written after Bruen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://mauinow.com/2022/08/26/maui-police-issue-first-license-to-carry-a-concealed-weapon-permit/

The Maui Police Department has issued its first license to carry a concealed firearm permit.

As of Aug. 24, 2022, the MPD Records Division had distributed 187 Concealed Carry Weapon license applications in 2022.  Department spokesperson Alana Pico tells Maui Now that 13 of those 187 have been submitted to MPD for processing.  A single application was approved.  

The Records Division also distributed nine License To Carry – Unconcealed license applications as of Aug. 24.  Two of those nine have been submitted to MPD for processing.  None of the unconcealed applications have been approved yet, according to Maui police.

The Maui Police Department’s permit application process is available online.  On Wednesday, the Hawaiʻi County Police Department also posted their updated permit application process online. 

This comes after the US Supreme Court issued a ruling two months ago in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843 that allows people to carry a gun outside of their home if they have a proper license to carry permit.  

Maui Police Department’s Concealed Carry Application form has been revised in accordance with Hawaiʻi Attorney General Opinion 22-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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