Euler Posted May 25, 2021 at 11:05 PM Share Posted May 25, 2021 at 11:05 PM 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. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted May 25, 2021 at 11:38 PM Share Posted May 25, 2021 at 11:38 PM Seems like it's a better and cleaner case for the SCOTUS because it's a 'right' entirely denied to all by proxy legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasgrillchef Posted August 16, 2021 at 02:37 AM Share Posted August 16, 2021 at 02:37 AM If you will notice, this case is now pending and being held by SCOTUS pending the outcome of the NY case that SCOTUS has accepted for a hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 16, 2021 at 02:54 AM Author Share Posted August 16, 2021 at 02:54 AM It's been distributed for conference Sep 27. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted November 8, 2021 at 12:09 AM Share Posted November 8, 2021 at 12:09 AM It'll be GVR'd when NYSRPA is ruled by SCOTUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:07 PM Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:07 PM Petition granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:14 PM Share Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:14 PM On 6/30/2022 at 10:07 AM, Euler said: Petition granted. Young? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:32 PM Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:32 PM On 6/30/2022 at 11:14 AM, SiliconSorcerer said: Young? Young is old, but he's still alive. Was that the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:35 PM Share Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:35 PM Texasgrillchef posted a link to the decision https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1639.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:48 PM Author Share Posted June 30, 2022 at 03:48 PM On 6/30/2022 at 11:07 AM, Euler said: Petition granted. The order was granted, vacated, and remanded. The order list was worded sneakily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted August 20, 2022 at 10:06 PM Share Posted August 20, 2022 at 10:06 PM 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 More sharing options...
Sweeper13 Posted August 20, 2022 at 10:17 PM Share Posted August 20, 2022 at 10:17 PM UNREAL..... They don't care about this right. This court is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 20, 2022 at 10:18 PM Share Posted August 20, 2022 at 10:18 PM The liberal courts are well aware how they now must rule under Bruen but can't bring themselves to do thier job! I expect the 9th will do everythign they can to not hear an appeal at all over the 2nd for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted August 22, 2022 at 02:35 AM Share Posted August 22, 2022 at 02:35 AM So the majority of sane judges sent it back to be dealt with using Bruen, I guess that is a positive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 22, 2022 at 09:15 PM Share Posted August 22, 2022 at 09:15 PM 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 More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 22, 2022 at 10:02 PM Author Share Posted August 22, 2022 at 10:02 PM District docket Appeals docket 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 23, 2022 at 01:49 AM Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 01:49 AM 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted August 23, 2022 at 02:39 AM Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 02:39 AM Wow. SCOTUS specifically ruled on a subject, and the 9th Circuit is ignoring their ruling on the exact same subject? It's been 11 years since that case started, but I guess the liberal judges can laugh that they can deny Young's rights for another year or two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 23, 2022 at 02:41 AM Author Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 02:41 AM Sending the case back to the district allows HI to reformulate its defense in light of the Bruen decision, too. George Young, despite his name, is pretty old. I hope he still has another 10 years left in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silhouette Posted August 23, 2022 at 04:31 PM Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 04:31 PM 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 More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 23, 2022 at 08:35 PM Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 08:35 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 23, 2022 at 09:18 PM Author Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 09:18 PM On 8/23/2022 at 4:35 PM, Flynn said: ... Bruen didn't create the test, the test was created in Heller ... There's a decade of precedent after Heller, though, which the Supreme Court declined to review, even when Scalia was still alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasgrillchef Posted August 23, 2022 at 10:01 PM Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 10:01 PM 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 More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 23, 2022 at 10:23 PM Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 10:23 PM 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 More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 23, 2022 at 10:40 PM Author Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 10:40 PM On 8/23/2022 at 6:01 PM, Texasgrillchef said: All of that is now irrelevant since Bruen. ... The arguments in Young were formulated pre-Bruen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted August 23, 2022 at 10:41 PM Author Share Posted August 23, 2022 at 10:41 PM On 8/23/2022 at 6:23 PM, Flynn said: 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. They're bound by their own precedent, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted August 24, 2022 at 12:38 AM Share Posted August 24, 2022 at 12:38 AM 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 More sharing options...
Texasgrillchef Posted August 24, 2022 at 03:00 AM Share Posted August 24, 2022 at 03:00 AM 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 More sharing options...
Lou Posted August 27, 2022 at 07:54 PM Share Posted August 27, 2022 at 07:54 PM 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.