Young Opening Brief Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Wonder what wolf’s opinion is. It’s his case .

    This is just a theory but go with me here. There are about to be 5 trump judges added to the Ninth. This week the Ninth randomly selected its en banc panel. Had the appeal been stayed last week a panel would have been selected after the stay and those trump appointees would be part of the random drawing. By staying the case only after the panel has been decided Judge Thomas gets to put Young out a year while locking in the most liberal panel possible i.e. one without the Trump appointees. I could be completely off base but the timing sure is suspect.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    SCOTUS's decision on the NY case will not moot Young. However to the extent that the Supreme Court defines the scope of "bear" arms, 9th will have to use it.

    That, and maybe SCOTUS will address standard of scrutiny (fingers crossed for STRICT for enumerated rights).
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    This is just a theory but go with me here. There are about to be 5 trump judges added to the Ninth. This week the Ninth randomly selected its en banc panel. Had the appeal been stayed last week a panel would have been selected after the stay and those trump appointees would be part of the random drawing. By staying the case only after the panel has been decided Judge Thomas gets to put Young out a year while locking in the most liberal panel possible i.e. one without the Trump appointees. I could be completely off base but the timing sure is suspect.

    So what would happen if any of the en banc panel passed while waiting for SCOTUS to make its ruling in the NY Case?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    This is just a theory but go with me here. There are about to be 5 trump judges added to the Ninth. This week the Ninth randomly selected its en banc panel. Had the appeal been stayed last week a panel would have been selected after the stay and those trump appointees would be part of the random drawing. By staying the case only after the panel has been decided Judge Thomas gets to put Young out a year while locking in the most liberal panel possible i.e. one without the Trump appointees. I could be completely off base but the timing sure is suspect.

    If the N.Y. case rules for a different scrutiny standard, wouldn't then Young be back to the district court to be re heard under the new standard?
     

    ddestruel

    Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    90
    .............to the Ninth. This week the Ninth randomly selected its en banc panel. .............been decided Judge Thomas gets to put Young out a year while locking in the most liberal panel possible i.e. one without the Trump appointees. ................


    Im sure it was "RANDOMLY" selected. Ive long ago stopped believing anything that occurs in that circuit court is random or by chance.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    Im sure it was "RANDOMLY" selected. Ive long ago stopped believing anything that occurs in that circuit court is random or by chance.

    The panel is randomly selected.

    What's not random is the fact the 9th has now gone en banc 5 times to erase 2A victories. Poor judge O'scannlain, who just cant get a break.
     

    jamesenoch

    Member
    Aug 23, 2014
    43
    I don't post much and I am definitely not a lawyer, but I am curious if anyone knows if Livingston v. Ballard will have any affect on this case or vice versa..
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Livingston v. Ballard was just filed yesterday: https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...orted-challenge-to-hawaii-concealed-carry-law

    Seems to me we need a final opinion in the other HI carry cases first that are much farther along (either from 9th or Supreme Court), and these will guide Livingston. NJ carry case challenging NJ good and substantial requirement is at the Supreme Court cert stage and the SCT has requested a response from NJ, due 4/19 (a good sign). If the SCT takes that case, Livingston and all the HI carry cases will be impacted.
     

    motorcoachdoug

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Livingston v. Ballard was just filed yesterday: https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...orted-challenge-to-hawaii-concealed-carry-law

    Seems to me we need a final opinion in the other HI carry cases first that are much farther along (either from 9th or Supreme Court), and these will guide Livingston. NJ carry case challenging NJ good and substantial requirement is at the Supreme Court cert stage and the SCT has requested a response from NJ, due 4/19 (a good sign). If the SCT takes that case, Livingston and all the HI carry cases will be impacted.

    We may be living in interesting times of SCOTUS does grand cert.. could it be ol man Frosh has a MI if they do??? :lol::party29:
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    I hope not. I want him to live long enough to see everything he worked for over his life undone. As if he never existed and his life was worthless. Which is was, but he does not know it yet.
    Being in the Supreme Court gallery as Kavanaugh reads out something like his Heller 2 dissent on AWBs would give poor Frosh an MI and a concussion as he hits his head on the chair ahead of him...
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    @Cubo de Sangre @killakoy I keep trying for you guys
    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...campaign=April+7,+2019+Email&utm_medium=email
    The following statement by Police Commissioners Steven Levinson and Loretta Sheehan was read into the record of Chief Ballard’s annual evaluation.

    It was provided to Hawai'i Free Press by Second Amendment attorney Alan Beck who obtained it via an open records request.

    * * * * *

    January 23, 2019

    I would like to make clear at the outset of this comment that I believe that Chief Ballard has had an extraordinarily successful first year as the head of the Honolulu Police Department and that I have come to respect and value her highly both at the personal and professional levels. I have inserted this comment into her annual evaluation only because it pertains to an issue of profound significance to the City & County, the State, and the nation. For this reason, I feel compelled to make a record of my concern, which is shared by Chair Sheehan.

    Section 6-1606 (a) of the Revised Charter of the City & County of Honolulu provides that "[t]he police commission shall ... review rules and regulations of the administration of the [police] department." Section 6-1606(h) provides that the police commission shall "[e]valuate at least annually the performance of duties by the chief of police."

    Accordingly, the commission's Chief of Police Annual Performance Evaluation form notes that "[t]he Chief shall be accountable solely to the Commission as the appointing authority, except as may be otherwise provided by the Charter. To foster this accountability, the Chief shall: ... [m]aintain a cooperative relationship with the Commission in readily sharing information, concerns, and problems; [and] ... [p]rovide the Commission with any and all information and/or documentation necessary for the Commission to conduct the annual evaluation of the Chief’s performance ...."

    During 2018, the Commission became aware of two developments, which are ultimately the reasons for this comment. First, Col. John R. Bates, USMC (ret.), has personally addressed and corresponded with the Commission (and met in person with the Chair and Vice Chair) regarding his unsuccessful thirteen-year effort to obtain, from a series of Honolulu Police Chiefs, including most recently Chief Ballard, a license to carry a concealed pistol or revolver on his person within the City & County of Honolulu. Col. Bates has also advised Chair Sheehan and me that he has repeatedly been entreated by the National Rifle Association to consent to being a plaintiff, represented at no cost by attorneys retained by the NRA, in a lawsuit to be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii against, among others, the City and County of Honolulu and Chief Ballard, challenging on Second Amendment grounds (1) the constitutionality of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 134-9, which governs the process of issuance of licenses to carry concealed and unconcealed weapons in the respective counties and (2) Chief Ballard's refusal to grant him a license for concealed carry. Second, on July 24, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed Young v. Hawaii, 896 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2018), which held that Hawaii's limitation, as set forth in HRS § 134-9, on the open carry of firearms to those engaged in the protection of life and property, violated the core of the Second Amendment and was therefore void under any level of scrutiny.

    HRS § 134-9(a) provides in relevant part:

    In an exceptional case, when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police of the appropriate county may grant a license to an applicant ... to carry a pistol or revolver ... concealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. Where the urgency of the need has been sufficiently indicated, the respective chief of police may grant to an applicant ... who… is engaged in the protection of Hfe and property ... a license to carry a pistol or revolver ... unconcealed on the person within the county where the license is granted. . . . Unless renewed, the license shall expire one year from the date of issue.

    (Italicized and bolded emphases added.) By the statute's plain language, the decision to grant an application for a license to carry a firearm concealed or unconcealed on the applicant's person lies within the sole discretion of the chief of police. In other words, under the statute, the chief of police has a monopoly over the decision whether or not to grant licenses to carry concealed or unconcealed. It is apparent from her October 24, 2018 letter to Col. Bates that Chief Ballard does not fully apprehend the distinct statutory criteria for the granting or denial of licenses for concealed handguns, on the one hand, and unconcealed handguns, on the other, because she plainly conflates the two in her explanation of her denial of Col. Bates' application for a concealed carry license.

    In Young, the Ninth Circuit accurately parsed HRS § 134·9 as follows:

    Section 134-9 ... allows citizens to obtain a license to carry a loaded handgun in public, either concealed or openly, under certain circumstances. . . . Respecting concealed carry,section 134-9 provides that "n an exceptional case when an applicant shows reason to fear injury to the applicant's person or property, the chief of police ... may grant a license to an applicant ... to carry a pistol or revolver and ammunition therefore concealed on the person." The chief of police may, under section 134-9, grant a license for the open carry of a loaded handgun only"[w]here the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated" and the applicant "is engaged in the protection of life and property."

    896 F.3d at 1048 (italicized and bolded emphases added). The Young court noted that "[t]he County of Hawaii has promulgated regulations to clarify that open carry is proper only when the license-holder is 'in the actual performance of his duties or within the area of his assignment' Police Dep't of Cty. of Haw., Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance of Licenses 10 (Oct 22, 1997)." jg. (Emphasis in original.) It is possible that the Honolulu Police Department has promulgated and implemented no such formal Rules and Regulations.

    Young's argument on appeal, the Ninth Circuit observed, was "straightforward: he asserts that the County has violated the Second Amendment by enforcing against him the State's limitations in section 134-9 on the open carry of firearms to those 'engaged in the protection of life and property' and on the concealed carry of firearms to those who can demonstrate an exceptional case."' 896 F.3d at I 049-50 (footnotes omitted). Expressly regarding Young's "straightforward" argument that HRS § 134-9 is in violation of the Second Amendment by virtue of its limitation of the right of concealed carry "to those who can demonstrate an ‘exceptional case,"' the Ninth Circuit had the following to say:

    While the County's police chief reportedly awaits an "exceptional case" to grant a concealed carry license, section 134-9 is effectively a ban on the concealed carry of firearms. As counsel for the County openly admitted at oral argument, not a single concealed carry license has ever been granted by the County. Nor have concealed carry applicants in other counties fared much better: Hawaii counties appear to have issued only four concealed carry licenses in the past eighteen years. . . . And there is no dearth of applicants.... Thus, ... section does not offer a realistic opportunity for a concealed carry license.

    896 F.3d at 1071 n.21 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Holding that "Young has indeed stated a claim that section 134-9's limitations on the issuance of open carry licensed violate the Second Amendment," the Ninth Circuit declared that, "for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. We would thus flout the Constitution if we were to hold that, 'in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of [the State] has no other limit than its own discretion."' !d. at 1074 (footnote omitted) (brackets in original).

    In light of the foregoing, the Commission's Chair (a former Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the City & County of Honolulu and Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Hawaii) and I (a former Hawaii Supreme Court Justice and First Circuit Court Judge), the Commission's Vice Chair, are convinced that the manner in which Chief Ballard is administering her statutory authority to process applications for concealed and open carry licenses in the City & County of Honolulu, if not constitutionally defensible, could potentially precipitate one of the greatest legal catastrophes that the City & County, the State of Hawaii, and the nation have ever experienced. Accordingly, we have undertaken, in multiple open sessions of the Commission, to ascertain in detail how Chief Ballard is administering HRS § 134-9, and, in particular, whether HPD has promulgated written, formal, and constitutionally defensible rules and regulations by which the Chief’s statutory authority to pass on applications for concealed and open carry of handguns can be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary or capricious. Our attempts to obtain the information sought have been unsuccessful. To this day, we do not know what the answers to our questions are. Most notably, we do not know whether there are written, formal, constitutionally defensible rules and regulations in place pursuant to which the Chief is processing HRS § 134-9 applications. Moreover, the Commission has been given no statistics as to how many applications have been tendered to the Chief and how many applications for concealed and open carry the Chief has denied and how many the Chief has granted.

    I wish to re-emphasize that what is at stake with respect to the subject of this comment is the risk that, by virtue of the manner in which Chief Ballard may be administering HRS § 134-9, the United States Supreme Court could ultimately hold that it is the law of the land that the Second Amendment generally guarantees a core, individual, and fundamental right of open and concealed carry of handguns, a potential outcome that I regard as disastrous. I sincerely hope that the Chief understands the direct relationship between the decisions that she and she alone is making now and the future legal landscape of the City & County of Honolulu, the State of Hawaii, and the nation regarding rational gun control.

    -- Steven H. Levinson

    Vice Chair, Honolulu Police Commission

    -- Loretta A. Sheehan

    Chair, Honolulu Police Commission

    PDF: Statement

    SA Editorial April 6, 2019: Clarity on Hawaii’s gun-carry rules

    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...campaign=April+7,+2019+Email&utm_medium=email
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,238
    Montgomery County
    Oh no! Respecting the Bill of Rights "could potentially precipitate one of the greatest legal catastrophes that the City & County, the State of Hawaii, and the nation have ever experienced."

    You mean, Mr. Vice Commission Chair, and Ms. Commission Chair ... a catastrophe like MOST OF THE STATES IN THE COUNTRY ALREADY HAVE? And which appears to be no catastrophe whatsoever, and indeed exactly the opposite?

    I do enjoy the fact that the Honolulu Police Commission can't get any more of an on-paper description of Chief Ballard's standards and practices than the rest of us have been able to get out of the MSP's LD. It's like we're our own little bit of tropical paradise right here along the bay.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Oh no! Respecting the Bill of Rights "could potentially precipitate one of the greatest legal catastrophes that the City & County, the State of Hawaii, and the nation have ever experienced."

    You mean, Mr. Vice Commission Chair, and Ms. Commission Chair ... a catastrophe like MOST OF THE STATES IN THE COUNTRY ALREADY HAVE? And which appears to be no catastrophe whatsoever, and indeed exactly the opposite?

    I do enjoy the fact that the Honolulu Police Commission can't get any more of an on-paper description of Chief Ballard's standards and practices than the rest of us have been able to get out of the MSP's LD. It's like we're our own little bit of tropical paradise right here along the bay.

    I did pretty much nothing today. Didn't really go out. And then I read that article and I thought to myself. I did that.
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,238
    Montgomery County
    And then I read that article and I thought to myself. I did that.

    And it was and is one hell of a thing. I’m feeling a bit of history perhaps gathering over your head. Really appreciate your taking us along for the ride with your updates, and for what your work may - just may - precipitate. Wow.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,259,000
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom