And we Thank You!
Young Opening Brief Filed
- Thread starter wolfwood
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hawaii open carry
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!
Member Benefits:
HoCoShooter
Ultimate Member
danb
dont be a dumbass
So to avoid a disaster of the supreme court holding that the right to carry is a core second amendment right, they have to issue permits. Lol.
Well done!
Fortunately (or unfortunately?) NJ appears arrogant enough for everyone and did not even bother to file a response acknowledging a clear circuit split. Well now they have to, and I can wait to read it. NYC too.
You know that one word "bear" might not be superfluous.
Well done!
Fortunately (or unfortunately?) NJ appears arrogant enough for everyone and did not even bother to file a response acknowledging a clear circuit split. Well now they have to, and I can wait to read it. NYC too.
You know that one word "bear" might not be superfluous.
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,210
The big question becomes the Same as NYNJCA.
***edit: have they started issuing? And if so, level of review? Shall?may?extreme need? Double secret extreme?
If they are still crazy strict, maintain the g&s / extreme need cause, and issue “X” (7 for example, or 12) permits per year, will the court be “bought off”’and let them off the hook? Could a court be that ?stupid?
My office of about 40 has well over 10 ccw, and There are > 1.4m people in Hawaii.
They’ve shown they are going down swinging, and it’s been about 8 years to get this far, for young.
How tight can they keep the leash? Would the court accept? Would anyone be able to say, “not good enough!”? Other than a 2a hating person? Could SHALL ISSUE be forced? They’re fighting hard against any!
As a non lawyer, it seems like these things are death by inaction and the right violators get away with it.
***edit: have they started issuing? And if so, level of review? Shall?may?extreme need? Double secret extreme?
If they are still crazy strict, maintain the g&s / extreme need cause, and issue “X” (7 for example, or 12) permits per year, will the court be “bought off”’and let them off the hook? Could a court be that ?stupid?
My office of about 40 has well over 10 ccw, and There are > 1.4m people in Hawaii.
They’ve shown they are going down swinging, and it’s been about 8 years to get this far, for young.
How tight can they keep the leash? Would the court accept? Would anyone be able to say, “not good enough!”? Other than a 2a hating person? Could SHALL ISSUE be forced? They’re fighting hard against any!
As a non lawyer, it seems like these things are death by inaction and the right violators get away with it.
danb
dont be a dumbass
Their real conundrum is this: If there is is no "core, individual, and fundamental right of open and concealed carry of handguns" they have nothing to fear from the Supreme Court. Fight it all the way.
But the fact that they seem to think that they need to issue permits to stave off a court case is really an admission that there is a core right to outside the home carry. Which means - government discretion is off the table.
It has been said Chief Justice Roberts likes to wait until "acceptance" before he takes cases ... well I would say here we are.
But the fact that they seem to think that they need to issue permits to stave off a court case is really an admission that there is a core right to outside the home carry. Which means - government discretion is off the table.
It has been said Chief Justice Roberts likes to wait until "acceptance" before he takes cases ... well I would say here we are.
krucam
Ultimate Member
This may make Hawaii a marginal 'May Issue' State vs an essentially 'No Issue', which may effect the outcome in Young.
However the Rogers v NJ case is still in the Petition phase at the Supreme Court. If (and thats a big IF) the Supreme Ct takes Rogers, Young will undoubtedly be put on hold...
However the Rogers v NJ case is still in the Petition phase at the Supreme Court. If (and thats a big IF) the Supreme Ct takes Rogers, Young will undoubtedly be put on hold...
danb
dont be a dumbass
IIRC Young is already on hold pending NYSRPA
krucam
Ultimate Member
Believe so also...I'd forgotten that...
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,210
Just trying to understand:
AND
OR
ANY
I see folks discuss this and you quote AND while some discussing carry, open vs concealed. Should it be the OR sense?
Ok, if the 9th says concealed is a privilege then, if you believe them, it only leaves open carry. Not that I agree. Buttttt.
In the Peruta case, one of the en banc judges asked if they wanted to introduce open carry, as that had been banned in most areas since the case began. The attorney declined.
It seems the usual culprit states deny ANY carry by general citizens. Just thinking out loud here.
So is ANY right to carry protected? Either open OR concealed? If it gets to another judge, especially in the 9th, where CA AND HI also ban open carry, then OR comes heavily into play.
AND
OR
ANY
I see folks discuss this and you quote AND while some discussing carry, open vs concealed. Should it be the OR sense?
Ok, if the 9th says concealed is a privilege then, if you believe them, it only leaves open carry. Not that I agree. Buttttt.
In the Peruta case, one of the en banc judges asked if they wanted to introduce open carry, as that had been banned in most areas since the case began. The attorney declined.
It seems the usual culprit states deny ANY carry by general citizens. Just thinking out loud here.
So is ANY right to carry protected? Either open OR concealed? If it gets to another judge, especially in the 9th, where CA AND HI also ban open carry, then OR comes heavily into play.
Their real conundrum is this: If there is is no "core, individual, and fundamental right of open and concealed carry of handguns" they have nothing to fear from the Supreme Court. Fight it all the way.
But the fact that they seem to think that they need to issue permits to stave off a court case is really an admission that there is a core right to outside the home carry. Which means - government discretion is off the table.
It has been said Chief Justice Roberts likes to wait until "acceptance" before he takes cases ... well I would say here we are.
Last edited:
Kharn
Ultimate Member
If it were in a lower/fact-finding court, wouldn't that letter serve as admission the writers have reason to believe the chief is violating rights and hope to stave off judicial action by mooting the case?
CrabcakesAndFootball
Active Member
- Jun 14, 2017
- 697
Absolutely hysterical. Nicely done wolfwood!
Malachi.2.15
Active Member
- Jan 27, 2011
- 979
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,210
I am thinking Hawaii may try the same stuff new York and others did. Give the guy an OC permit to shut him up, after an 8 year fight. As suggested in the article you posted the other day suggested. And as nyc is doing there. A very minor retreat to set up more years of delay.
What is the strategy and means of dealing with that kind of tactic? Are courts REALLY stupid enough to fall for that? Like a one-off permit to destroy that case after 8 years?
Is the fact that guy fought for 8 years considered G&S (good) cause, Hawaiian style?
What is the strategy and means of dealing with that kind of tactic? Are courts REALLY stupid enough to fall for that? Like a one-off permit to destroy that case after 8 years?
Is the fact that guy fought for 8 years considered G&S (good) cause, Hawaiian style?
pdsmith505
Member
- Nov 18, 2014
- 7
Wolfwood is an actual lawyer... I *might* have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night...
I've got toms of faith that he's ahead of me in the legal analysis
I personally will be surprised if this case is heard by the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs should have sued NYC for damages. If they had done that and asked for nominal damages they would not be dealing with this right now.
However, since all they asked for is to get rid of the law, if the law goes away there is nothing for the court to give the plaintiffs so the case is moot.
If the NRA has asked for damages the Court would retain jurisdiction to rule on the law even if the law is repealed because the harm already occurred in the past and the relief is the damages. Its okay. I strongly suspect that this makes the odds of Alan Gura's case challenging the CA handgun to be granted cert to go way up.
The plaintiffs should have sued NYC for damages. If they had done that and asked for nominal damages they would not be dealing with this right now.
However, since all they asked for is to get rid of the law, if the law goes away there is nothing for the court to give the plaintiffs so the case is moot.
If the NRA has asked for damages the Court would retain jurisdiction to rule on the law even if the law is repealed because the harm already occurred in the past and the relief is the damages. Its okay. I strongly suspect that this makes the odds of Alan Gura's case challenging the CA handgun to be granted cert to go way up.
krucam
Ultimate Member
Harvard Law Review on Young, you’ll never guess which way it leans...
https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/0...M-S3xVS12PXtoz3S37vsYNGUDNNKDjPhMlOlS_mcJb_os
https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/0...M-S3xVS12PXtoz3S37vsYNGUDNNKDjPhMlOlS_mcJb_os
danb
dont be a dumbass
A few of the justices and their clerks are known to read that rag.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
Hair-trigger posting... please include more than just the "headline"- Started by Mr H
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
(Duplicate - mods please close) MoCo trans student arrested for threatening school- Started by Lafayette
- Replies: 2
-
