Young Opening Brief Filed

swinokur · Jul 27, 2018

No but with Kavanaugh on the Court the chances of the 4 vote requirement for a Cert grant go up.

MDFF2008 · Jul 27, 2018

swinokur said:
No but with Kavanaugh on the Court the chances of the 4 vote requirement for a Cert grant go up.

You need 5 votes to win though.

Well, at least until the Democrats take back Congress and add more Judges so they can cancel out the Trump effect.

swinokur · Jul 27, 2018

You can’t win without getting CERT first.

First step CERT petition grant.

Then you get a chance to win

777GSOTB · Jul 27, 2018

Boxcab said:
Is "urgency or the need" an additional requirement or an addition avenue? I'm reading it as an "or" not an "and".

But I am far from well versed in legalese.

"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.”

Young’s argument is 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”2 and on the concealed carry of firearms to those who can demonstrate an “exceptional case.”3

DC-W · Jul 27, 2018

The die was cast by the Institute for Justice and CATO when they got Heller to the SCOTUS. That bet was made with far less background and knowledge than where we are today.

Knuckle Dragger · Jul 27, 2018

swamplynx said:
R.I. has a two tier system. Non-residents have to go through the AG and there is a “justifiable need” component. For residents, if I recall the town permit is shall issue (“need” is not required), but they can slow walk it or add shit like mental health tests.

That's not really accurate. Rhode Island's is less of a two-tiered system and more lie two parallel systems, neither of which make a resident vs. non-resident distinction.

Ostensibly town permits are shall issue, but many of the towns don't issue permits or make it very difficult. Providence, I believe, charges $240 for the application. Some of that towns that do issue license will issue them to non-residents.

Peaceful John · Jul 27, 2018

krucam said:
If Hawaii comes in with a legislative scheme undone . . . there is a very high chance of . . . SCOTUS . . . Affirming the CA9 Panel decision since it was so egregious.

Sorry, sir, I do not understand at all. Could you elaborate on the following two points, please?

1: What is a legislative scheme undone?

2: What makes the Panel decision egregious? Wasn't O'Scannlain's decision well within Constitutional limits?

JohnnyE · Jul 27, 2018

jc1240 said:
I don't understand the nuances of courts/appeals...

What guarantee is there that SCOTUS would agree to hear it? They seem to turn down most 2A petitions/whatever.

Whomever loses at the Federal District Court (where trials take place), of right may appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, in this case, the 9th Circuit, which covers HI. The Circuit Court of Appeals must take the appeal.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has 29 active judges. All 29 do not, however, hear every appeal. Groups of 3 judges hear the appeals. When someone loses before the 3 judge panel, which HI just did, the loser may petition the court to have all 29, sitting en banc, hear their appeal. This rehearing en banc is not a right that the loser has. The court may choose whether or not it hears the appeal en banc.

If the en banc hearing is denied, the loser may appeal to the SCOTUS, which, as we know, takes very few cases.

If the circuit grants an en banc hearing, then the parties go at it again, this time in front of the full Circuit Court of Appeals. In Woollard, Woollard lost before the 3 judge panel, and the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused Woollard's petition to hear the case en banc.

The en banc looser may appeal to the SCOTUS, which, as stated above, takes very few cases.

When there is a conflict between circuits, we get different law in different places. Such a conflict may be resolved when the SCOTUS takes a case that reconciles the differences.

krucam · Jul 27, 2018

Peaceful John said:
Sorry, sir, I do not understand at all. Could you elaborate on the following two points, please?

1: What is a legislative scheme undone?

2: What makes the Panel decision egregious? Wasn't O'Scannlain's decision well within Constitutional limits?

1. For an open carry license needing to show that one “is engaged in the protection of life and property” and their saying that only means police and security folks.

2. ‘It’ was not the Panel decision, rather the Hawaii scheme. Sorry, the sentence was written poorly...

Peaceful John · Jul 27, 2018

krucam said:
1. For an open carry license needing to show that one “is engaged in the protection of life and property” and their saying that only means police and security folks.

2. ‘It’ was not the Panel decision, rather the Hawaii scheme. Sorry, the sentence was written poorly...

I understand now.

Thank you.

krucam · Jul 27, 2018

Peaceful John said:
I understand now.

Thank you.

fred55 · Jul 27, 2018

JohnnyE said:
Whomever loses at the Federal District Court (where trials take place), of right may appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, in this case, the 9th Circuit, which covers HI. The Circuit Court of Appeals must take the appeal.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has 29 active judges. All 29 do not, however, hear every appeal. Groups of 3 judges hear the appeals. When someone loses before the 3 judge panel, which HI just did, the loser may petition the court to have all 29, sitting en banc, hear their appeal. This rehearing en banc is not a right that the loser has. The court may choose whether or not it hears the appeal en banc.

If the en banc hearing is denied, the loser may appeal to the SCOTUS, which, as we know, takes very few cases.

If the circuit grants an en banc hearing, then the parties go at it again, this time in front of the full Circuit Court of Appeals. In Woollard, Woollard lost before the 3 judge panel, and the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused Woollard's petition to hear the case en banc.

The en banc looser may appeal to the SCOTUS, which, as stated above, takes very few cases.

When there is a conflict between circuits, we get different law in different places. Such a conflict may be resolved when the SCOTUS takes a case that reconciles the differences.

Thank you for explaining the process to this legalese novice! fred55

HaveBlue · Jul 28, 2018

So where do residents of CA9 sit now? The ruling didn’t seem to be a PI. Was the law struck down? Can residents of Hawaii OC until a new law is passed?

DC-W · Jul 28, 2018

HaveBlue said:
So where do residents of CA9 sit now? The ruling didn’t seem to be a PI. Was the law struck down? Can residents of Hawaii OC until a new law is passed?

Negative. 9th Circuit kicked it back to the lower court. HI has time to appeal En Banc or to SCOTUS.

jc1240 · Jul 29, 2018

JohnnyE said:
Whomever loses at the Federal District Court (where trials take place), of right may appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, in this case, the 9th Circuit, which covers HI. The Circuit Court of Appeals must take the appeal.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has 29 active judges. All 29 do not, however, hear every appeal. Groups of 3 judges hear the appeals. When someone loses before the 3 judge panel, which HI just did, the loser may petition the court to have all 29, sitting en banc, hear their appeal. This rehearing en banc is not a right that the loser has. The court may choose whether or not it hears the appeal en banc.

If the en banc hearing is denied, the loser may appeal to the SCOTUS, which, as we know, takes very few cases.

If the circuit grants an en banc hearing, then the parties go at it again, this time in front of the full Circuit Court of Appeals. In Woollard, Woollard lost before the 3 judge panel, and the full 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused Woollard's petition to hear the case en banc.

The en banc looser may appeal to the SCOTUS, which, as stated above, takes very few cases.

When there is a conflict between circuits, we get different law in different places. Such a conflict may be resolved when the SCOTUS takes a case that reconciles the differences.

Thank you.

wolfwood · Jul 31, 2018

motion to extend time filed

Allen65 · Jul 31, 2018

Why do they need an extension? Given 9CA's past performance in 2A en bancs, HI's appeal filing doesn't need to be much more than a page that says: "Public Safety. Because we say so." in order to prevail at en banc.

GTOGUNNER · Jul 31, 2018

They have to throw the dice to direct their decision towards what the they think the Supremes will look at.. Diana Ross exempted.

motorcoachdoug · Aug 1, 2018

I also find it interesting that they want to being in outside non state Ag's as well to help with this case. In order for them to do so, they need the approval of the county counsel to spend the extra money.. You know the tax payers of Hawaii are going to be raked over the coals by the county to pay for losing their 2 A rights and the people in power could care less.

CrabcakesAndFootball · Aug 1, 2018

wolfwood said:
motion to extend time filed

I don’t know this to be the case in the Ninth Circus, but I believe at least certain appellate deadlines are jurisdictional and the intermediate appellate courts may have no power to extend them. Just a thought.

Young Opening Brief Filed

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Senior

HaveBlue

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

IANAL, PATRIOT PICKET!!

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics