Because Hawaii knows the CA9 already said that concealed carry is not part of the 2A right.
As long as the argument contains open carry, Hawaii has to fight harder.
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:
Because Hawaii knows the CA9 already said that concealed carry is not part of the 2A right.
As long as the argument contains open carry, Hawaii has to fight harder.
First Amicus Brief filed. Its a history brief by San Diego County Gun Owners
https://www.scribd.com/document/393405383/Young-San-Diego-County-Gun-Owners-Amicus-Brief
https://www.scribd.com/document/393405383/Young-San-Diego-County-Gun-Owners-Amicus-Brief
Amicus Briefs Got filed. Spent all day in Court so I haven't had a chance to read them.
]
https://www.scribd.com/document/393633915/Young-SAF-Amicus-Brief
https://www.scribd.com/document/393634322/Young-GOA-Amicus-Brief
https://www.scribd.com/document/393634538/Young-HRA-Brief
If you only read one read the last one. It gives you a lot of insight into the Big Island.
https://www.scribd.com/document/393634673/Young-HFC-Brief
]
https://www.scribd.com/document/393633915/Young-SAF-Amicus-Brief
https://www.scribd.com/document/393634322/Young-GOA-Amicus-Brief
https://www.scribd.com/document/393634538/Young-HRA-Brief
If you only read one read the last one. It gives you a lot of insight into the Big Island.
https://www.scribd.com/document/393634673/Young-HFC-Brief
danb
dont be a dumbass
That was a great brief.
Looks like some of the big boys (SAF) are now taking notice and getting on board. Better late than never.
The briefs are very good. The 9th Circuit anti judges must be thinking,"We don't want open carry but this case is a sure loser."
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
I have no doubt 9CA will find a way through twisted, tortured logic to deny it.
I'm thinking you'd better brush up on orals before The 9 sitting at 1 First NE... Full on bans seem to get SCOTUS attention.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I'm thinking you'd better brush up on orals before The 9 sitting at 1 First NE... Full on bans seem to get SCOTUS attention.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
- Aug 29, 2016
- 763
I actually think the last one sucks. It gives them an opening to say "May issue/No issue is fine in cities, but not in rural areas."
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,208
I just filed a sur-reply.. A surreply s a reply to their reply. I basically am asking permission to file the brief. Then I attached the brief I want to file.
https://www.scribd.com/document/393822475/Young-Filed-Surreply
I relief heavily on the information obtained by the Hawaii Firearms coalition through a series of UIPA request which is Hawaii's equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act.
Please like their page on facebook and consider joining.
http://hifico.org/
https://www.facebook.com/hificoorg
https://www.scribd.com/document/393822475/Young-Filed-Surreply
I relief heavily on the information obtained by the Hawaii Firearms coalition through a series of UIPA request which is Hawaii's equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act.
Please like their page on facebook and consider joining.
http://hifico.org/
https://www.facebook.com/hificoorg
Last edited:
esqappellate
President, MSI
- Feb 12, 2012
- 7,408
And your motion was granted!
The following transaction was entered on 11/21/2018 at 2:40:05 PM PST and filed on 11/21/2018
Case Name: George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al
Case Number: 12-17808
Document(s): Document(s)
Docket Text:
Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and SANDRA S. IKUTA) Defendants-Appellees’ motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition for rehearing en banc, filed with this Court on November 15, 2018, is GRANTED. The reply shall be filed. Having requested leave to file a surreply, Appellant’s request is GRANTED. The surreply shall not exceed 3,000 words and shall be filed within 14 days of the date of this order. [11096620] (OC)
Congrats to you sir on a well written surreply and it being granted as well!!!
:you are indeed a 
Neal Katyal is being paid 185 thousand to defend young according to this fee schedule obtained through a UIPA request . Note he just came on for the en banc proceedings
https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents
https://www.scribd.com/document/394467713/Roberts-Documents
krucam
Ultimate Member
You've definitely got their attention. A former acting Solicitor General coming to Hawaii's defense...
CrabcakesAndFootball
Active Member
- Jun 14, 2017
- 697
Always shocking to see what a broke state like Hawaii is willing to fork out to restrict its citizens’ constitutional rights. You’re the pro bono hero of this story (of course along with your co-counsel and client). I am very grateful, as I am sure are many others on this board. Keep rocking that white hat.
I am a metal fan and in light of all the lawyers they have working on this.
It reminds me of this song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMboHJJFPI
Wow Wolf they are running scared. I think you've got this. Good luck.
Peaceful John
Active Member
- May 31, 2011
- 239
Could somebody remind me of Young's expected timeline, please?
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,208
so i do have a question, maybe it's been answered, but it is in regard to "end game"
brief side note: as a delaware native, i've been watching the fight over guns in state parks, which included a complete ban, excluding certain specific limited hunting access.
their court, DelSC, said unconstitutional, by state constitution.
the state is going down swinging, still attempting to ban everything, loosing some of the challenges of bans in certain areas, but possibly getting others. the point is, they are going down swinging. (they = del, and it's dept's of agri and natural resources, 2 different depts under the state).
back to young. and hawaii, and the9th saying concealed carry is a wrong (not a right, but a privilege).
so, lets say they just change they the law, remove the reference to security guards and still do a nancy reagan... just say no! we never met a person with a valid reason.
or, maybe issue 3 (yeah, i picked that number right out there), or some other number, along a "good and substantial" line. say, like maryland?
you know that even if they loose, they're gonna go down swinging. at 7years per case, young started in ?2011, to 2018, how many iterations will it take as 7 years each?
or could there be some kind of more immediate review if things have to change? if you win this case, will you get any kind of say in any rewrite of the law they are sure to attempt, leaving the ability to deny most, if not all?
as a non-lawyer i observe things trying to understand them. i see the speed at which the law moves to inflict penalty on me when i am wrong is amazing!
the speed of addressing .gov overreach is glacial. and the penalties when .gov is wrong, are 0. or usually seem to be.
brief side note: as a delaware native, i've been watching the fight over guns in state parks, which included a complete ban, excluding certain specific limited hunting access.
their court, DelSC, said unconstitutional, by state constitution.
the state is going down swinging, still attempting to ban everything, loosing some of the challenges of bans in certain areas, but possibly getting others. the point is, they are going down swinging. (they = del, and it's dept's of agri and natural resources, 2 different depts under the state).
back to young. and hawaii, and the9th saying concealed carry is a wrong (not a right, but a privilege).
so, lets say they just change they the law, remove the reference to security guards and still do a nancy reagan... just say no! we never met a person with a valid reason.
or, maybe issue 3 (yeah, i picked that number right out there), or some other number, along a "good and substantial" line. say, like maryland?
you know that even if they loose, they're gonna go down swinging. at 7years per case, young started in ?2011, to 2018, how many iterations will it take as 7 years each?
or could there be some kind of more immediate review if things have to change? if you win this case, will you get any kind of say in any rewrite of the law they are sure to attempt, leaving the ability to deny most, if not all?
as a non-lawyer i observe things trying to understand them. i see the speed at which the law moves to inflict penalty on me when i am wrong is amazing!
the speed of addressing .gov overreach is glacial. and the penalties when .gov is wrong, are 0. or usually seem to be.
Last edited:
