Its been for sure. The County told me they would back when they filed the extension
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:
Its been for sure. The County told me they would back when they filed the extension
krucam
Ultimate Member
Love it!
You are armed and dangerous.
Sounds like they want to hire "The big guns" instead of the little gun that showed up before the court when they lost. They must be really nervous and afraid this could end up before SCOTUS since if the En Banc court overturns the ruling then their will be a circuit split. I wonder if Frosh knew when he called DC and asked the AG for DC, basically sit down and shut the F*** up on the ruling not realizing he helped create a circuit split or he realized it and did not give a da**.
There's already a circuit split. DC Circuit and 4th Circuit, for one. No matter the outcome of en banc, someone is going to be requesting certiorari at SCOTUS. Hopefully it'll be granted, finally.
If en banc is granted, then we already know the outcome in 9th Circuit.
I don’t think the 4CA decision counts as a split because DC was decided after CERT was denied in the 4th decision.
There are others however.
IANAL
There are others however.
IANAL
Yep I don’t think Woollard can be considered because CERT was denied before Wrenn or the 9CA decision.
Peaceful John
Active Member
- May 31, 2011
- 239
Would not make strategic sense to do imperfect work before the en banc panel, thus (nearly) assuring an overturning and circuit split. How might that question be addressed?
Asking for a friend.
From my layman's perspective, there would appear to be a clear split, regardless of SCOTUS denying CERT.
- 4CA says Good and Substantial is Constitutional = Binding Precedent for all courts in the 4th Circuit
- DCCA say Good and Reasonable is Unconstitutional = Binding Precedent on all courts in the DC Circuit.
- If two circuits decide substantially similar case issues in vastly different ways, that would appear to be the classic definition of a circuit split. Just because Woollard was denied Cert doesn't mean that the case ceases to hold water for determining a split and could still be cited as a reason for asking for SCOTUS intervention due to a split decision.
Not a lawyer, either; this makes sense to me as a layperson based on how "circuit splits" have been explained to me by others and by reading I have done.
I don’t disagree but I was under the impression that SCOTUS doesn’t consider previous CERT denials when deciding if s split is current or not. Regardless now splits exist with Young and Wrenn, so the point is moot now
But DC decided not to seek CERT because Frosh begged them not to.
But DC decided not to seek CERT because Frosh begged them not to.
^^ Correct
Since DC decided to not petition the SCOTUS, there was no vehicle to resolve the split.
Since Hawaii is so rambunctious not wanting to lose, they may be the ticket to get in front of the SCOTUS.
Shame too. Heller and DC's involuntary donations to SAF are the best things my DC taxes have even been and likely ever will be used for.
Elliotte
Ultimate Member
You need Teratos there sitting at the table to help distract the other side with his hair
Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, RICHARD R. CLIFTON and SANDRA S. IKUTA): The State of Hawaii’s motion to intervene pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b), filed on August 16, 2018, is DENIED as unnecessary. The State of Hawaii is, and remains, a party to this appeal during the pendency of any en banc proceedings, since Young filed a notice of appeal with respect to the district court’s dismissal of his claims against both the State and the County. While we dismissed the appeal against the State, such dismissal is not effective until the mandate issues in this case. See Fed. R. App. P. 41. We sua sponte extend the time for the State of Hawaii to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc until September 14, 2018—the current deadline for the County of Hawaii to file any such petition. Judge Clifton dissents from the denial of the unopposed motion to intervene. He would grant it. [10993822] (AF)
The county has to continue the fight, and can't hand off the case to the state?
Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...Gun-Laws-Not-as-Restrictive-as-they-Seem.aspx
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...Gun-Laws-Not-as-Restrictive-as-they-Seem.aspx
The AG is still hung up demonstrating a need to carry a gun.
Too bad SCOTUS would reject that “legislative history” he’s so fond of.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (1 Viewer)- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
-