Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

76
For those that don't want to read the entire above article, the money shot:
Although the Huntly court did not like the idea of routine gun carrying, it recognized that peaceable carrying for any purpose was lawful. Despite devoting 60 pages to legal history and despite citing Huntly, the Ninth Circuit does not mention the above paragraph, which directly addresses the scope of the common law offense of carrying dangerous or unusual arms to the terror of the people.
The Ninth Circuit tells a long legal history built on inferences about what the Statute of Northampton must have meant in America. Yet the court omitted the paragraph from the state supreme court opinion that authoritatively describes what Northampton's principles actually did mean in America.
The majority in Young v. State of Hawaii claims that total prohibition of the right to bear a handgun is consistent with "overwhelming" American legal history. The claim is refuted by the very sources on which the majority relies, once their full text is brought to light.
The paragraph referred to form Huntly:
It has been remarked, that a double-barrelled gun, or any other gun, cannot in this country come under the description of "unusual weapons," for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort. But we do not feel the force of this criticism. A gun is an "unusual weapon," wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.–But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose–either of business or amusement [a legal term of art for any lawful activity]–the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose–and the mischievous result–which essentially constitute the crime. He shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm, a peaceful people.
As usual, the 9th outright fucking lies on gun rulings.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

78
Mikeinmich wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:31 pm No shit. Not to mention the whole “who gives a shit what the laws in England were/are- we didn’t when we were winning that little skirmish awhile back” idea.
One can only hope this helps SCOTUS to issue cert when it's appealed. The Young decision was not a legal ruling. It was a fucking falsehood. I can understand Peruta and the 9th ruling concealed carry is not protected, sorta. But no right to bear? Fuck that noise.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

80
From the Volkh Report linked earlier,
We argue that when the Ninth Circuit's sources are examined in detail, they support the conclusion opposite from the one reached by the court. While carrying defensive arms may be regulated, it may not be prohibited.
Roughly the same thing that Judge O'Scannlain stated in his dissent of the en banc opinion, he later used the 1st Amendment as an example of regulation but not prohibition.
Our disagreement, it seems, is not so much over what the history says, as it is over what the history would need to say in order to sustain the majority’s atextual conclusion that the scope of the right to “keep and bear Arms” extends no further than the right to “keep” arms inside the home. In other words, our disagreement is not one of historical exegesis, but one of historical synthesis.
A link to the three judge panel decision that was written by O'Scannlain.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/up ... _128-1.pdf

Hope this get appealed quickly to SCOTUS.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

81
Cert Petition for Young filed with SCOTUS. I don't see how this can not be granted seeing as how CA9 has ruled there is NO right to bear. It's the same as a Circuit Court ruling there is no right to vote republican, no right to reading as part of free speech, no right to a certain religion, etc. It is absolutely in conflict with Heller precedent and the rest of the circuits and completely extinguishes half of a constitutional right for a sizable chunk of the country. Did CA9 finally go to far in their bias against guns? We'll see.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... tition.pdf

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

82
Here's hoping that cert is granted and then SCOTUS could merge the two cases.
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the holdings of
the First, Seventh and D.C. Circuits, that the Second Amendment does not apply
outside the home at all.

2. Whether the denial of petitioner’s application for a handgun carry license for self defense violated the Second Amendment.
Conflicts between circuits is one reason for SCOTUS to intervene and the second question is similar to NYSRPA v Corlett.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

88
featureless wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:50 pm
CDFingers wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:34 pm If carrying may not be banned but it may be regulated, they will kick it back to the states.

CDFingers
Not Young. CA9 ruled there was no right to bear outside the home. None. That's not "may be regulated." That's the right to bear does not exist.
Roberts has been reluctant to take gun cases. Wonder if he'll be outvoted in conference?

CDFingers
Image
Image
.
Shine your shoes, light the fuse.
Can you use them ol' US Blues?

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

90
wings wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 9:25 pm
CDFingers wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 6:30 pm Roberts has been reluctant to take gun cases. Wonder if he'll be outvoted in conference?

CDFingers
Nope. He's not an idiot. He'll side with the majority, assign the opinion to himself, and write the narrowest opinion he can get away with. May issue is probably toast, but he'll test the waters to see if they can leave open carry out of it.
A form of bear is a form of bear. Provided may issue is struck, allowing concealed vs open retains the right. From historical context, concealed was the regulated activity with open being the less so. Some regulation is appropriate and supported. Extinguishing bear, not so much.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

93
As much as I'd love to see the Roster, microstamping and mag limits be abolished, it would probably take a few lawsuits to do it. Young is a Hawaii case and if SCOTUS grants cert they will determine what issue is argued before them. In the related NYSRPA vs Corlett, the question to be argued in the Fall term is "Whether the state of New York's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment."

Previous SCOTUS cases asserted a right to keep a firearm at home, but they need to assert the right to carry in Corlett or Young or another case. I strongly support shall issue over may issue like HI and CA.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

94
sikacz wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:06 am Almost three years on this thread, I’m wondering how the scotus will wiggle out of addressing this. Shall issue should be the standard. The cal roster, mag limits and a few other cal restrictions should be toast as well.
It will be a long while until a roster case makes it back to SCOTUS. There is a new roster case in CA that will likely be held until SCOTUS rules on the New York case. In fact, most (if not all) gun cases in the lower courts will come to a screeching halt awaiting that ruling.

Here's the question Young would have answered:
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the holdings of
the First, Seventh and D.C. Circuits, that the Second Amendment does not apply
outside the home at all.
2. Whether the denial of petitioner’s application for a handgun carry license for selfdefense violated the Second Amendment.
There is another carry case waiting on Cert, Russell v. New Jersey. It asks:
The Questions Presented are:
1. Whether the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry arms outside of the
home for self-defense.
2. Whether the government may deny lawabiding citizens their exercise of the right
to carry a handgun outside of their homes
by conditioning the exercise of the right
on showings of need.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -1419.html

So there are THREE carry cases at SCOTUS, 1 granted cert (New York) and two pending (Young and Russel). Clearly, there's is a need for SCOTUS to address 1) the right to bear and 2) if such right can be regulated subjectively.

There is a also magazine ban case awaiting SCOTUS's leisure out of New Jersey (Cert request) ANJRPC v. Grewal. Question presented is:
The questions presented are:
1. Whether a blanket, retrospective, and
confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding
citizens from possessing magazines in common use
violates the Second Amendment.
2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens without
compensation of property that was lawfully acquired
and long possessed without incident violates the
Takings Clause.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -1507.html

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

95
CDFingers wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 7:54 am I'm OK with may-issue being toast.

CDFingers
If "may issue" is struck down, what prevents states from setting an onerous, nearly impossible, training and qualification standard for "shall issue"?

IIRC, my spousal critter could have passed Texas's shooting qualification proficiency test on her third-ever day at the range. Maybe it was the fourth or fifth. Couldn't California simply up the ante and require that applicants shoot a round of Bullseye/Precision Pistol with a score of at least 270? I can't pass that. But it's not a prohibition!
Last edited by Buck13 on Mon May 17, 2021 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

96
If SCOTUS issues a favorable opinion in NYSRPA vs Corlett, the dicta or wording of the opinion will be critical just like the wording was in Heller and McDonald. If SCOTUS states that strict scrutiny must be used in evaluating state restrictions, that adds more pressure for states to justify concealed carry requirements. If not there will be more court cases.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

97
highdesert wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 11:25 am there will be more court cases.
Life's certainties: death, taxes and more court cases.

CA9 will continue to ignore SCOTUS (just like they did in Young finding exactly opposite of Heller) and California will continue to pass whatever it wants, knowing CA9's got their back. That's my optimistic opinion. I can certainly understand why a lot of older gun owners in this state no longer give a shit what gun laws say.

Re: Young v. Hawaii (Open carry win in Hawaii/California)

98
Wandering off-topic: my pessimistic preceding post is based partly in my surprise that WA hasn't tightened carry laws yet. We have very lenient shall-issue CCW. Pay your fee, give your fingerprints, wait for the background check to come back and get your permit in 2 to 4 weeks. No training or proficiency test required.

I'm not a big enthusiast for EDC, and I got my card originally half-motivated by the fact that it got you out of the waiting period for handgun purchases. That privilege was revoke by a recent(ish) grab-bag gun initiative which passed by a hearty margin. Since Ds have a lock on the state government, I've been expecting tougher CCW requirements to be added by the legislature, or failing that by another initiative.
IMR4227: Zero to 900 in 0.001 seconds

I'm only killing paper and my self-esteem.

Image
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests