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

101
I agree, enough is enough. There needs to be a recognition that we, as citizens, are equal before the law (yeah, we've got tremendous work to do there but this is a pretty straightforward one). CA, NY and HI pulling this shit is no different than the resistance in Brown v Board of Education or slave states bullshit with Jim Crow and worse. How very assholish of them.

I swear to fuck this country has slid into the shitter. All progress on both sides of the war for rights is just gleefully fucking the other at any opportunity. It's disgusting.

And yeah, my eloquent prose falls right in the shitter when I'm outraged. Sorry, all.

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

103
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 5:55 pm I agree, enough is enough. There needs to be a recognition that we, as citizens, are equal before the law (yeah, we've got tremendous work to do there but this is a pretty straightforward one). CA, NY and HI pulling this shit is no different than the resistance in Brown v Board of Education or slave states bullshit with Jim Crow and worse. How very assholish of them.

I swear to fuck this country has slid into the shitter. All progress on both sides of the war for rights is just gleefully fucking the other at any opportunity. It's disgusting.

And yeah, my eloquent prose falls right in the shitter when I'm outraged. Sorry, all.
Shit yeah, agree.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

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

104
I think there is still shock among the public officials in the five "may issue states" targeted in the Bruen decision, plus CT, RI and DE, for decades they had wrapped themselves in "state's rights" like Southern states. There are US constitutional rights, but some states want to be free to interpret them their own way. They are now relying on Kavanaugh's concurrence joined by Roberts stating states can still have restrictions. It's not the opinion that the majority of 6 justices signed onto and those state should not should accept it as the majority opinion.
“Concurring opinion,” or concurrence, is the separate judicial opinion of an appellate judge who voted with the majority. Concurrences explain the appellate judge’s vote and may discuss parts of the decision in which the appellate judge had a different rationale.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/opinion

Take your revenge at the polls, vote them out.
"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)

105
highdesert wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:02 am I think there is still shock among the public officials in the five "may issue states" targeted in the Bruen decision, plus CT, RI and DE, for decades they had wrapped themselves in "state's rights" like Southern states. There are US constitutional rights, but some states want to be free to interpret them their own way. They are now relying on Kavanaugh's concurrence joined by Roberts stating states can still have restrictions. It's not the opinion that the majority of 6 justices signed onto and those state should not should accept it as the majority opinion.
“Concurring opinion,” or concurrence, is the separate judicial opinion of an appellate judge who voted with the majority. Concurrences explain the appellate judge’s vote and may discuss parts of the decision in which the appellate judge had a different rationale.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/opinion

Take your revenge at the polls, vote them out.
Kind of like the way lower courts adopted the two step process of the dissent in Heller. I wonder if they understand that is not how the law works--the majority opinion is the law. If they don't, they should be disbarred for incompetence. If they do, and are doing it anyway, they should be disbarred for incompetence. Further, if they are relying on Kavanaugh's concurrence, they really need to learn to read better. What they are doing with CCW regulations is in no way supported there.

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

106
featureless wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:16 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:02 am I think there is still shock among the public officials in the five "may issue states" targeted in the Bruen decision, plus CT, RI and DE, for decades they had wrapped themselves in "state's rights" like Southern states. There are US constitutional rights, but some states want to be free to interpret them their own way. They are now relying on Kavanaugh's concurrence joined by Roberts stating states can still have restrictions. It's not the opinion that the majority of 6 justices signed onto and those state should not should accept it as the majority opinion.
“Concurring opinion,” or concurrence, is the separate judicial opinion of an appellate judge who voted with the majority. Concurrences explain the appellate judge’s vote and may discuss parts of the decision in which the appellate judge had a different rationale.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/opinion

Take your revenge at the polls, vote them out.
Kind of like the way lower courts adopted the two step process of the dissent in Heller. I wonder if they understand that is not how the law works--the majority opinion is the law. If they don't, they should be disbarred for incompetence. If they do, and are doing it anyway, they should be disbarred for incompetence. Further, if they are relying on Kavanaugh's concurrence, they really need to learn to read better. What they are doing with CCW regulations is in no way supported there.
And judges wonder why people see them as partisan, when they act like politicians then people will treat them like politicians. It's as difficult to disbar a lawyer as it is to pull the license of an MD or DO. The brotherhood/sisterhood protects its members.
"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)

107
Today, CA9 shrank from their judicial duty and remanded Young back to the district court. This case is essentially the same as that in NYSRPA (good cause). The CA9 en banc panel ruled in 2021 that the 2A contained no right to bear. That was recently GVR'd by SCOTUS. The CA9 would rather a person die of old age than to find for a 2A right, even immediately after having their opinion vacated with exceptionally clear and almost identical situation. It's fucking pathetic.

From the CA9 dissent:
The Second Amendment “‘elevates above all other
interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use
arms’ for self-defense.” Id. at 17 (quoting District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 653 (2008)). The Supreme
Court has thus admonished the lower courts that this right
“demands our unqualified deference.” Bruen, Slip. Op. at 17.
But “may-issue” permitting schemes violate this Second
Amendment right. Like all such schemes, Hawaii’s “may-
issue” permitting law, section 134-9, infringes the right of
Young, a law-abiding responsible citizen, to carry a handgun
in public for the purpose of self-defense. Young has indeed
stated a claim that section 134-9 violates the Fourteenth
Amendment by depriving him of the right protected by the
Second Amendment.

Our Court should say so. We are bound, now, by Bruen,
so there is no good reason why we could not issue a narrow,
unanimous opinion in this case. The traditional justifications
for remand are absent here. The issue before us is purely
legal, and not one that requires further factual development.
The majority does not explain, nor can it justify, its decision
to remand this case to the district court without any guidance.
Yet in its terse order and unwritten opinion, the majority
seems to reveal a hidden rule in our Circuit: Second
Amendment claims are not to be taken seriously.
I would
prefer to apply the binding decisions of the Supreme Court to
the case at hand.

Instead of remanding without explanation or justification,
we should reverse the district court in an opinion holding that
Young has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted,
that section 134-9 is unconstitutional, and that the case must
proceed accordingly in district court. If we issued such an
opinion, we would ensure that Bruen is applied uniformly in
our Circuit in future cases. And in this case, we would save
the parties and the district court the time and expense of
continuing to litigate issues that we could resolve easily.

Today we shy away from our obligations to answer the
straightforward legal questions presented on appeal and to
provide guidance to the lower courts in our Circuit. And in
doing so, we waste judicial resources by sending the parties
back to square one at the district court. The parties have
waited a decade to resolve this litigation, and Young has
waited over ten years to exercise his constitutional right to
carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Because we opt
not to decide this simple case, we force Young to wait even
longer.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AuFGSG ... SCbkS/view

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

110
CDFingers wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:47 pm Open carry should require nothing anywhere but a gun. Concealed carry, however, enjoys a long history of regulation. I see it plainly, but I am not in a position to do much beyond keeping my bonsai watered.

CDFingers
I agree with you. States should be allowed a preference for concealed carry but the permit threshold need not be what CA and NY would have it be. Unless, of course, they freely allow open carry.

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

111
featureless wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:37 am
TrueTexan wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:41 am As a start California needs to be a Shall issue state and put theCHL in the hands of testate and not the local high sheriff. Do it like Texas and put it in the same area as DPS or in California I believe it is CHP. Then go for open carry for those with a CHL as stage two. But get all gun control away from the local governments.
I have no issue with ccw being done by local LEO, provided it is an administrative process without the good cause subjectivity (I think background checks and training are a good idea for a license, being politically connected, not so much). The majority of CA counties are now shall issue and it seems to work fine. I'm not a fan of open carry, so am hopeful this ruling will provoke more sheriffs (mine, especially) to go shall issue to reduce the roving hoards of openly armed citizens that might frighten away out tourists. ;)

CA doesn't have an open carry licensing program (as yet).
This!

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

116
This new pot is the third re pot in 47 years. It's sitting at about the height it will be when I put it in in December, and you can see the little sucker tree there that's about thirty years old. You can see the basic shape in there, but this is the year to leave some branches long so as to pudge up the inner view. I'll hack them back to the second node after the sap stops running. If you look, you can see some little yellow leaves. These are the first to come out in the spring and the first ones to hint at fall. About three nodes are small leaves, then the bigger ones grow. Generally I nip it at the second or third node but for maybe every five years. The leaves yellow and fall off in the order they grew.

elm2.JPG

CDFingers
Image
Image

Baio, Baio, tell me how can this be?
You arrest the girls for turning tricks, but you're scared of Staggerlee

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

121
DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:44 pm Allegedly, a settlement has been reached.
I hope as part of the settlement that George Young finally gets his concealed carry license and that HI state law is changed so others don't have to provide "good cause" to get a license in line with Bruen. In addition Young and his lawyers should get hefty financial compensation, this case started in 2012.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron