Other State Young v. Hawaii on open carry

[Free_Patriot]

So it sounds like NRA and SAF have placed their bets on concealed vs open carry. Why? Why not both? I'm sure the answer lies in some politically-laden excuse, but to the average Joe, this does not bode well.

Because da scary guns...

I can't speak for the NRA or SAF, but the NRA helped author the 1967 California law that banned the open carry of loaded firearms. That was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan. That was in response to a group of 'scary Black Panthers' who legally paraded through the halls of the California capitol building with long arms.

God forbid that American citizens should exercise their 2A rights. Things were different in the 60's. The Black Panthers were feared. 'Civil folk' simply felt that no one should want to openly carry a gun back in those days. It was evil in their eyes.

Many of the open carry states don't have ANY law regarding open carry, they simply have no law forbidding it. In other words, it's a freedom not yet regulated. For a lot of people that's a truth that simply can't be handled. Regulation means control. If they can give you a permit to carry, whether open or concealed, they can also take it away; exactly why the Young v. Hawaii case is being litigated. Our argument needs to be that whichever it is that is allowed, it is by right and not decree. Until the courts conclude that we have a basic right to carry, whether open or concealed, determined by the states, this will never end. I personally don't believe there should be any differentiation between the two, we should be able to carry in any way we choose. The 'permitless carry' states are beginning to prove that out. Last I checked there were around a dozen permitless carry states. As that trend grows I think we'll start seeing some of this anti-gun mania begin to subside.

Also, who needs the NRA if there's a national right-to-carry that's clearly defined? NRA needs to collect dues. There is not a justification on the planet for taking a stance against open carry. I've open carried for years and more often than not the people around me have no idea I'm armed. I also have a CPL and at times choose to conceal. We got our CPL's primarily to protect our rights to carry in our vehicles in Washington State, where in Nevada and Arizona no permit is needed.

 

[CharlesNichols]

So it sounds like NRA and SAF have placed their bets on concealed vs open carry. Why? Why not both? I'm sure the answer lies in some politically-laden excuse, but to the average Joe, this does not bode well.

The leadership of the so-called gun-rights groups is composed of immoral men and women. The greater evil is the NRA because its spokesman before he was fired, issued a video press release recanting an NRA-ILA press release that condemned Open Carry, saying that the NRA has always been in the forefront of the fight for Open Carry while at the same time its lawyers were in the 9th circuit court of appeals arguing that Open Carry is not a right and can be banned.

That was a year after the NRA got my preliminary injunction appeal stayed in my California Open Carry lawsuit so that it would not jeopardize its concealed carry lawsuit, Peruta v. San Diego.

The SAF opposes Open Carry because Alan Gottlieb is the SAF, and Alan Gottlieb is a twisted little freak. Can you picture Gottlieb, or his lawyer Alan Gura for that matter, wearing a gunbelt, walking down Mainstreet USA with a Winchester over his shoulder?

Exactly?

 

[Free_Patriot]

Clement has no moral center or compass. It was, after all, the NRA that helped write the 1967 Californa Loaded Open Carry ban, and endorsed its passage. It should not come as a surprise that the NRA would be in court, decades later, fighting to uphold the ban.

Even if Clement had wanted to argue an Open Carry case or even simply that there is a right to carry, the plaintiffs never sought to openly carry any firearm, anywhere, for any reason, let alone a plan that would violate California's Open Carry bans. In short, the Plaintiffs did not have standing to argue for Open Carry or, as Beck argued, simply to carry in some manner. Mr. Young has standing for both open and concealed carry because he asked for both open and concealed carry permits and was denied both.

The NRA currently has a case on appeal that is stayed that makes the same argument that it made in Peruta v. San Diego, namely states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry. That is also the same argument that it made in McKay v. Hutchens, and lost.

The case is Flanagan v. Becerra. When the NRA announced the filing of the case, it claimed it was a "carry" case. There was only one thing in the Complaint which suggested that it was also an Open Carry case, a line copied and pasted from my Complaint, namely the lawsuit sought a Declaration that Open Carry is the 2A right.

The Flanagan case also sought to enjoin the subsection of the state statute that provides for handgun Open Carry permits. That is an odd thing to do because if it had achieved the injunction then there would not be any way to obtain a handgun Open Carry license from a County Sheriff anywhere in the state, let alone in Los Angeles County where the plaintiffs resided. One could argue that it was a typo and the Complaint should be liberally construed to read that the NRA didn't mean to eliminate Open Carry permits but instead simply meant to challenge the prohibition on issuing handgun Open Carry permits in Los Angeles County but the NRA did not ask that the Plaintiffs be given Open Carry licenses. Furthermore, the plaintiffs would disavow any plan to openly carry firearms for any reason in their depositions, and in any event, whatever Open Carry claim one might have read into the case was forfeited by the NRA in both hearings and in the NRA's motion for summary judgment.

The SAF was the first one I approached, followed by the NRA, and every other so-called gun-rights group you might think of. I even approached a former CalGuns.nuts lawyer whom I had a cordial relationship with prior to the three-judge panel decision in Peruta v. San Diego. I had told him that the three-judge panel decision would be vacated, the case would be taken en banc and Peruta would lose followed by SCOTUS denying his cert petition.

Some folks just can't handle the truth.

The little "help" I got was from a lawyer I hired for a lot of money who turned around and farmed out the writing of an opposition to dismiss my Complaint to a paralegal for very little money just hours before the brief was due. The paralegal did a fantastic job considering how little time he had to write the brief. There were three significant errors in his brief but the state's attorney did not notice them and so it did not matter.

I did get a little pro bono help from an attorney before filing my lawsuit. He quizzed me for a couple of hours over the phone and complimented me on how much I knew about the case law surrounding my eventual claims as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the judge made procedural law in my circuit.

He said the only thing I needed to work on is The Federal Rules of Evidence and courtroom trial procedures. The Federal Rules of Evidence were fairly trivial, as I recall, in civil cases. I was just beginning my study of courtroom trial procedures when my case was dismissed at the pleading stage on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

There really wasn't much to argue at trial even if my case had gone to trial.

Charles, you truly are to be commended for the length of time that you've carried this through.

If the Young case is remanded, how does that bode for your case? Back on schedule? I'm just wondering if the court, in anticipating more cases such as yours heading their way, may simply cast a broader net and attempt to take this on now, once and for all. Since Young has encompassed both open and concealed carry, the court may well remand while stating that Hawaii MUST issue one form of carry or the other, without qualification.

Or, as you suggest, they may void the Hawaii County 'security guard only' reg while letting the rest stand

I'm trying to think of which attorneys I know that are closer to you who are genuine 2A advocates. I'd want to contact them myself before suggesting them to anyone. I may have someone in mind.

 

[CharlesNichols]

Charles, you truly are to be commended for the length of time that you've carried this through.

If the Young case is remanded, how does that bode for your case? Back on schedule? I'm just wondering if the court, in anticipating more cases such as yours heading their way, may simply cast a broader net and attempt to take this on now, once and for all. Since Young has encompassed both open and concealed carry, the court may well remand while stating that Hawaii MUST issue one form of carry or the other, without qualification.

Or, as you suggest, they may void the Hawaii County 'security guard only' reg while letting the rest stand

I'm trying to think of which attorneys I know that are closer to you who are genuine 2A advocates. I'd want to contact them myself before suggesting them to anyone. I may have someone in mind.

Thank you.

If Young v. Hawaii is remanded then my appeal is the one that decides in this circuit if there is a right to bear arms outside of the home because my appeal is next in line given that the NRA's Flanagan v. Becerra appeal was filed well after my appeal and is stayed.

Procedurally, once the mandate is issued in Young v. Hawaii, my appeal is back under submission for a decision. The mandate is supposed to issue seven days later but I have seen it take up to a month.

Once a case is under submission for a decision, the decision, in that case, is binding on subsequent three-judge panels. A published decision by my three-judge panel is binding on whomever the three judges eventually assigned to the Flanagan case will be.

If I lose because the 9th circuit eventually decides that the 2A right is limited to the inside of one's home then Flanagan loses. If I win then Flanagan loses because there will not be an Open Carry ban. The Open Carry ban being the basis for their argument that if Open Carry is banned then that entitles them to concealed carry permits.

Although the en banc panel can do whatever it wants to do, it won't remand with instructions that says Hawaii must issue one form of carry or the other, with or without qualification.

Let us assume that SCOTUS had been silent on concealed carry not being a right and had simply said that there is a right to carry. If that were the case then the Federal courts are supposed to grant the least intrusive request that satisfies the plaintiff's prayer for relief. The Hawaii statute says that concealed carry permits are only to be issued in extraordinary cases but Open Carry permits can be issued to somebody who is simply "engaged" in the protection of life or property. That person does not have to have a heightened need. The least intrusive remedy is handgun Open Carry permits.

Also, unlike state courts, Federal courts are prohibited from writing or rewriting laws. H.R.S. 134-9 says what it says. The statute says there is a very high threshold for being issued a concealed carry permit and a relatively low threshold for being issued a handgun Open Carry permit.

I think you will find that there aren't any self-described advocates of the Second Amendment who are also attorneys.

 

[Free_Patriot]

The 9th isn't exactly known for sticking to legal norms. ANYTHING can happen in this Young v. Hawaii case. Time will tell. And with that, when do you anticipate an opinion to be issued? January? Hopefully sooner.

I lived in California for a couple of decades. Conservative counties. Constitutional sheriffs. They still exist in California. Tom Bosenko, in Shasta County, had been a rubber stamp for CCW's. I helped him get elected back in the day. He was Sheriff for a couple of decades but retired last December after 20+ years as Sheriff and 40 years with the department. I'm not sure how his replacement views the 2A but hopefully he's similar. However Shasta County may still fall under that 200k population threshold; the current census will settle that. That restriction didn't exist while I was living there, though I never sought a CCW in California. Kern County has also been very 2A friendly and it qualifies per population guidelines. The standard 'just cause' for acquiring a permit was 'business and travel'. Simply state that you carry large amounts of cash in your business dealings. Back in the day that's all it took.

Regarding 2A lawyers, one of my closest friends while living in California held a CCW and carried religiously. He has two sons, both of whom were raised as gun enthusiasts. One of those sons has been an attorney for the past two decades or so. I'd have to check to see which area of law he specializes in but it may be real estate and contracts. I know other attorneys in the Las Vegas area who specialize in 2A rights but they are not personal friends. I'd have to do some checking.

 

[CharlesNichols]

The 9th isn't exactly known for sticking to legal norms. ANYTHING can happen in this Young v. Hawaii case. Time will tell. And with that, when do you anticipate an opinion to be issued? January? Hopefully sooner.

I lived in California for a couple of decades. Conservative counties. Constitutional sheriffs. They still exist in California. Tom Bosenko, in Shasta County, had been a rubber stamp for CCW's. I helped him get elected back in the day. He was Sheriff for a couple of decades but retired last December after 20+ years as Sheriff and 40 years with the department. I'm not sure how his replacement views the 2A but hopefully he's similar. However Shasta County may still fall under that 200k population threshold; the current census will settle that. That restriction didn't exist while I was living there, though I never sought a CCW in California. Kern County has also been very 2A friendly and it qualifies per population guidelines. The standard 'just cause' for acquiring a permit was 'business and travel'. Simply state that you carry large amounts of cash in your business dealings. Back in the day that's all it took.

Regarding 2A lawyers, one of my closest friends while living in California held a CCW and carried religiously. He has two sons, both of whom were raised as gun enthusiasts. One of those sons has been an attorney for the past two decades or so. I'd have to check to see which area of law he specializes in but it may be real estate and contracts. I know other attorneys in the Las Vegas area who specialize in 2A rights but they are not personal friends. I'd have to do some checking.

Time will tell.

The last time I checked, en banc decisions are typically handed down within three months to a year. There is a decision in the case. The decision was made when the en banc panel met, virtually, at the end of oral argument. What remains is the writing of the majority decision and the dissents, which takes time. The more judges there are writing a dissent, the longer it will take for the opinion to be published.

The CCW statutes were amended to provide for Open Carry licenses in the 1980s or early 1990s. They were only available in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people but were valid statewide until the law was changed in 2009 or 2010 to restrict them to the county of issuance. Kern County has a population of nearly a million people. Shasta County does have a population of less than 200,000 people. However, there is a lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of California that alleges that Shasta County Sheriff Bosenko refuses to issue handgun Open Carry licenses.

 

[bolus]

Time will tell.

The last time I checked, en banc decisions are typically handed down within three months to a year. There is a decision in the case. The decision was made when the en banc panel met, virtually, at the end of oral argument. What remains is the writing of the majority decision and the dissents, which takes time. The more judges there are writing a dissent, the longer it will take for the opinion to be published.

The CCW statutes were amended to provide for Open Carry licenses in the 1980s or early 1990s. They were only available in counties with a population of fewer than 200,000 people but were valid statewide until the law was changed in 2009 or 2010 to restrict them to the county of issuance. Kern County has a population of nearly a million people. Shasta County does have a population of less than 200,000 people. However, there is a lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of California that alleges that Shasta County Sheriff Bosenko refuses to issue handgun Open Carry licenses.

Why does it take so long? I have to write notes describing some amazingly complicated medical decision making that requires literature review and talking to specialists with a patient's life on the line and it has to meet standards for billing and also provide medicolegal protection for me in case I have to defend myself in court some day. Those notes need to be done the same day and there are some pretty severe repercussions if a doctor gets behind on them.

Why is it sort of accepted that judges can take a year to decide on a case?

On a side note, since the Hawaii police department is only taking permit applications in person and appointments have to be made, people are trying to buy appointment slots so they dont have to wait 4-5 months to purchase a firearm.

I'd love to give one of these politicians or judges a head start and say "tomorrow night a group of 6 home intruders with weapons are going to show up and rape and murder your family, the police are unavailable (which is true in my location) and you have 24 hours to get ready to protect the lives of your family. Go!"