Young v Hawaii - 9th Circuit En Banc Loss

[pdsmith505]

The 9th Circuit has issued it's opinion in Young v Hawaii. Young challenged Hawaii's "may issue" permitting scheme for public carry. Opinion can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

I'm currently on page 84 (215 total) of the document.

The summary of the opinion (from the link above)....

The en banc court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense. Accordingly, Hawai‘i’s firearms-carry scheme is lawful.

I believe this creates a circuit split with the DC Circuit in Wrenn and the 7th Circuit in Moore.

Edit:

Having finished reading the majority opinion, the court seems to have found historical precedence ranging from English law in the 1300's to present US law to support the proposition that State governments may restrict the public carrying of "concealable" arms, whether concealed or not. The majority did not consider other arms, because they determined that Young did not raise that question.

I had to take a break till tomorrow (at least) in reading the dissenting opinions fully.

Granted, my interpretation of the opinion is from a layman's perspective on the law.

 

[danez71]

Pages 98 to about 103 basically says the 2A only applies to 'hearth and home'; not in pubic. They cited Heller, Mc Donald, and more.

 

[JeffG]

That's a rather "right angle" departure from the Constitution. I expect challenges, and that it will be struck down.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A not unexpected result.

In discussing the case, read the opinion and focus on it. If you find flaws in the majority's reasoning, which I expect many will, discuss why the reasoning is flawed with reference to applicable legal authority. The dissents will he helpful in that regard.

Rants and venting aren't helpful and aren't welcome.

 

[Dudedog]

I guess the question now is if they will try to take it to SCOTUS, if SCOTUS will take it, and if we have any chance there.

I tend to agree with the dissent.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II (emphasis added). Today, a majority of our court has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. Instead, the majority holds that while the Second Amendment may guarantee the right to keep a firearm for self-defense within one’s home, it provides no right whatsoever to bear—i.e., to carry—that same firearm for self-defense in any other place.


This holding is as unprecedented as it is extreme. While our sister circuits have grappled with—and disagreed over—the question of whether public firearms carry falls within the inner “core” of the Second Amendment, we now become the first and only court of appeals to hold that public carry falls entirely outside the scope of the Amendment’s protections.


In so holding, the majority reduces the right to “bear Arms” to a mere inkblot. The majority’s decision undermines not only the Constitution’s text, but also half a millennium of Anglo-American legal history, the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and the foundational principles of American popular sovereignty itself.

It seems to me the majority decision was based largely on the Statute of Northhampton

To the majority of fourteenth-century Englishmen, the Statute of Northampton was generally understood to be “a complete prohibition on carrying weapons in public, at least in populated areas

And we somehow "know" what the majority of fourteenth-century Englishmen understood it to mean?
If we want to go back to the 14th century lets go all the way back.
When Og the caveman walked out of his cave with his club, he understood it was ok to do so and probably was a good idea......

The majority seem to ignore the fact that the framers added the 2nd to make it clear that we had a right to keep and bear arms.

I feel this is very bad, and unless overturned by SCOTUS may have far reaching consequences.....

 

[pdsmith505]

I guess the question now is if they will try to take it to SCOTUS, if SCOTUS will take it, and if we have any chance there.

The lead council in the case, Alan Beck, has indicated that he will be filing for SCOTUS review.

So I've been very busy the past couple days and realized that I hadn't posted about Young. As many of you know, the en banc panel ruled against us. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit became the first federal court to find that the Second Amendment right does not apply outside the home at all. That has created a huge split between the courts which is the number one reason the Supreme Court reviews a case. Rest assured we are going to be filing for Supreme Court review in short order.

I tend to agree with the dissent.


It seems to me the majority decision was based largely on the Statute of Northhampton


And we somehow "know" what the majority of fourteenth-century Englishmen understood it to mean?
If we want to go back to the 14th century lets go all the way back.
When Og the caveman walked out of his cave with his club, he understood it was ok to do so and probably was a good idea......

The majority seem to ignore the fact that the framers added the 2nd to make it clear that we had a right to keep and bear arms.

I feel this is very bad, and unless overturned by SCOTUS may have far reaching consequences.....

The dissent specifically criticizes the majority for refusing to engage in a textual analysis.

"That the majority altogether declines to engage with textual analysis is telling."

It seems like SCOTUS is being set up to take a bite at what "text, history, and tradition" means as a standard of review.

 

[pairof44sp]

The 9th Circuit has issued it's opinion in Young v Hawaii. Young challenged Hawaii's "may issue" permitting scheme for public carry. Opinion can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/24/12-17808.pdf

I'm currently on page 84 (215 total) of the document.

The summary of the opinion (from the link above)....


I believe this creates a circuit split with the DC Circuit in Wrenn and the 7th Circuit in Moore.

Edit:

Having finished reading the majority opinion, the court seems to have found historical precedence ranging from English law in the 1300's to present US law to support the proposition that State governments may restrict the public carrying of "concealable" arms, whether concealed or not. The majority did not consider other arms, because they determined that Young did not raise that question.

I had to take a break till tomorrow (at least) in reading the dissenting opinions fully.

Granted, my interpretation of the opinion is from a layman's perspective on the law.

If they had gone the other way, and obliged 9th Circuit states to go Shall Issue, that would mean LA County is Shall Issue.

I know LA, and I know Shall Issue, and it’s hard for me to imagine the two of them together. The new demand for carry pistols would probably soak up all of US production for two years.

 

[Dudedog]

I know LA, and I know Shall Issue, and it’s hard for me to imagine the two of them together.

So you say the decision is correct because of people in LA?
Seems kind of unfair to me.
If there are some people in LA who cannot behave like civilized humans should that is another issue that needs to be addressed somehow.
Why should I have to forfeit my rights because certain people can't behave like responsible adults?

 

[Aim1]

SCOTUS just discussed whether to take New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. yesterday which pertains to "good cause" for permits to carry outside of your home.


Hopefully SCOTUS takes this case first instead and rules positively on it for gun owners.



https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...and-second-amendment-rights-on-friday.886059/



They could even have a decision to grant cert on it by Monday.

 

[old lady new shooter]

AzCDL sent an email today about this. They said this ruling "is an opportunity to finally get a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The reason that this is ripe for overturning is that there is a “circuit split” between what the 9th just ruled and what the 7th has said in the case that got Illinois their CCW Permit System. This was confirmed with David Kopel and David Hardy, two prominent attorneys involved with the Heller and McDonald Cases at the Supreme Court."

They also assured members that this case will have no effect on Arizona citizens because "The freedoms we have to exercise our right to keep and bear arms in Arizona, are protected by Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona Constitution, and are NOT dependent on the Federal Second Amendment.

Article 2, Section 26: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired…”"