Skip to comments.Hawaiian Dad Hopes to Keep a Promise to His Late Daughter by Fighting State's Gun Laws Up to SCOTUS
Posted on 08/09/2018 6:04:52 AM PDT by marktwain
During a conversation with his late daughter, Vietnam War veteran George Young explained the importance of the Second Amendment.
However, his daughter, Tim, was shocked to find out that her father could not carry a handgun in the state of Hawaii.
I made the promise that they cannot take your Second Amendment away, Young said in an interview with Reuters. So to prove it to her, that's when I started.
After his daughter died in a car crash in 2004, Young decided to keep his promise and began a journey to fight the state's gun laws that may end at the Supreme Court.
At first, it did not seem like Young's case would even be considered. He was representing himself and lost each case in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
I went around the state of Hawaii and contacted about 17 attorneys and all of them turned me down, Young said. They said I would only lose. I want to see it through to the end, which is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Young now has some extra help with his case and is being represented pro bono by Alan Beck, who is an attorney based in California.
With Beck's help, Young won the most recent case on July 24. In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that it was unconstitutional that Young was not allowed to carry a handgun.
(Excerpt) Read more at ijr.com ...
If not, any judge on the Ninth Circuit can ask for an en banc review.
The history is that Cases favorable to the Second Amendment cases go to en banc review and are reversed by the Ninth Circuit.
It’s for the children...
They certainly did in Peruta.
Yes, and in Tiexeira v. County of Alameda.
The only saving grace is the very well written majority opinion arguing that McDonald and Heller ruled that there is a right to bear outside of the home, and the 9th has already ruled that concealed carry is not constitutionally protected in Peruda II. So the only alternative available is to permit open carry outside of the home to all who are not prohibited persons.
Therefore an en banc panel will either have to rule that SCOTUS did not say in McDonald and Heller that to bear outside of the home is a protected right, or else uphold the ruling.
If they do uphold the rule, there is no way that the gun-grabbers will allow Hawaii to push this to the Supreme Court. Imagine the chaos that would occur in the governments of New York, New Jersey, etc., if “shall issue open carry” is the law if the land!
I understand your logic and it would make sense except for ... liberals who don’t use a whole lot of logic in my opinion. Since they are lead by ideology and emotion, logical thinking is far from them.
Yes, the majority opinion is very well done.
But that does not stop an en banc Ninth Circuit from using sophistry to reverse them.
My prediction is they will write that Heller and McDonald do not apply outside the home. They will do this simply to restrict Second Amendment rights as much as they think they can get away with.
If I recall correctly Peruda II basically said, "you can either deny concealed carry or you can deny open carry, but not both".
The Appeals court in the case, noted that no one has been issued a concealed carry permit in Hawaii for decades, thus the right is essentially completely denied.
If I recall correctly Peruda II basically said, “you can either deny concealed carry or you can deny open carry, but not both”.
Peruta II simply refused to consider open carry at all.
It was sophistry on the part of the en banc court. Just what you would expect from the Ninth Circuit.
As MarkTwain said, the three judge opinion in Peruta I (written by the same judge who wrote this opinion,) stated that you cannot ban both concealed and open carry simultaneously, but the en banc panel only upheld the may issue concealed carry statute and specifically stated that they were not asked to rule on open carry, therefore they remain silent on that matter in what is now called Peruta II.
They got away with that because when the Peruta case started, California law allowed open carry of an unloaded firearm, but repealed that law after the appeal process in Peruta was well underway. Therefore the original Peruta lawsuit did not address open carry at all.
Thanks for the recap. I’m hoping this case makes it to the Supreme Court once we have Trump’s new justice onboard. I know that Thomas has been pretty vocal about how cowardly the court has been in actually ruling definitively since Heller.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.