Young v. Hawaii (CA9); Dismissed with predjudice 12-16-22

[abinsinia]

Agreed, except for the last line.

Under intermediate scrutiny, the state has to show that there is a reasonable fit between their law (OC only under our rules) and the compelling interest of the state (public safety, reducing gun violence, whatever).

So if the state had statistics which showed that before their law, OCers were accidentally shooting themselves in the foot 100 times a month (not a crime, but a public safety concern, which is also a legitimate state interest) and after their law, OCers were only shooting themselves in the foot 10 times a month, then the court would take those statistics under consideration.

Maybe the other side can explain those statistics in another light -- "it had nothing to do with the law, your honor, it was the introduction of anti-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot holsters which came onto the market, here we can see that in every case where an OCer shot themselves in the foot, they did NOT have the anti-foot-shoot holster..."

and back and forth it goes, but doesn't necessarily need to be related to crime. A small but important point -- public safety is the death of all civil rights when taken too far.

Your just stating something slightly more nuanced that what I stated. Crime or safety , either way there is a burden of proof, and the burden is on the government. They actually have to have substantial statistics, they can't just hand wave and win the case like it currently is in the 9th.

I don't see how OC permits get there. Most people don't OC, when people do they aren't typical committing crimes, and people don't typically get shot. OC is so rare I doubt statistics even exist. I don't know of any incident when someone was specifically open carrying and accidentally shot someone.

[2ajunkie]

[Kokopelli]

[speedrrracer]

I don't think OC permits could be up-held against legit intermediate scrutiny. I mean we have another SCOTUS justice coming who will likely enforce the real requirement on the state. So how exactly does an OC permit prevent crime ? You can conjure up a possible scenario that an OC permit might help, but that rational basis review. They have to prove there is a connection between OC and crime, I don't see that.

Agreed, except for the last line.

Under intermediate scrutiny, the state has to show that there is a reasonable fit between their law (OC only under our rules) and the compelling interest of the state (public safety, reducing gun violence, whatever).

So if the state had statistics which showed that before their law, OCers were accidentally shooting themselves in the foot 100 times a month (not a crime, but a public safety concern, which is also a legitimate state interest) and after their law, OCers were only shooting themselves in the foot 10 times a month, then the court would take those statistics under consideration.

Maybe the other side can explain those statistics in another light -- "it had nothing to do with the law, your honor, it was the introduction of anti-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot holsters which came onto the market, here we can see that in every case where an OCer shot themselves in the foot, they did NOT have the anti-foot-shoot holster..."

and back and forth it goes, but doesn't necessarily need to be related to crime. A small but important point -- public safety is the death of all civil rights when taken too far.

[CurlyDave]

... If the District court allows it, then I assume the issue comes back up for appeal to the exact same panel?

One problem is that O'Scannlain is 81. If it takes too long to come back, it may not be possible to have the same panel.

[abinsinia]

I don't think OC permits could be up-held against legit intermediate scrutiny. I mean we have another SCOTUS justice coming who will likely enforce the real requirement on the state. So how exactly does an OC permit prevent crime ? You can conjure up a possible scenario that an OC permit might help, but that rational basis review. They have to prove there is a connection between OC and crime, I don't see that.

[2ajunkie]

Yeah that’s Texas

[Paladin]

Yeah... aren’t UOC get togethers what got UOC banned? Probably best to stay under the radar with this one.

Yes, because UOCing was a public policy subject to the political branches. They/we were trying to desenitize the public to the carry of handguns. We wanted to get the public on the pro-gun carry side of the issue.

That's why, when I saw the MSM suddenly start talking about us and all using the same words/phrases against us (things flipped over just 1 weekend), I and others said time to stand down or Sacto will shut us down. The "uncompromising" UOCers didn't and when UOCing handguns got banned, some, like Charles Nichols, went to UOCing long guns until that too got banned....

This time we'll have federal court case law declaring a 2nd A constitutional right to do what we do before we do it. N.B.: we may be required to get LOC permits before any meet ups if Sacto responds in a timely fashion.

[Paladin]

When the time comes, don’t be these idiots, no point in open carrying a long rifle.

Not sure, but that may have been after the ban on handgun UOCing, and only long gun UOCing was permitted (although I think those guys were in Texas).

But for us, if things work out well, yeah, don't be those guys....

[Paladin]

Some thoughts I thought I'd share w/you guys.

Re. the future: I'm assuming that they do not appeal this loss, so this will be the fastest things move. If anything changes (someone appeals), timeline is longer. Some important items are not directly related, but indirectly.

1) Aug 08: we know if Hawaii appeals
2) Sept 04: Trump gets more judges on CA9?
3) Oct 01: Kavanaugh on SCOTUS at start of session?
4) Nov 06: fed elections, GOP keeps Senate?
5) mid Nov: appeal sua sponte by CA9? (If no appeal, file suit, (seek PI?) and ask for MSJ declaring Mulford Act unconstitutional under 2nd A?)
6) 2019 mid Feb to mid May: Nichols decision
7) fall 2019: If Nichols was a win and no appeals (14 + 90 days), plan LOC meet ups unless Sacto passes emergency LOC permit process, then get permits first (probably after 2020 Jan).
8) LOC meet ups (w/LE informed ahead of time re. time and place) in anti counties makes Sacto pass single LTC for LOC and CC, hoping the serfs will choose CCing rather than wasting LE resources responding to "man with a gun" calls due to LOCing.

Then we've WON!!! (go for ConCarry 5 to 10 years later... )

Re. LOC group meet ups, some ideas to consider:

(1) Choose location carefully. Get permission from management ahead of time. Explain the law.

(2) Have some obvious members of the group as non-carrying dedicated videographers.

(3) Have folks carry pepper spray for non-lethal defense against antis, if needed. If you inform LE ahead of time of your event, they'll probably be ready to handle these problems for you.

(4) Inform both the sheriff's office and the PD of the city where you'll meet, time and location.

(5) Consider informing the local media: TV, radio, print, web.

(6) Have some CCWers appear to be non-members for protection in case no LE presence and BGs try to rob/attack you.

(7) Know the members of the group. We don't need needless drama or to have antis cause us to look bad, esp not w/LE or media.... Choose leadership, folks w/good public speaking/PR skills, and best to have a lawyer or two present as non-carriers. Handguns only.

If I'm not around (we're all human and all it takes is one auto accident... ), do a group meet up in Ala Co in my memory: f--- Sheriff Ahern for restrictive GC!

Why would I still want to LOC?

(1) If temperature changes or I go to different part of SFBA (from SF down to Silicon Valley), I want to be able to take off my sweater, jacket or coat and still carry.

(2) If I should bend over, reach up or a wind gust expose my CCW, I don't want to lose my permit because someone calls it in.

(3) When hiking, camping, backpacking, XC/backcountry skiing, the first indication most victims get that a mountain lion is in the area is the sound of fangs cracking their skulls and the feeling of claws in their back or shoulders.... I don't want to have to deal with clearing a cover garment in the midst of all that. Similarly, in other recreation (biking, beach, jogging, etc), an exposed shoulder holster w/o cover garment might be the way to go. ETA: in a SHTF scenario (Rodney King Riots, Katrina, etc), I'd like to EDC a large semi (G19, G17) and OC would be the way to go for me.

[MarCat]

Sincere congratulations to wolfwood. Very well done!

I think this is going to go sua sponte, similar as Peruta, but I like the way this was teed up. The 20 year track record of non-issuance is so stark that I think this case is going to be interesting if it gets to SCOTUS.

Hoo-Rah!

[wireless]

Here are some reasons why I don't think CA-9 will get away with a may-issue permitting open carry scheme if Young becomes settled law.

One of the central holdings, page 1 of the opinion.

In determining the appropriate level of scrutiny to apply to section 134-9, the panel first held that the right to carry a firearm openly for self-defense falls within the core of the Second Amendment. The panel stated that restricting open carry to those whose job entails protecting life or property
necessarily restricts open carry to a small and insulated subset of law-abiding citizens. The panel reasoned that the typical, law-abiding citizen in the State of Hawaii was entirely foreclosed from exercising the core Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense.

From the very begenning of the majorities opinion:

YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII
OPINION

There's plenty more explaining why carry applies to the average law abiding citizen.

I do think if CA is forced into this they will make the permitting scheme more erroneous and cumbersome than it already is.

[rplaw]

No. The decision still has to be final (no en banc), then likely an OC permit will be required. I do not see the state simply allowing unlicensed carry of any form.
The Nichols case will answer these questions.

The decision in Nichols will create an OC permit system. The "stop and frisk" used against UOC'ers will become illegal because it's already not a crime to merely carry a firearm in most jurisdictions (including Ca if done according to the law on transportation). The checking to see if the gun is unloaded is a ploy to try to get around Constitutional standards that already prohibit such tactics. By requiring a permit to OC, the State gets past that since any officer can request to see your permit (identity papers) to verify if what you're doing is authorized. That's legal in most places because it would be targeted at reducing crime in the least invasive way.

What I don't think anyone is considering is whether those with a CCW will have the option of both methods under their more restrictive permit. At which point CC only as a permit becomes meaningless. it would have to be a "carry permit" rather than a "concealed carry permit".

If they don't have the dual option, then the OC only permit becomes an equal protection issue for those with the CCW based on background checks, costs, and so on. If someone with a CCW has a permit, why should they be forced to also undergo MORE checks for the less restrictive OC permit?

And, if the CCW crowd doesn't have to have both, then why does the OC permit not operate equally? A permit based on background checks and verifications shouldn't single out a special class of citizens.

If Young survives the en banc and forthcoming appeals, then Ca is in trouble with it's gun regulation bans.

[Citizen_B]

[Californio]

When I was a kid in California, loaded open carry was common place where I lived, many times I saw guys packing a Single Action Colt in a gunbelt at Safeway, that was before the Mulford Act, I learned later, not enforced in my town, I went about my business carrying a .22 rifle across the handle bars of my bicycle, no one cared. A loaded pistol on horseback when going up in the mountains, SOP.

This before the great eastern invasion of California.

California would be better served to have shall issue CC as to not offend the current over-population of Marxist city sissies that now call California home.

Unfortunately that will entail forcing the Marxists to capitulate to the Republic which they will never do.

Catch22.