Expected: Hawaii Files For Ninth Circuit En Banc Ruling On Right To Bear Arms

Opinion

Black Gun Owners Open Carry
Expected: Hawaii Files For Ninth Circuit En Banc Ruling On Right To Bear Arms

Hawaii – -(AmmoLand.com)- On 24 July, 2018, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the right to bear arms outside the home. As expected, the State of Hawaii waited until the last possible day, then filed a petition for the Ninth Circuit to hear the case en banc, that is, by the whole court.

Because the Ninth Circuit is so large and awkward [President Trump should break this court up] compared to other circuits, an en banc hearing of the Ninth involves 11 judges chosen at random, out of the 23 or 24 judges (depending on confirmation hearings) on the Ninth Circuit.

In the closely linked case of Peruta, the Ninth Circuit granted an en banc hearing of the case. The process took about 18 months.

In the Peruta case, a request for an en banc hearing was denied in November of 2014. Then a judge on the Ninth Circuit called for an en banc vote anyway.  The the vote for an en banc hearing was announced on 26 March, 2015. Oral arguments were heard on 16 June 2015.  On June 10th, 2016, the Ninth Circuit, en banc, reversed the ruling of the three-judge panel on Peruta and narrowly found there was no right to carry arms concealed outside the home. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which refused to grant certiorari.

In Young v. State of Hawaii, the case rules only on permits for open carry, as the precedent of Peruta foreclosed a right to concealed carry in the Ninth Circuit.

In the petition for an en banc rehearing, the Government of Hawaii claims the mere potential for police chiefs to issue open carry permits is sufficient to satisfy any right to bear arms outside the home, although only four permits have been issued for people (outside of employment permits) in the last 18 years. From Young v. State of Hawaii:

First, the panel invalidated Hawaii’s law on the ground that it limits open-carry licenses to “security guards” and other individuals whose jobs entail protecting life and property. Add. 51-52. But that is just wrong. By its plain terms, Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-9 makes open-carry licenses available to any otherwise-qualified individual who “sufficiently indicate[s]” an “urgency” or “need” to carry a firearm and who is “engaged in the protection of life and property.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9(a). Moreover, if there was any doubt on the question, the Hawaii Attorney General has removed it by issuing a formal legal opinion that clarifies that the law extends to private individuals as well as security officers, and that advises police chiefs that victims of domestic violence, individuals who face a credible threat of armed robbery or violent crime, and other private persons may be eligible for open-carry licenses.

The Ninth Circuit has proved hostile to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It has interpreted the Second Amendment in the most narrow way possible, in order to infringe on the exercise of Second Amendment rights as much as it can get away with. The only authorities who have the power to reverse the Ninth Circuit are the Supreme Court and future Ninth Circuit judges.

Legislative remedies are possible with the California government but are highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. The California government seems bent on passing as many infringements on Second Amendment rights as it can.

Legislative remedies are also possible with the federal legislature, who could tie the exercise of Second Amendment rights to federal money that is given to California.

As of this writing, it appears that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed to become Justice Kavanaugh on the U.S. Supreme Court. This changes the dynamics of a potential Supreme Court appeal if the Ninth Circuit decides to hear Young v. State of Hawaii en banc, and the decision is appealed to the Supreme Court.

As we saw with the Peruta decision, the en banc process can take 18 months or more. Do not expect any definitive rulings on the case for at least two years.


Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fift30-yearrs until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 16 thoughts on “Expected: Hawaii Files For Ninth Circuit En Banc Ruling On Right To Bear Arms

    1. Young v Hawaii found open carry which extends to the public arena is the core protected right. Chambers v U.S. 22f. 3D 939, 942n.3 (9th 1994)., declares that opinions once issues are binding upon all inferior court judges in the circuit.
      DC.v Heller….open carry is the protected right. Caetano v Mass….the government cannot prevent citizens from carrying weapons for defense,(in public). McDonald v Chicago….The Second Amendment extends to the States. Cruikshank v U.S. The Second predates the Constitution. Young V Hawaii (9th)…open carry is the core right protected by the Second, it extends beyond the home into public places, and the government cannot use “interest balancing” to abrogate enemueratrd Rights. The government has no duty to protect you and suffers no liability for failing to protect you. Warren v D.C. (D.C. circuit). DeShanney v Winnebago County, Castle Rock v Gonzales, Cal govt code sections 821, 845, and 846. California has an outright ban on the open carry of weapons both unloaded and loaded. This is unconstitutional.
      We can get win this. I need an attorney. If you reply give me your contact info. Not asking for money, just need a lawyer with the courage to take this on. P.S. don’t hold your breath waiting for the NRA. I am a member but in this area they have another agenda.

    2. I’m an attorney and a good one. Re: my Q re chambers it is b/c I dated a guy named Chambers and I thought this Mark guy was talking about a new case, to be titled Chambers v.

      For the record, my boys are scouts and sharp shooters, I believe people should be trained in defense, including firearms. I find the bi polar discussion around this really tiresome. And Obama is a U.S. citizen and a christian, get over it. I don’t even vote Obama or Clinton and I would NEVER vote Trump. I wrote in Bernie, I am an independent libertarian and hate fascists. You people who have drunk the Trump and alt right wing kook aid think any of these people care about you? Nah….

      But anyway, I will go to the ninth circuit in SF (yes I work in Silicon Valley) and I will pull the file, I will update you all on whether the en banc has been granted, and when it will be heard, if it will be heard. I also like and support the 9th Circuit, funny that the relatively independent (but surprisingly still statist) Kozinsky is also a serial harasser. Too bad. And Scalia and Kavanaugh are alcoholics.

      It’s hard to find good, independent non-statist judges and I think O’Scanlain here is a good judge. I know that when the 9th circuit rules is covers the pacific northwest including CA and Idaho, OR, WA and HA at the least. However, b/c the 9th Circuit ruled that the state laws are unconstitutional does not mean that in CA the Becerra lawsuit to invalidate CA’s on the books unconstitutional law, does not need a proceeding. It’s the difference between a constitutional defense and permission. And I want open carry. But I don’t want kids at school, work or home to have access to guns, they are too young and easy to radicalize (yes including to white supremacy and white nationalism, America’s dominant terrorism).

      I wish you all would grow up and broaden your minds, I wish this of liberals as well as alt right and run of the mill conservatives.

    3. This is the problem with you guys. Someone just referred to me w/ a reference about clit. so you’re a bunch of proud boy chauvinists with co dependent stupid white women wives that support your crap? I’m a lawyer and white woman by the way, same age as Kavanaugh and went to Jesuit schools, none of the SLU High boys and Jesuit boys I know acted like him. Obama isn’t a muslim and I’m a Bernie fan b/c Im not a scared little fascist. I support gun rights. get a fucking life guys. Scared little boys with toys. I wouldn’t trust you to defend the u.s. if my life depended on it.

    4. Does anyone have a follow up on this since the AG filing? There’s nothing wrong with waiting till the last day, a timely filing is a timely filing. I want the case # to track it. Is there a stay?

    5. I want to file a TRO/ injunction against California to stop enforcement of open carry bans. Chambers v U.S. This case can be won! I cannot find a federal attorney who will take the case. HELP ME FIND AN ATTORNEY! Not asking for money…..NEED AN ATTORNEY with courage to take this on. NRA. won’t do it. GOA. won’t do it CALIFORNIANS WOUL BE ABLE TO OPEN CARRY!!!!! Post an attorneys name or contact here.

      1. Who is this Chambers? I am an attorney. I found this article to see if en banc has been granted and if there is a stay in the meantime. In August someone did challenge google Becerra (CA AG) and challenge to open carry in California. It’s in the works. Becerra is asking outright for en banc in that case vs. 3 judge panel first. BTW I am pro second amendment but I support antifa. Who is not anti fascist? Why do you guys want Kavanaugh he’s a dick and an alcoholic. why do you guys have to merge 2nd amendment with all kinds of fascism and batshit idiot “I like beer” guys who are not fit to be on the court.?

        1. Chambers v U.S. Ninth Circuit rulingsare binding on all Judges whether the mandate has issued or not. Opinions are binding upon all judges in the circuit unless or until they are reversed en banc or overturned by USSC. The en banc has not been accepted by the court. California’sattempt at intervenor muddy the water significantly because Flanagan v Bacerra is a very different case than Young. To grant an initial en banc hearing linked to a rehearing when there is another open carry case, ( Nichols v Brown) under submission would be the height of impropriety. Heller v D.C….Open carry is the protected right. Caetano v Mass…the government cannot prevent citizens from carriage of weapons because the government may be more interested in disarming people than in keeping them safe. McDonald v Chicago…The Second applies to the States. Cruikshank v U.S. the Second predates the Constitution.
          Young V Hawaii….open carry is protected right and it extends into public areas. The government has no duty to protect. Warren v D.C., Deshanny v Winnebago County, Castle Rock v Gonzales, Cal gov code 821, 845, and 846. We can win back our Liberty!!! Just need an attorney with the backbone to help. Not asking for money. Please post contact if you are licensed in Federal Court.

    Leave a Comment 16 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *