Stay in Gun Case against Hawaii Reminiscent of King Quote on Justice Delayed

It's not that the State of Hawaii is anti-gun. They like them just fine as long as they're the “Only Ones” controlling them. (Inside HPD – Training Division & Specialized Services Division / Facebook video)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- A motion for reconsideration was filed Thursday by plaintiff attorneys Alan Beck and Stephen D. Stamboulieh in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the case of Young v. Hawaii. That case challenges Hawaii statutes regulating carry permits – and lack thereof – on Second Amendment grounds, as plaintiff George Young, denied a concealed carry permit, was also denied the right to carry openly.

A three-judge panel had ruled last July, per a Washington Examiner report, “that the Second Amendment protects the right to open carry firearms for self-defense.”

Hawaii succeeded in getting the full court to agree to hear the case, but now the Ninth Circuit has kicked the can further down the road by ordering a stay. Per a Feb. 14 order:

“En banc proceedings are stayed and submission of this case for decision by the en banc court is deferred pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 18-280 and further order of this Court.”

“This is the second stay of proceedings in this case since Mr. Young’s case was first docketed in this Court on December 24, 2012,” Thursday’s motion observes. “Mr. Young has now been in the appeals process for approximately six years, two months and nine days.”

“Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both,” the motion reminds the court, citing precedent.

“NYSRPA does not directly implicate Mr. Young’s issues,” the motion asserts, noting the former case invokes “the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel,” and that “Hawaii does not prohibit that activity as New York City does.”

“[I]t is quite possible that Young’s case will be stayed for at a minimum of a year and a half, possibly more, while the Supreme Court decides NYSRPA, and it is speculation as to whether anything in NYSRPA will affect any issue presented in Young,” the motion elaborates.

Ironically, or not so much if you think about it, the same parties that petitioned the Court to hear the matter en banc oppose the motion to reconsider the order staying the case. After years of doing everything in his power to use the system for redress of grievances against a state with comparatively unlimited resources, Young wants his day in court, but the government is in no hurry to give it to him.

“We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied,’” Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his historic “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

Justice for Young – and for all gun owners who believe unyieldingly in the right of the people to keep and bear arms – has been delayed for far too long. If it’s denied, such gun owners will be quoting Kennedy instead of King.


About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 11 thoughts on “Stay in Gun Case against Hawaii Reminiscent of King Quote on Justice Delayed

    1. The Supreme Court does seem to comprehend that the ruling of law cannot conflict the written law of the Land..
      The US Constitution, our Civil Rights, etc…
      This Stay shows that they don’t want to rule on the case before the Court in Hawaii, until this one is resolved… Lest it be overturned.. At least while it’s pertinent to their own philosophy/interpretation.

      The States are trying to get away with conflicting laws against the Second Amendment, but the Courts choose to delay and ignore the Laws they are sworn to uphold.

      This is what my professors taught me during college, as copied from the Wikipedia:

      “Federal law and treaties, so long as they are in accordance with the Constitution, preempt conflicting state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S. states and in the territories. However, the scope of federal preemption is limited because the scope of federal power is not universal. In the dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite because of the presence of Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, each with their own constitution, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual “living law” of contract, tort, property, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.”

    2. It’s about time that the courts end this dance around the legal obvious – that since the Heller decision in 2008 Americans have secured the right to carry weapons in case of confrontation. Learn more at OpenCarry.org. And carry On!

    3. And yet, Ferguson managed to get the I1639 initiative that had been declared Unconstitutional (State), to be heard virtually overnight so that it could be put immediately on the ballot anyway.

    4. 100% 2nd Amendment supporter here. But I think the author misunderstands the reason for the stay in this case. A stay was appropriate, and possibly will end up benefiting the Plaintiff.

      It is appropriate for the lesser courts to hold off on deciding cases that may be affected by one pending before the Supreme Court because to do otherwise risks a contrary ruling and would result in a massive waste of everyone’s time, effort, and money, including that of the court. And, if the 9th were to decide against the right to carry in public, which is not inconceivable, that decision (which will be written by the top law clerks of the 9th) will in effect become a brief against the plaintiffs in the New York case. Also, if the 9th rules against the Hawaii Plaintiff, he will have to decide whether to spend the fortune needed just to ask the Supreme Court to overturn his case, because he can’t just wait for the New York case to be decided before filing since there are short time limits for filing appeals and writs for certiorari. He could well end up with his case fully and unappealably decided when the New York case is decided. And then, since there are differences between the New York and Hawaii cases (no two cases are ever identical), he would have to begin litigation in Hawaii again to determine whether the New York case’s decision govern’s the situation in Hawaii (the Supreme Court may make a broad declaration of the right to carry in the New York case, but it is far more likely that they will issue a very limited ruling that applies only to that situation, and one of the longstanding practices at the Supreme Court is to avoid deciding cases on constitutional grounds whenever possible).

      The likelihood is that any ruling by the 9th on this issue would only add to the harmful jurisprudence on this issue. This man in Hawaii is not the only man affected by his case since it is at the appellate level and will be binding precedent over all those living under the 9th. Better to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides in the New York case first.

      1. TS The Deplorable: Your point is moot because, as David pointed out: “NYSRPA does not directly implicate Mr. Young’s issues,” the motion asserts, noting the former case invokes “the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel,” and that “Hawaii does not prohibit that activity as New York City does.”

        These are not merely duplicate issues, from different States, they are separate and distinct.

        1. @Gentlemen, Yes, and since when did the Ninth Circuit ever care about amounts of money spent? Nope, there is a different reason that the Ninth Circus does not want to decide this case.
          First, the elitists want to deny people there Second Amendment Civil Rights as long as possible. Second, the opinion (or even the descenting opinion) in NYSR&PA, Inc. v. NYC could provide the some novel excuse that the Ninth Circuit could use to deny Americans their 2A rights on an even longer term basis.

          1. Ferguson had the temerity to complain about the $1,000,000 spent on measles thus far in WA State…He literally has challenged the President on every issue that he personally finds distasteful. The total must be in the 100’s of millions by now.

      2. I think he does understand, but points out that regardless of the similarities there are still some very distinct differences between the cases and regardless of what might happen in the NY Case, this case would still have other issues that need to be tested in court. In other words. He is saying it should still be allowed to advance if on nothing other than those differences while staying the areas likely to come before the USSC.

    5. Is it feasible to bring a class action suit against the Feds; for the civil actions of the States’ attacks against our Second Amendment rights?

      The representative dollar value is qualified…

    Leave a Comment 11 Comments