View Full Version : Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals... Baker v Kealoha (Hawaii)
Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a decision in Bake v Kealoha. (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/03/20/12-16258.pdf)
"In Peruta v. County of San Diego,— F.3d —, No. 10-56971, 2014 WL 555862, at *18 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2014), we concluded that the Second Amendment provides a responsible, law-abiding citizen with a right to carry an operable handgun outside the home for the purpose of self-defense. In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statutes did not implicate protected Second Amendment activity. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s decision denying Baker’s motion for a preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings consistent with Peruta."
Too many big words. Can someone translate?
Too many big words. Can someone translate?
Hawaii district court was stupid
9th cir court said "you're stupid, don't be stupid anymore" and gave it back to them
Hawaii district court now has to be not stupid and change their ruling
Since when was the 9th not completely insane?!?!
Since when was the 9th not completely insane?!?!
Since Peruta a month ago.
Yeah... Years of complete lunacy and suddenly they decide to start making sense. I'm still picking my jaw up off the floor.
Hawaii district court was stupid
9th cir court said "you're stupid, don't be stupid anymore" and gave it back to them
Hawaii district court now has to be not stupid and change their ruling
So its progress. That's kinda what I thought it meant.
So its progress. That's kinda what I thought it meant.
Yep.
I've been chatting with Baker since before he filed the lawsuit, so I'm decently close to the case. For reasons not mentioned in the article, I'm surprised the case hasn't been dismissed for lack of standing as he recently moved from Hawaii.
The new meaning of "Hope and Change"
Yep.
I've been chatting with Baker since before he filed the lawsuit, so I'm decently close to the case. For reasons not mentioned in the article, I'm surprised the case hasn't been dismissed for lack of standing as he recently moved from Hawaii.
Well hopefully its effects will start to trickle down since I'm moving there soon.
Washington Post (03-20-14) article on the Baker v Kealoha ruling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/20/hawaii-restrictions-on-gun-carrying-essentially-held-unconstitutional-for-now/)
I'm surprised the case hasn't been dismissed for lack of standing as he recently moved from Hawaii.
Which would actually be more damaging than allowing it to come to trial to overturn ridiculous "justification" provisions in every jurisdiction.
What makes me so very confused is that the judiciary in this country appears to be heading in the right direction (the 2nd Amendment provides for the private ownership of arms, and the ability to carry those arms in defense of ones person, if the 9th can see this, anyone can), while the legislative branch is waffling like crazy. I guess at the end of the day it makes a bit of sense, as the progressives that this country has been electing for the past three decades simply want more and more control (power) and that's hard to do when people are able to resist...
Honestly, national reciprocity is the only answer, but we may be a long way from home on that one.
Which would actually be more damaging than allowing it to come to trial to overturn ridiculous "justification" provisions in every jurisdiction.
What makes me so very confused is that the judiciary in this country appears to be heading in the right direction (the 2nd Amendment provides for the private ownership of arms, and the ability to carry those arms in defense of ones person, if the 9th can see this, anyone can), while the legislative branch is waffling like crazy. I guess at the end of the day it makes a bit of sense, as the progressives that this country has been electing for the past three decades simply want more and more control (power) and that's hard to do when people are able to resist...
Honestly, national reciprocity is the only answer, but we may be a long way from home on that one.
National reciprocity is an interesting issue from a political and legal standpoint. What about states rights? Does the Federal government have the legal authority to mandate national reciprocity, or would it have to be a condition on receiving federal funds (like obama care iirc)?
Washington Post (03-20-14) article on the Baker v Kealoha ruling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/20/hawaii-restrictions-on-gun-carrying-essentially-held-unconstitutional-for-now/)
Volokh is an interesting guy, kind of a super-star in the legal world.
He majored in computer science in under grad (like me lol), then clerked for Kozinski of the 9th and O'Connor of SCOTUS. If you don't know already, clerking for a judge is considered something only the best law school graduates can get, and the higher the court, the harder the competition. Clerking for an appelate judge like Kozinski is a major achievement. Clerking for a justice on SCOTUS means you're one of the smartest people with a Juris Doctorate.
He's pretty awesome, and he was definitely in favor of some form of carry in the Peruta case; he was quoted in the opinion by the judge who wrote it (actually probably a clerk, lol) multiple times if memory serves me right.
However, the article in question basically says "Yeah, we knew this would happen since Peruta is basically the exact same thing as Baker."
National reciprocity is an interesting issue from a political and legal standpoint. What about states rights? Does the Federal government have the legal authority to mandate national reciprocity, or would it have to be a condition on receiving federal funds (like obama care iirc)?
My drivers license is good to go. Far deadlier than my pistol could ever be.
But I understand your point for sure.
My drivers license is good to go. Far deadlier than my pistol could ever be.
But I understand your point for sure.
Drivers license reciprocity wasn't federally mandated as far as I know. Not saying states can't agree to it, but federally mandating that they MUST accept all other states' permits is probably an overreach of federal power. But see how completely reasonable and rational people can actually be FOR strengthening the federal government and abridging states' constitutional rights as long as it's for a good cause?
We have to be consistent; be for or against states rights, not picking and choosing what laws the federal government can or cannot force upon the states based solely on your agreement or disagreement with said laws.
Last I checked "shall not be infringed" makes the entire permitting process a violation of rights.
That said, interesting learning on the DLs... I thought that somehow they had already ruled on that by interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Last I checked "shall not be infringed" makes the entire permitting process a violation of rights.
That said, interesting learning on the DLs... I thought that somehow they had already ruled on that by interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
But then you'd have no constitutional leg to stand on if you're asking for national reciprocity. You'd have to push for national constitutional carry.
Agree. Just playing the hand I'm dealt. National reciprocity is only because it seems like the courts are not yet at (but getting closer to) a position where they realize that the permitting process itself is an issue.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.