Baker v Kealoha, Hawai'i case at 9th circuit, win!

[ryan_j 0]

Looks like we have a decision in the Baker case out of Hawai'i.

 

I would have posted the decision but NJGF has decided to keep its attachment file size limit small, so I guess you'll have to go fetch it yourselves.

 

I've posted it on NJ2AS facebook group, NJ2AR and Gun for Hire Radio's facebook. 

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Looks like we have a decision in the Baker case out of Hawai'i.

 

I would have posted the decision but NJGF has decided to keep its attachment file size limit small, so I guess you'll have to go fetch it yourselves.

 

I've posted it on NJ2AS facebook group, NJ2AR and Gun for Hire Radio's facebook. 

 

Can you please try to compress or something?  Some of us don't do Facebook! 

[ryan_j 0]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/213562890/Baker-v-Kealoha-Decesion

[HBecwithFn7 296]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/213562890/Baker-v-Kealoha-Decesion

 

Thank ya much! 

[TR20 47]

Looks like we have a decision in the Baker case out of Hawai'i.

 

I would have posted the decision but NJGF has decided to keep its attachment file size limit small, so I guess you'll have to go fetch it yourselves.

 

I've posted it on NJ2AS facebook group, NJ2AR and Gun for Hire Radio's facebook. 

 

Ryan,

 

Thank you.  I am not a Facebook member and don't wish to join.  I cannot find the release on the NJ2AS site, not under the members only section either.

Can you please provide us with a web link to read the decision?

 

Thanks,

Tom

 

 

Sorry, you published it when I wrote this note

Edited March 20, 2014 by TR20

[ryan_j 0]

I did. Someone posted it to scribd. No login required. 

[ogfarmer 138]

I can't read it can someone explain in layman's terms

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

Executive Summary - Hawaii likely becomes a shall-issue state for CCW:

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-ninth-circuit-makes-hawaii-shall-issue-state/

 

 

 

In an earlier decision in Baker v Kealoha, a District Court refused to rule in favor of the plaintiff, Christopher Baker. Baker had moved for an injunction against state agencies that had denied him a carry license. As a Ninth Circuit panel put it today, the District Court denied the motion because, “Baker was not likely to establish that Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms in public were unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, and therefore, Baker was not likely to succeed on the merits.” But that was pre-Peruta . . .

Now that Ninth Circuit panel has ruled,

In light of our holding in Peruta, the district court made an error of law when it concluded that the Hawaii statues 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.

So while there are still some formalities involved, the Peruta decision that is transforming California appears likely to have the same effect on the Aloha State. Just another day in paradise.

[Respect2A 0]

Oh another one shall issue. When do you think we will become shall issue? Surely we are next. Oh wait, NEVER.

 

 

Even our AG is trying to get the Supreme Court to not hear our cases.

[Scrappy 0]

Sounds like Dwyer expects Peruta to be heard en banc.

[Vlad G 345]

Sounds like Dwyer expects Peruta to be heard en banc.

 

The odd thing is that it is the same 3 judges that passed all 3 decisions. You would think they would have held up the last 2 (which were Peruta based) if they thought that the 9th would do an en banc hearing.  I assume those guys talk among themselves and would have postponed passing the other two if they saw an en banc coming.

 

If there is an en banc decision coming down that those 2 other cases would have to come back up, so why wouldn't they just postpone the decision?

[ryan_j 0]

I have a feeling that the judges talk among themselves, and nobody really wants to do an en banc review... because let's face it, they've already been through this clusterf**k with Nordyke, which was stuck in the court for a whopping 12 years. 

 

And yes, it was the same 3 judge panel that heard all 3 on the same day.

[chris327 30]

Oh another one shall issue. When do you think we will become shall issue? Surely we are next. Oh wait, NEVER.

 

 

Even our AG is trying to get the Supreme Court to not hear our cases.

someone please correct me if im wrong but my understanding is the nj AG needs to file to not hear the case in the supreme court. Since it is law with precedent in state he needs to argue for it. Whether or not he agrees with the law is a different story. But its his job to uphold nj law. someone please correct me if im wrong but that was my understanding.

[ryan_j 0]

someone please correct me if im wrong but my understanding is the nj AG needs to file to not hear the case in the supreme court. Since it is law with precedent in state he needs to argue for it. Whether or not he agrees with the law is a different story. But its his job to uphold nj law. someone please correct me if im wrong but that was my understanding.

 

The AG does not have to oppose certiorari for Drake, but is generally expected to, since the AG is supposed to defend all NJ laws.

 

Now, if Christie really wanted to do something for us, he could have instructed the AG to file a brief in support of certioarari... but that would make absolutely no sense. 

[voyager9 3,434]

The AG does not have to oppose certiorari for Drake, but is generally expected to, since the AG is supposed to defend all NJ laws.

 

Now, if Christie really wanted to do something for us, he could have instructed the AG to file a brief in support of certioarari... but that would make absolutely no sense.

Maybe he instructed the AG to use pre-Heller data so goes through the motions of not supporting but provides the open door for those that do.

[maintenanceguy 510]

Like all law enforcement, the AG is supposed to enforce the law - starting with the constitution.   But that didn't happen.

[n4p226r 105]

Like all law enforcement, the AG is supposed to enforce the law - starting with the constitution.   But that didn't happen.

Technically as of now p, in no, there is no constitutional 2nd amendment right outside the home. So they are defending currently constitutional law in a way.

[maintenanceguy 510]

There is a constitutional

 

Technically as of now p, in no, there is no constitutional 2nd amendment right outside the home. So they are defending currently constitutional law in a way.

There certainly is a constitutional 2nd amendment right outside the home.   It's right there...in the constitution.  It's not reasonable to believe that the founders believed we needed a militia that stayed inside their houses.

[Vlad G 345]

Thats nice, but LEGALLY that is not currently established, at least were it comes to bearing arms. Think of it this way in most places you have a duty to retreat and all that.

[ryan_j 0]

Thats nice, but LEGALLY that is not currently established, at least were it comes to bearing arms. Think of it this way in most places you have a duty to retreat and all that.

Even the NJ courts have agreed that 2A applies outside the home. They are now arguing that going to the range or place of business and the limited justifiable need carry permit scheme satisfies that.

[n4p226r 105]

There is a constitutional

 

There certainly is a constitutional 2nd amendment right outside the home. It's right there...in the constitution. It's not reasonable to believe that the founders believed we needed a militia that stayed inside their houses.

I'm not trying to say that I agree. I'm just saying that until the courts change it, they aren't unconstitutional

 

Hell. I believe we all should constitutionally be able to own full auto SBRs produced in the current day without a tax stamp. Many may agree with me. But that doesn't mean anything.