Sunday, August 28, 2022

More Delay: Ninth Circuit Remands Young v. Hawaii back to District Court

On August 19, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals summarily remanded the Young v. Hawaii case back to the District court for a re-hearing, after the Supreme Court granted cert, vacated the previous Ninth Circuit decision, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit for a re-hearing.

In 2011, George Young applied twice to obtain a permit to carry a firearm for self defense, outside his home in Hawaii, either openly or concealed. Both his applications were denied by the Chief of Police, Harry Kubojiri, who cited Hawaii law.

Young filed a lawsuit claiming his Constitutional right to keep and bear arms was violated.

Young lost at the District Court level. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The three judge panel at the Ninth Circuit held for Young.

The Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the case en banc.

The en banc panel held against Young.

The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The court had not heard the case when they released the NYSR&PA v Bruen decision this year. Shortly after the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to Young and three other cases, vacated all four, and remanded them back down to the appellate level to be re-heard at the various appellate courts.

In the case of Young, it was and is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

At that point, it would have appeared Young had finally won his decade long court fight to be granted a permit to carry in order to exercise his Second Amendment rights.

As those who have observed this fight, and commented on it over the years, have noted, the Ninth Circuit is actively hostile to the exercise of Second Amendment rights. It is not an exaggeration to say the Ninth Circuit actively dislikes the concept of a right to keep and bear arms.

Instead of telling Hawaii to follow the standards put forth in Bruen, the Court remanded Young back to the District court, essentially telling George Young to start all over from ten years ago, albeit, with a new understanding from the Bruen decision.

A strong dissent, written by Judge O'Scannlain, and joined with Judges Callahan, Ikuta, and R. Nelson against the seven member majority of the eleven member en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, points out the needless delay created by this manuever. From the dissent, p. 12:

 Today we shy away from our obligations to answer the straightforward legal questions presented on appeal and to provide guidance to the lower courts in our Circuit. And in doing so, we waste judicial resources by sending the parties back to square one at the district court. The parties have waited a decade to resolve this litigation, and Young has waited over ten years to exercise his constitutional right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Because we opt not to decide this simple case, we force Young to wait even longer.

A cynical observer, such as this correspondent, might consider delay the point of the maneuver.  A delay is, essentially a partial win for those who have no desire to follow the Constitution or the rule of law.  Those in power in Hawaii are able to continue to violate the rights of its citizens for, at least, a few more months.


Who knows what might happen? The Democrats may be able to keep control of the House and the Senate in the mid-term elections, thereby putting the possibility of packing the Supreme Court back into play.

A Democrat packed Supreme Court would certainly reverse Bruen, Cateano, McDonald, and Heller. Then the Ninth Circuit would be able to return to its fable the Second Amendment was never about individual rights.

The United States might lose a hot war with China, as we appear to be losing the undeclared by obvious economic and information wars with China.  Most of our "ruling class" already appears to have been "captured" economically and ideologically by the Chinese Communist Party.

The Ninth Circuit might find the new government more closely aligned with the Ninth Circuit's views on the Constitution, if it is allowed to exist.

©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch




ScienceABC123 said...

Synopsis: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't get their way, so they "passed the buck."

Anonymous said...

Another example of corrupt liberal courts refusing to uphold their oath and enforce constitutional law. These kinds of ruling point to the need for impeachment and removal THE USSC has made it clear the constitution right without any permit to exercise a constitutional right must be enforced. The court is trying to restore the constitution to it's original authority and the rest of the justice system is fighting tooth and nail to constitution the corruption.