Small win for us - Young v Hawaii - CCA9 - Page 3

Dano4734 · November 8, 2018, 10:58 PM

We need a federal carry license. Too many states with too many different laws

Armed_Chicagoan · November 9, 2018, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano4734

We need a federal carry license. Too many states with too many different laws

That's my view, but sadly it seems half of the people supporting gun rights have a knee-jerk response against any action at the federal level, fearing that antis will use it to restrict their rights. As if the antis ever needed any such incentive to pass restrictive gun laws at the federal level, and we are now seeing Pelosi calling for just that.

This is why we lose, if we refuse to step forward at the federal level the only possible direction to go is backward. Until even those of us in the "good" states are affected by draconian gun laws. We are our own worst enemy, as soon as you concede an enumerated Constitutional right as really a states' rights issue we have lost, because the antis don't feel that way at all.

steve4102 · November 13, 2018, 09:00 AM

Quote:

the en banc response was filed

https://www.scribd.com/document/3926...yxrcvrwPGVjcTg

So what does it all mean/say?

**Aguila Blanca** · November 13, 2018, 10:36 AM

The response isn't a decision, it's just the appellant's brief stating why he doesn't think the state has a case. Basically, the appellant argues that there isn't really a circuit split on this issue (as the state argued), and therefore the state is "estopped" (prohibited) from appealing the decision.

**Spats McGee** · November 14, 2018, 05:55 AM

One slight correction to AB's post: The estoppel issue wasn't due to a circuit split or lack thereof. According to the appellant, the State was estopped from arguing what it wanted to on appeal because that position was inconsistent with what they'd argued before. A party can't spend several years arguing "The law means X," and then turn around on appeal and claim "The law means Not-X."

The quoted scribd link sends me to a removal notice, "due to suspected copyright infringement." The link in Post #50 does not do so.

**Aguila Blanca** · November 14, 2018, 10:45 AM

Thanks for the correction, Spats. I'm sure I have mentioned before that I'm not a lawyer. Now we see why.

I had the same issue with the links.

JERRYS. · November 14, 2018, 11:51 AM

my limited understanding about this is that the higher court did not decide in favor of the people's right to keep and bear arms; it instead stated that the lower court's ruling is incorrect and that the same court needs to rewrite their version of the law....

November 14, 2018, 05:55 AM	#55
Spats McGee Staff Join Date: July 28, 2010 Location: Arkansas Posts: 8,821	One slight correction to AB's post: The estoppel issue wasn't due to a circuit split or lack thereof. According to the appellant, the State was estopped from arguing what it wanted to on appeal because that position was inconsistent with what they'd argued before. A party can't spend several years arguing "The law means X," and then turn around on appeal and claim "The law means Not-X." The quoted scribd link sends me to a removal notice, "due to suspected copyright infringement." The link in Post #50 does not do so. __________________ I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

November 8, 2018, 10:58 PM	#51
Dano4734 Senior Member Join Date: October 6, 2014 Posts: 730	We need a federal carry license. Too many states with too many different laws

November 13, 2018, 10:36 AM	#54
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	The response isn't a decision, it's just the appellant's brief stating why he doesn't think the state has a case. Basically, the appellant argues that there isn't really a circuit split on this issue (as the state argued), and therefore the state is "estopped" (prohibited) from appealing the decision.

November 14, 2018, 10:45 AM	#56
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	Thanks for the correction, Spats. I'm sure I have mentioned before that I'm not a lawyer. Now we see why. I had the same issue with the links.

November 14, 2018, 11:51 AM	#57
JERRYS. Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2013 Location: Alabama Posts: 2,968	my limited understanding about this is that the higher court did not decide in favor of the people's right to keep and bear arms; it instead stated that the lower court's ruling is incorrect and that the same court needs to rewrite their version of the law....