Lawsuit Filed against Honolulu Police Chief and State of Hawaii

Actually, I was reading a published opinion from the 9th on DNA collection (I hadn't yet checked the unpublished opinions), when I received a call from Maestro Pistolero about the Baker case.

So I went to the unpublished section, and lo and behold, there it was! An 8 page decision that remands the case back to the district court in Hawaii for further proceedings in light of Peruta.

Besides the link given by Luger_Carbine, the CA9 decision may be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/03/20/12-16258.pdf

This is a 3 for 3 win.... But! The dissent by Judge Thomas is accurate and may well be cause for a rehearing. We will have to see.

Having said that, I really don't think Judge O'Scannlain would have released Richards and Baker if he thought there was much chance of Peruta going en banc. Although, it has been suggested that he is simply trying to "stack the deck," as it were.
 
Having said that, I really don't think Judge O'Scannlain would have released Richards and Baker if he thought there was much chance of Peruta going en banc. Although, it has been suggested that he is simply trying to "stack the deck," as it were.
Click to expand...

That sounds right. If so, they can approve Ms. Harris to go to SCOTUS and still keep their "progressive credentials". At least for the delay it would give some authorities, such as Lost Angles City and County.
 
Chuck Michel seems to think en banc is highly likely.
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like he begrudgingly thinks this may happen because, if not granted in this case, then one of the other cases will come up (Hawaii's for example) and request en banc.
 
I agree with what Al said about O'Scannilion stacking the deck. Seems to me these opinions are released just in time for SCOTUS to absorb it before Drake goes to conference (which should be within a month). I think he knows en banc will be a huge headache for the 9th. Can they just grant en banc in Peruta and tell Baker no?
O'Scannilion wants this to be a big cluster if the 9th opts for en banc and he's putting all his chips forward for SCOTUS to take Drake.
 
Actually, I was reading a published opinion from the 9th on DNA collection (I hadn't yet checked the unpublished opinions), when I received a call from Maestro Pistolero about the Baker case.

So I went to the unpublished section, and lo and behold, there it was! An 8 page decision that remands the case back to the district court in Hawaii for further proceedings in light of Peruta.

Besides the link given by Luger_Carbine, the CA9 decision may be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...0/12-16258.pdf

This is a 3 for 3 win.... But! The dissent by Judge Thomas is accurate and may well be cause for a rehearing. We will have to see.
Click to expand...

You are right about the dissent. The Baker PI win is a result of not knowing enough about the law on my part to know better and the lower court Judge being in reality being on our side.
The district court has already filed the notice of unconstitutionality the Ninth said needed to be filed with the State on remand. As the time to ask for en banc is not over yet I hope he knows something we don't.
 
To open carry you must be a licensed guard or detective, and then only "when the need urgency exists."
Click to expand...

It's a sad day when you learn that your childhood hero, Magnum P.I., was a criminal.

More power to the Plaintiffs - kick their butts!
 
The District Court in Hawaii has just ruled that HRS § 134-2(d) violates the 14th and 2nd Amendments. The 14th Amendment claim was examined under strict scrutiny. They found that the 2nd Amendment claim would be valid whether strict or intermediate scrutiny was used, and that the law also violated plaintiff's 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Nice! Now on to read the ruling because I can't remember what exactly this case was about. Heck I even forgot about this one.
 
The case Tom is referring to isn't the same as the OP. This thread was the Baker CCW case, the opinion that just came out was for resident alien posession.
AFAIK all resident alien cases have ended in wins with the state not appealing the ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top