Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Baker v. Kealoha 12-16258 decided

  1. #1
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463

    Thumbs up Baker v. Kealoha 12-16258 decided

    Although this case is out of Hawaii, there are a couple of appeals out of California (including mine) stayed until Peruta, Richards and Baker were decided.

    This case was decided in an unpublished memorandum. The case was reversed and remanded. Baker gets his injunction, for the most part. This case, like every other, is still subject to an en banc appeal, stay and vacating of the decision. Here is a link to today’s decision.

    It will be interesting to see what the district court judge does with the remand. Baker's injunction sought both an injunction against Hawaii's permit requirement AND Baker sought a permit under the same law he sought to enjoin.

    Obviously, it the law which provides for the issuance of a permit is enjoined, Baker can't be issued a permit under that law.

    Links to Baker's motion for a preliminary injunction and memorandum in support thereof are available here.


    Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    this is a win, right ?

  3. #3
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by onus View Post
    this is a win, right ?
    To the extent that it lifts the stay of the appeal of my preliminary injunction it is a win. As an unpublished memorandum it cannot be cited in any other case and so the decision itself is limited to Hawaii.

    UCLA Law Professor had some thoughts on the decision here.

    Keep in mind that Professor Volokh is a concealed carry proponent who really doesn't have much of a problem with most gun-control laws.


    Charles Nichols - President of California Right To Carry

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •