• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Baker v. Kealoha 12-16258 decided

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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This case was decided in an unpublished memorandum.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.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
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.
 
Top