Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Young v. Hawaii

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

    Young v. Hawaii

    Yesterday, a couple of briefs were filed in Young v. Hawaii. One was an opposition to Young's motion to file a supplemental brief and the other was a motion by the State of Hawaii to file a supplemental Amicus brief.

    The Amicus brief is more relevant as it exposes another fatal flaw in the case.

    Most people are unaware that the courts have erected a procedural law minefield between unconstitutional laws and people who file lawsuits to have those unconstitutional laws overturned. Contrary to the magistrate judge's conclusion in my California Open Carry lawsuit, it is not necessary to break a law in order to challenge a law nor is it necessary for a state official who is has the authority to enforce the law required to personally threaten a plaintiff with arrest, prosecution fine and imprisonment.

    What is required, at a minimum, is to assert an intention to engage in a course of conduct which violates the challenged law.

    Also, the law has to be a law which is actually being enforced. There are lots of laws on the books which haven't been enforced in decades. If there is no "recent" history of enforcement or it is impossible to show a likelihood of enforcement then the Federal courts are going to toss the lawsuit for a lack of "standing."

    For those interested in reading the filings, they are under my July 12, 2016 update at my website here.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I think that (in federal court) when one can challenge a law w/o breaking it , it must be a constitutional question at hand.

  3. #3
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I think that (in federal court) when one can challenge a law w/o breaking it , it must be a constitutional question at hand.
    If the Federal lawsuit does not involve the Federal Constitution (which includes Federal law and administrative decisions by the lowest Federal employee) or anything Federal, the Federal courts are not required to hear the case. Purely state and local matters are left to the State courts.

    That said, there aren't a whole lot of things one can't make a Federal case out of.
    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse.

    Charles Nichols President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

Posting Permissions

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