Source: https://californiaopencarry.com/young-v-state-of-hawaii-appeal-12-17808-won-en-banc-petition-filed-on-9-14-2018/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:18:35+00:00

Document:
Update – February 26, 2019, – Last week, Mr. Young’s attorney filed an opposed motion to lift the stay of the en banc proceedings. Today, the motion was denied. The stay of Young v. Hawaii remains in place until after there is a decision in NYSRPA v. NYC.
Update – February 21, 2019, – Mr. Young’s attorney filed an opposed motion to lift the stay of the en banc proceedings. Bravo!
Update by Charles Nichols – February 8, 2019, – The petition for an en banc hearing in Young v. Hawaii was granted. Oral argument will take place in San Francisco the week of March 25, 2019. The calendar date below can change.
Note: En banc hearings are conducted quarterly in the 9th circuit court of appeals.
George K. Young Jr., v. State of Hawaii, et al – Slip Opinion – Published July 24, 2018 – 76 pages (download before viewing).
Young v Hawaii – Defendants’ Motion to File an en banc Petition Reply – Filed November 15, 2018.
Appellant’s Opposition to Appellees’ Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Petition for Rehearing En Banc – Filed November 16, 2018.
Every question you might have regarding en banc procedures can be found at this link and at this link.
Here is a one page summary of the en banc procedure from the 9th circuit court of appeals.
The short version is that we have no way of knowing when there will be a decision on the en banc petition.
Update by Charles Nichols – February 8, 2019, – The petition for an en banc hearing in Young v. Hawaii was granted. Oral argument will take place in San Francisco the week of March 25, 2019.
Update by Charles Nichols – December 31, 2018 – It has been three and a half months since the en banc petition was filed. I suspect that there will be a decision on the petition within the next two months.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 26, 2018 – Yep.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 21, 2018 – Now we wait for a decision on the en banc petition. We have no way of knowing how long that will take because the Chief Judge has the power to extend or contract the internal deadlines. We do know that the defendants did not file a petition for a rehearing by the three-judge panel and so it will be a straight up or down vote by the active judges of the 9th circuit court of appeals. A majority vote is required. Those judges who abstain from voting count as a “No” vote on granting the petition.
There are enough judges who are hostile to the Second Amendment who would grant the petition but there are also just enough votes to affirm the panel decision as well because in this circuit, an en banc panel consists of just eleven judges, ten of those are randomly selected, and it takes just six votes to affirm the three-judge panel decision.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 21, 2018 – Part 2 – This is like watching an impending train wreck and being powerless to stop it. Mr. Young’s attorneys filed a motion to file a surreply less than half an hour BEFORE the court ruled on the Defendants’ motion to file a reply to the brief in opposition to the en banc petition. This was before the Court had a chance to even know that Mr. Young’s motion was filed. The Court, not knowing that Mr. Young’s motion was filed, gave Mr. Young’s attorneys 3,000 words for their surreply. Mr. Young’s premature surreply is 2,104 words long.
Appellant’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc – 115 pages long.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 21, 2018 – Part 1 -The motion to file a reply to the plaintiff’s opposition to rehearing en banc was granted as was the plaintiff’s request to file a surreply.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 19, 2018 – The last of the Amicus briefs in opposition to the en banc petition were filed today.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 16, 2018 – The first Amicus brief in opposition to the en banc petition was filed today. There was also an opposition to the reply brief filed.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 15, 2018 – Those of you who have been reading my writings know that I compliment the writings of our opponents when they are well written because it is dishonest not to give credit on those rare occasions where credit is due. This latest brief filed by the Hawaii Defendants reads like it was written by a not very bright, and immature, ten year old boy. The leftist wunderkind hired by the Defendants is Neal Katyal, a former acting Solicitor General in the Obama administration, whose name appears at the top of the cover sheet. God help us if he is the face of America’s future legal system.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 8, 2018 – The response to the petition for rehearing en banc is filed.
Update by Charles Nichols – October 2, 2018 – The motion to extend the date for filing the response to the petition for rehearing en banc was granted today. The response is now due on November 8, 2018.
Update by Charles Nichols – September 30, 2018 – There was an unopposed motion filed today which, if granted, would extend the due date for filing the response to the petition for rehearing en banc to November 8, 2018.
When the decision in Young v. Hawaii was published, the decision became binding on every Federal judge in the 9th circuit. The moment the decision was published at 10:00 AM on July 24, 2018, any competent lawyer could have obtained a TRO and a Preliminary injunction against California/Hawaii’s Open Carry bans!
If the Young v. Hawaii decision is reheard before an en banc panel then the three-judge panel decision will be vacated and the window for a TRO/Injunction will be closed.
We will then have to wait to see what the en banc panel decides.
None of the so-called gun-rights lawyers has, or will file motions for a TRO and preliminary injunction because the leadership of the gun-rights groups and the lawyers they hire all oppose Open Carry.
There are only two people on this planet who can’t file a motion for a TRO/Preliminary Injunction and those two people are Mr. Young, the sole plaintiff in Young v. Hawaii, and I (Charles Nichols) the sole plaintiff in Nichols v. Brown.
Remember that the next time a so-called gun-rights group asks you for money and shame on you if you give it to them.
Now we wait and see what happens with an en banc petition.
On August 2, 2018, the court granted the unopposed motion for an extension of time to September 14, 2018, within which to file the en banc petition.
What kind of attorney doesn’t file an opposition to a motion to intervene?
The NRA attorneys in Peruta v. San Diego en banc and Mr. Young’s two attorneys! This is no doubt part of the CalGuns.nuts secret plan to win by losing!
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Neal Kumar Katyal for Appellee State of Hawaii. Date of service: 08/16/2018.
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Kaliko’onalani D. Fernandes for Appellee State of Hawaii. Date of service: 08/16/2018.
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak for Appellee State of Hawaii. Date of service: 08/16/2018.
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Clyde J. Wadsworth for Appellee State of Hawaii. Date of service: 08/16/2018.
The Court entered an Order, sua sponte, on 8-29-2018, which extended the time for the State of Hawaii to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc until September 14, 2018 — a petition for rehearing en banc was filed on that day.
Memo to the B&S lawyers Beck and Stamboulieh – When the Court asks for your response, your response should be that you oppose the petition!
On September 18, 2018, the three-judge panel requested a response to the petition from Mr. Young’s attorneys. It is due within 21 days of the Order (October, 9, 11:59 PM).
It had been 162 days from oral argument to the three-judge panel decision!
ORAL ARGUMENT TOOK PLACE ON 2-12-2018!
The government’s attorney did not do well as you can see in this 10-minute long clip from the oral argment.
The three-judge panel in my California Open Carry appeal, Charles Nichols v. Edmund G. Brown Jr., et al, has decided to wait for the decision in Young v. Hawaii before entering its decision in my appeal. Why? Because the threshold Second Amendment question to be decided in Young v. Hawaii is the same Second Amendment threshold question to be decided in my appeal and because if the decision in Young is published, as opposed to being decided in an unpublished decision, the published decision in Young will be binding on the three-judge panel assigned to my appeal.
If the three-judge panel assigned to Mr. Young’s appeal rules in favor of Mr. Young then that panel is limited by the 9th circuit’s judge made rules to what Mr. Young asked for when he was in the district court. On appeal, Mr. Young was represented by an attorney who asked for a great deal more than Mr. Young sought in the district court and therefore Mr. Young won’t prevail on those points.
There is nothing in the Constitution or in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which prohibits the court of appeals from granting Mr. Young more than he asked for in the district court but appellate courts simply don’t do it.
Assuming that the three-judge panel assigned to Mr. Young’s appeal decides that the Second Amendment does indeed extend outside the door to his home, it will then turn to what he asked for from the district court judge.
1) Permanent Injunction of H.R.S. 134.
H,R.S. (Hawaii Revised Statutes) 134 is the section of Hawaii law covering “FIREARMS, AMMUNITION AND DANGEROUS WEAPONS.” It is impossible to challenge an entire section of laws in a Federal court of law no matter who unconstitutional those laws may be. The reasons are many. Suffice it to say that Mr. Young will lose this one.
*Mr. Young then adds that by “weapons” he means firearms and a variety of other weapons, specified and unspecified.
Mr. Young would most likely get a one year (not three year) license to openly carry a handgun. Courts don’t have the authority to rewrite laws. They can strike down laws either in part or in their entirety but they cannot write laws. Since the law provides only for the issuance of licenses to carry handguns, that is the only license the court can say he is entitled to get. Whether or not the court decides that “stun guns, tasers, mace spray, switch blades” are protected arms is anyone’s guess.
3) Punitive Damages to be not less than $1,000,000.
Nope. Sorry, not a snowball’s chance in Hell that Mr. Young will get the money.
4) All costs of court, reasonable attorney fees to be paid by Defendants.
As Mr. Young did not have an attorney in the district court (he represented himself) he is not entitled to attorney fees. If his case is remanded back to the district court for an award of costs then he will be able to recoup some, perhaps all, of his costs depending upon what costs he asks for and depending upon whether or not he meets the deadline and follows the other procedures to the letter.
Keep in mind that if the police chief gives Mr. Young a license to openly carry a handgun before the court of appeals issues its decision and if the defendants notify the court of appeals that Mr. Young now has his license then his appeal would, in all likelihood, be dismissed as moot.
With the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, it has become that much more likely that SCOTUS will grant Second Amendment cert petitions, including Mr. Young’s should he lose his appeal. This is an incentive for the Hawaii defendant to give Mr. Young his license and moot his case but government is run by arrogant extremists who aren’t too bright. A bonus for Mr. Young, should he prevail.
There is also a possibility that the judges assigned to Mr. Young’s panel will simply remand his case back to the district court for a do-over. Given the procedural posture of his case in the district court when it was dismissed with prejudice by the district court judge, that would be the typical outcome but his case was dismissed way back in 2012. Where this to happen, his lawyer could (and should) file for a Writ of Mandamus which, if granted and issued, would have the same effect as Mr. Young winning his appeal.
It has been 2508 days since this case was filed!
It has been 2313 days since the appeal was filed!
It has been 2162 days since the reply brief was filed!
It has been 1010 days since the last brief was filed!
Note: During oral argument none of the judges, nor the government’s attorney, mentioned any of the procedural defects in the case and so I have deleted my list of them. It is pretty clear from the questioning during oral argument that the only thing the three-judge panel is going to consider is whether or not there is a right to a license to openly carry a handgun in public and, of course, the threshold question of whether or not the Second Amendment extends outside of the interior of our home.
The links in this page did not migrate well when the old website was transferred and so here are the links to the documents referenced below, and above.
Young v. Hawaii filed a Supplemental Brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 10, 2013. Click here to read. The Opening brief was filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 24, 2012 – George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No. 12-17808. Here is an errata to the Opening Brief. Here is the Answering Brief and here is Young’s Reply Brief. Here is a link to the district court case for those with PACER access and here is a link for those without which includes many of the filings on appeal (EDIT: No longer updated). Here is Young’s pro se Complaint. Everything in the Complaint and argued in the district court which was not raised again in his Opening Brief is forfeited on appeal. The “Conclusion” section of his opening brief is the section of the brief which asks the court of appeals what relief to grant.
Attorney Beck filed this Errata to the Opening Brief.
Attorney Beck asks the court of appeals to direct the lower court “to issue a judgment requiring the following: Chapter 134 of Hawaii Revised Statutes be revised to allow for a means to carry a rifle outside the home for self-defense; a shotgun outside the home for self-defense; and an injunction on the laws prohibiting the in the home prohibitions of electric guns, switchblades, and butterfly knives. Finally, an order either enjoining HRS 134-9 or compelling City Defendants to adopt policies to allow it to survive constitutional muster.
I hope Mr. Young wins and gets his license to openly carry a handgun. I hope his win does not result in the 9th circuit court of appeals publishing an opinion which holds that the Second Amendment right can be conditioned upon having a government issued permission slip.
In order to access the individual filings from the Federal Docket links below, you will need a Federal PACER account.
Update by Charles Nichols – September 24, 2018 – There were four Amicus briefs filed in support of rehearing en banc today.
Update by Charles Nichols – September 20, 2018 – The full docket reports for the court of appeals and the district court can be found at the bottom of this page.
Update by Charles Nichols – September 18, 2018 – The three-judge panel requested a response from Mr. Young’s attorneys to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. This was not unexpected as the three-judge panel in Peruta v. San Diego likewise requested a response within a few days from the petition being filed. Once the response is filed, the three-judge panel will then decide whether nor not to grant the petition. In the Peruta v. San Diego appeal, in which Judge O’Scannlain presided, the three-judge panel denied the petitions 8 months and 7 days (252 days) after the response was filed.
Update by Charles Nichols – September 14, 2018 – The Petition for Rehearing En Banc was filed. It is 114 pages long. You should download it before trying to view.
Update by Charles Nichols – August 23, 2018 – The application for an exemption to Ninth Circuit Rule 46-5 was granted.
Update by Charles Nichols – August 21, 2018, – An application for an exemption to Ninth Circuit Rule 46-5 was filed.
Kalikoʻonalani D. Fernandes is a former Ninth Circuit law clerk to 9th circuit court of appeals judge Clifton who is now seeking an exemption to Ninth Circuit Rule 46-5 in order to represent the State of Hawaii in defense of its Handgun Open Carry ban.
Judge Clifton is the dissenting Judge in Young v. Hawaii who would have upheld the handgun Open Carry ban.
Update by Charles Nichols – August 6, 2018, – Amicus brief by State of Hawaii filed.
Update by Charles Nichols – August 2, 2018, – Unopposed motion to grant the extension of time to file the en banc petition is granted.
Update by Charles Nichols – August 1, 2018, – Young withdraws opposition to the motion to extend the deadline for file an en banc petition to 45 days. Initially, Young had opposed an extension greater than 14 days.
Update by Charles Nichols – July 31, 2018 – Motion to extend time to file petition for rehearing until 09/14/2018.
Update by Charles Nichols – July 24, 2018 – WON!
Update by Charles Nichols – February 12, 2018 – Argued and submitted for a decision.
Update by Charles Nichols – January 2, 2018 – Attorney Alan Beck will be arguing for the plaintiff.
Update by Charles Nichols – December 29, 2017 – Nothing significant.
Update by Charles Nichols – December 8, 2017 – Another 28(j) by Young.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 6, 2017 – Acknowledgment of hearing notice filed by Appellant’s attorney.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 4, 2017 – Oral Argument entered onto the docket.
12/04/2017 115 Notice of Oral Argument on Monday, February 12, 2018 – 09:00 A.M. – Hawaii Bkcy Courtroom 250L – Honolulu HI.View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here.
Be sure to review the GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing, including when to arrive (30 minutes before the hearing time) and when and how to submit additional citations (filing electronically as far in advance of the hearing as possible).
When you have reviewed the calendar, download the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE form, complete the form, and file it via Appellate ECF or return the completed form to: SAN FRANCISCO Office.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 3, 2017 – Oral Argument Calendared!
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 1, 2017 – Nothing new, but the oral argument date is expected to appear on the court calendar this Sunday or Monday.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 28, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 31, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 24, 2017 – Notice of Supplemental Authority filed on October 20th.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 10, 2017 – Something new.
10/10/2017 113 This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in HonoluluPlease review the Honolulu sitting dates for February 2018 and the two subsequent sitting months in that location at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please inform the court within 3 days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: regarding availability for oral argument).
When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 9, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 29, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 14, 2017 – Notice of supplemental authority.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – September 8, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 31, 2017 – Nothing new. Oral argument tentatively scheduled for the week of February 12, 2018, in Hawaii.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 14, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 4, 2017 – We are now ten weeks out from the last oral argument day for Hawaii this year and this case does not appear on the calendar. The next earliest date for oral argument to take place in this appeal is in February of 2018.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 31, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 24, 2017 – Nothing new.
The FRAP 28(j) filed by Young is in regards to Duncan v. Becerra.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 29, 2017 – Nothing new. On June 27th, the Clerk, on behalf of the Court, said that it would place this appeal on the next available calendar. That would be in September. Typically, the Clerk will inform the parties in an appeal that there case is being considered for oral arguments a month or two in advance and when the date is set, the lawyers who will be arguing the case before the panel of judges must file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. I will check the docket on this case every weekday and update the status.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 28, 2017 – Today I noticed that my docket still does not reflect Young v. Hawaii as a related case and so I filed this letter of Correspondence to the Court.
If this appeal is scheduled for oral arguments then you should not be surprised to see a motion from me asking for my appeal to be heard at the same time, before the same panel.
Update by Charles Nichols – June 26, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – June 15, 2017 – Notice of supplemental authority filed yesterday. Unsurprisingly, the case cited is irrelevant to this case.
Update by Charles Nichols – June 8, 2017 – Nothing new. The stay expired 90 days ago. One would think there would have been some movement in this appeal by now.
Update by Charles Nichols – May 31, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – May 8, 2017 – Supplemental authority regarding Fisher v. Kealoha filed by Young’s attorney.
Update by Charles Nichols – May 5, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – April 28, 2017 – Supplemental authority filed by Young. Note that the lawyers still have not learned how to write a proper FRAP Rule 28(j) letter.
Update by Charles Nichols – April 24, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – April 5, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – April 3, 2017 – This appeal was stayed pending the mandate in Baker v. Kealoha. This morning the Mandate was issued in Baker.
Update by Charles Nichols – March 31, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – March 27, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – February 6, 2017 – Typical of the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, this case was stayed 1,505 days after the appeal was filed in favor of an even weaker case, the preliminary injunction appeal in Baker v. Kealoha.
Update by Charles Nichols – February 1, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – January 18, 2017 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – December 30, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – December 22, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 30, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – October 31, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – October 5, 2016 – Young’s attorney, Alan Beck, finally got around to informing the court about the Murphy v. CNMI Government decision. His notice was technically deficient which seems to be typical of the so called gun-rights attorneys.
Update by Charles Nichols – October 4, 2016 – Still no 28(j) letter from Baker’s attorneys regarding Murphy v. CNMI Government. The Murphy decision was published on September 28, 2016. How hard can it be to write a letter which is limited to 350 words?
Update by Charles Nichols – September 30, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – August 31, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – August 5, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – July 20, 2016 – A new filing.
Update by Charles Nichols – July 18, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – July 15, 2016 – It should come as no surprise that the bickering has been referred to the panel of judges (not yet picked) which will ultimately decide this case.
Update by Charles Nichols – July 12, 2016 – The Appellees filed a response opposing the motion of Young to file a supplemental brief. The State of Hawaii filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental Amicus brief.
Update by Charles Nichols – July 6, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – July 1, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – June 27, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – June 18, 2016 – Young’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief has been referred to the merits panel. The state filed an opposition which will also be referred to the merits panel (the panel which will be assigned to hear the case). 84 – Appellant George K. Young, Jr. Motion to file supplemental brief. 86 – Appellee’s response opposing motion to supplement brief.
Update by Charles Nichols – June 10, 2016 – Young’s attorney filed a motion to file a supplemental brief yesterday.
Update by Charles Nichols – June 3, 2016 – Young’s attorney, Alan Beck, filed a notice of supplemental authority to the recent 9th Circuit decision Teixeria v. Alameda County.
Update by Charles Nichols – May 11, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – April 29, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – April 24, 2016 – There has been some new activity since my last update. Young’s attorneys filed a request for judicial notice (Dkt #80) to which the Appellees filed an objection (Dkt # 81). Long before I filed my California Open Carry lawsuit I was corresponding with an Appellate attorney on the East Coast who suggested several books for me to study. One of those books he strongly emphasized that I learn was on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Fortunately, my case did not go to trial as none of my evidence or facts was disputed. Perhaps Young’s attorneys should have studied the Federal Rules of Evidence, not to mention the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedures. I suspect that the objection will be sustained. A court of appeals is not a trial court. One would think this is something they should have learned in law school.
Update by Charles Nichols – March 22, 2016 – A Notice of Supplemental Authority to the SCOTUS Caetano decision was filed which is fine and good for a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter but the notice also asks for an immediate injunction which is not allowed in a 28(j) letter. A competent attorney would know that an injunction is sought typically through a motion and sometimes through a writ.
Update by Charles Nichols – March 11, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – March 4, 2016 – The Plaintiff’s attorney filed a citation of supplemental authority to Kolbe v Hogan is now worthless given that the 4th Circuit granted the en banc petition.
Update by Charles Nichols – February 29, 2016 – The Plaintiff’s attorney filed a citation of supplemental authority to Kolbe v Hogan which wasn’t a decision on the merits but a remand back to the district court for further proceedings so it really doesn’t help him much.
Update by Charles Nichols – February 5, 2016 – Nothing new to speak of other than the Plaintiff’s attorney filed yet another notice of supplemental authority which hurts his case.
Update by Charles Nichols – January 4, 2016 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – December 18, 2015 – Young filed a notice of supplemental authority which is about as far removed from being relevant to this case as is the moon.
Update by Charles Nichols – December 4, 2015 – Nothing new.
Update by Charles Nichols – November 30, 2015 – Young filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority to State v. Herrmann a decision from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals which held that switch blades are protected arms under the Second Amendment. His notice forgot to include the word count limitation statement.
Update by Charles Nichols – October 29, 2015 – Young added a second attorney.
Update by Charles Nichols – October 8, 2015 – Just for laughs I checked the docket and to nobody’s surprise the appeal has not moved an inch.
Update by Charles Nichols – June 1, 2015 – This case will likely remain in limbo until Peruta is decided therefore this is my last update in this case until there is movement in the appeal.
Update May 7, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo.
Update April 18, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo.
Update March 17, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo.
Update February 20, 2015 – The appeal is still in limbo and this isn’t the only “right to carry” case being stonewalled by the 9th Circuit. There is one case that was filed just after the Heller decision which was published in June of 2008 which is still languishing on appeal.
No Significant Update January 20, 2015.
Update September 22, 2014 – Nothing new. I don’t expect any significant movement until Peruta v. San Diego is resolved.
Update September 2, 2014 – Notice of Supplemental Authority to Taylor v. City of Baton Rouge (M.D. La. Aug. 25, 2014) was filed on 8/27/2014.
Update July 22, 2014 – Not much new since the last update.
Update April 29, 2014 – The State of Hawaii adds a couple of lawyers.
Update March 29, 2014 – Notice of supplemental authorities filed regarding Baker v. Kealoha. Curiously, the cover letter states that this appeal (Young) is unopposed.
Update March 28, 2014 – Notice of supplemental authorities filed regarding Jackson v. San Francisco.
Update March 16, 2014 – Still very little activity in this case. I’ve posted an update to the court docket below.
Update May 24, 2013 – Reply Brief was filed.
Update May 12, 2013 – Young v. Hawaii filed a Supplemental Brief in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 10, 2013. Click here to read. The Opening brief was filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 24, 2012 – George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al No. 12-17808. This is an Open Carry case, of sorts, Young seeks to carry openly and concealed. Here is a link to the district court case. I wish him luck.
In order to access the individual court filings below you will need a Federal PACER account.
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP.
THE FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.
Please review the Honolulu sitting dates for February 2018 and the two subsequent sitting months in that location at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on any of the dates, please inform the court within 3 days of this notice, using CM/ECF (Type of Document: File Correspondence to Court; Subject: regarding availability for oral argument).
12/04/2017 115 Notice of Oral Argument on Monday, February 12, 2018 – 09:00 A.M. – Hawaii Bkcy Courtroom 250L – Honolulu HI.
View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here.
1 pg, 6.75 MB Filed Audio recording of oral argument.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.