Bucking the trend of waiting the full 90 days from the CA9 mandate being issued, we already have Young’s petition here: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...l/1620757707/Young_v_Hawaii_Cert_Petition.pdf
I guess it's not going to matter soon anyway..
IF cert is granted and the cases combined then HI would have a major stake in the ruling as well and they might get a phone call from Herr Flush and company saying NOOOOO find a way to win at all and any cost.. plus of SCOTUS does rule against HI it would also be a major smack down of 9CA as well which once again, it has proven to be the bast**d child of the federal circuit and deserves a major spanking .
Translation: cert granted? Still reviewing? ?
Petition filed on May 11, 2021
Response due June 24, 2021
From the amicus brief filed by W. Olson in support of the cert petition in Young: “This Court declined to address a broader question raised by NYSRPA” which was: “ Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.” *
Note that Olson is asserting that the court’s question to Clement et al. in NYSRPA v Corlett, i.e., “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment“ does not “address . . . outside the home.”
Olson has doubled down on “outside” as presented in Corlett and “bear” as defined in Heller. ** “Carry” confined to inside “the home” by default in NYSRPA does not appear (at least to me) to be a significant risk. At any rate, very competent, experienced, Constitutional lawyers are (once again) very carefully, precisely framing and presenting the 2A to the Court.
Continued support for pro 2A organizations is critical at this juncture.
Regards
Jack
*https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...ng v. Hawaii SCOTUS Petition amicus brief.pdf P. 14
**“At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’. . . When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose – confrontation.”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/ 10