as i watched this, i was thinking almost the opposite, as regards to the lawyer. at least in regard to knowing the law.
specifically, i think he knew the law, and he knew he was defending a losing position. an unconstitutional situation.
neither CC OR OC is permitted in hawaii, generally speaking. he did all he could to avoid saying that outright. so he just stammered. that was ok, the judges said it for him.
when he says "it's possible" to get an oc permit, and then says that none have been issued to anyone other than security guards, for on duty carry only, that's about a hair shy of lying to the court.
technically, it's true, "it's possible" the sheriff could issue, but everyone knows it ain't gonna happen.
i find it odd that one of the judges dissented. as noted, the nutty 9th is going to go down swinging on this.
here is the HI cc issue policy. for 2016, nary a single cc permit issued. oc is the point of this case due to the cc policy, and the 9th's decision that cc is not protected.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/hawaii-st ... rmit-2016/
josephjanes wrote:I watched the video. The State's lawyer must have been out of law school for all of 27 minutes ! What a sh**ty lawyer ! He didn't know his facts, didn't know the law, and hemmed and hawed to every question the judges asked. THANK GOODNESS !!
And this decision came from the 9th Circuit, the most liberal in the country !
Hopefully, it stands if taken to Supreme Court. It certainly should !