Alan Beck and I filed a very detailed response in Opposition to the State of Hawaii's Petition for En Banc Rehearing in Young v. State of Hawaii, et al today. Here is a quote from the response:
The Panel Opinion in this case correctly concluded that “the right to bear arms must guarantee some right to self-defense in public,” and “that section 134-9 eviscerates [this] core Second Amendment right.” Panel Opinion at 46, 53. As the Panel thoroughly explained, that conclusion is compelled by the constitutional text, the history surrounding it, and centuries of precedent—including the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010), neither of which Defendants’ petition even mention.
You can read the filing here.* This is a tremendously important case for the Second Amendment.
(if the link does not work on mobile devices, the address for the filing is: http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c601ae_1900f9e2cd1b4cd8b1e3165aa6140dfc.pdf)