PDA

View Full Version : Coming into the Nordyke Decision Zone


sfpcservice
02-15-2009, 1:42 PM
Just wondering; now that we're getting into the earlier part of the realistic decision timeframe, how does the decision get released from the court and how log would it take after it's release to get to the calgunners?

CCWFacts
02-15-2009, 1:57 PM
I think it will take a few seconds to get from release to being announced here and a few more seconds to have about 12 pages of discussion.

Anyway, the decision is not the end. It's extremely possible / likely that there could be a request for an en banc hearing or an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Absolute End is a Supreme Court decision on incorporation, and that could be soon or it could be years away.

BigDogatPlay
02-15-2009, 2:17 PM
I think you are being far too conservative in your time estimates. I'm figuring the mods will have to merge or dump at least a half dozen dupe threads within seconds. :D

There was a request for en banc in Parker v. DC which was denied and got the case to the SCOTUS to become Heller that much quicker. Just because en banc is requested does not mean it is granted. My best case scenario / dream is that Nordyke is found favorably to us, en banc is denied and then certiorari is denied by the SCOTUS.

CCWFacts
02-15-2009, 2:24 PM
I think you are being far too conservative in your time estimates. I'm figuring the mods will have to merge or dump at least a half dozen dupe threads within seconds. :D

Ha, yes, that too.

There was a request for en banc in Parker v. DC which was denied and got the case to the SCOTUS to become Heller that much quicker. Just because en banc is requested does not mean it is granted. My best case scenario / dream is that Nordyke is found favorably to us, en banc is denied and then certiorari is denied by the SCOTUS.

it really could go any way and there have been a few threads already on which way it will happen. Of course, the idea of 3-judge panels is to let the court make decisions more efficiently; otherwise they would do as the SCOTUS does, which is to hear basically everything en banc.

If we do get a favorable ruling in Nordyke, I'm not sure sure that the Supreme Court would deny cert., because a favorable ruling would create a circuit split on this important issue, which SCOTUS has shown to be be ready and willing to take on.

The sooner we get a SCOTUS decision on this, the better. If one of our "5" on SCOTUS should somehow leave the court in the next 8 years, we would be in big trouble and Heller could be reduced to something of no meaning at the state level. Ok, for people in Montana that won't matter, but for us in CA (ranked #1 by the Brady Campaign) we really really need incorporation.

lioneaglegriffin
02-15-2009, 6:46 PM
Ha, yes, that too.



it really could go any way and there have been a few threads already on which way it will happen. Of course, the idea of 3-judge panels is to let the court make decisions more efficiently; otherwise they would do as the SCOTUS does, which is to hear basically everything en banc.

If we do get a favorable ruling in Nordyke, I'm not sure sure that the Supreme Court would deny cert., because a favorable ruling would create a circuit split on this important issue, which SCOTUS has shown to be be ready and willing to take on.

The sooner we get a SCOTUS decision on this, the better. If one of our "5" on SCOTUS should somehow leave the court in the next 8 years, we would be in big trouble and Heller could be reduced to something of no meaning at the state level. Ok, for people in Montana that won't matter, but for us in CA (ranked #1 by the Brady Campaign) we really really need incorporation.

it means something to progunnies in all states because if the 2A is incorp. then a AWB let alone a permenant one has to face the glare of unconstitutionality.

vrand
02-15-2009, 6:51 PM
I think you are being far too conservative in your time estimates. I'm figuring the mods will have to merge or dump at least a half dozen dupe threads within seconds. :D

There was a request for en banc in Parker v. DC which was denied and got the case to the SCOTUS to become Heller that much quicker. Just because en banc is requested does not mean it is granted. My best case scenario / dream is that Nordyke is found favorably to us, en banc is denied and then certiorari is denied by the SCOTUS.

:thumbsup:

bulgron
02-15-2009, 7:25 PM
it means something to progunnies in all states because if the 2A is incorp. then a AWB let alone a permenant one has to face the glare of unconstitutionality.

Even without incorporation we can bring a 2A argument in federal court against any federal AWB that Obama might try.

CCWFacts
02-15-2009, 7:32 PM
Even without incorporation we can bring a 2A argument in federal court against any federal AWB that Obama might try.

That's right. Even if it is found to not be incorporated, it still protects the residents of Montana from a Fed. AWB. And they basically don't need any protection against a Montana state-level AWB. So they don't "need" anything else at this point. (Yes state-level politics in such states could evolve to something less gun-friendly 20 or 30 years from now, but for now they have nothing to worry about at the state level.)

We, in California, are happy to have Federal protection now, but the main cause of our suffering is in Sacramento not in DC, and that's why incorporation is so critical for us.

Ah, the poor slobs in NY have been hosed! They are going to be the last place in the US to have CCW and an end to AWBs. I think that soon enough, NY will rise to #1 on the Brady list, and California will drop back down the ratings, and I will finally be able to say, "as a gun owner, I'm glad I live in California!"

thatrogue
02-15-2009, 9:34 PM
I think that soon enough, NY will rise to #1 on the Brady list, and California will drop back down the ratings, and I will finally be able to say, "as a gun owner, I'm glad I live in California!"

I believe you'll be right, just how soon will be the question.

artherd
02-15-2009, 9:45 PM
Not much point in speculating at this point - in the meantime I'm gonna go make some money so I can donate it to NRA & CGF!

woodey
02-15-2009, 10:37 PM
I believe you'll be right, just how soon will be the question.

Two Weaks

Cato
02-15-2009, 10:46 PM
Pardon my ignorance, so what is Nordyke and what will it do for the CA gun owner?

ke6guj
02-15-2009, 10:52 PM
Pardon my ignorance, so what is Nordyke and what will it do for the CA gun owner?

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King

A positive ruling would extend Heller to CA with what is called incorporation. With incorporation, the 2nd amendment would be binding on the states in the same manner that the 1st is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Cato
02-15-2009, 11:02 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King

A positive ruling would extend Heller to CA with what is called incorporation. With incorporation, the 2nd amendment would be binding on the states in the same manner that the 1st is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

So say CA agrees that the 2A applies to Californians. Won't they just pack on the restrictions, which could mean anything?

DDT
02-15-2009, 11:22 PM
So say CA agrees that the 2A applies to Californians. Won't they just pack on the restrictions, which could mean anything?

Yes, they will. But we'll get to fight those restrictions in Federal Court where we have the second amendment as a foundation as opposed to having to stay within the bounds of the California constitution which has ZERO protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

Without incorporation California COULD outlaw all firearm ownership. Not very likely but nothing to stop them in the state constitution.

gunsmith
02-15-2009, 11:28 PM
I guess we'll find out in two weeks

DDT
02-15-2009, 11:29 PM
I hope it's not a NeRF 2 weeks.

ilbob
02-16-2009, 7:32 AM
You will be able to tell when the judges start wearing 6 shooters to court. :)

KWA-S
02-16-2009, 9:18 AM
Say, didn't we have a "guess the Nordyke decision date" thread a while ago? I'm more concerned with what happens after Nordyke. Namely, how quickly we can get a LOC/CCW/AW case going and resolved.

7x57
02-16-2009, 9:37 AM
You will be able to tell when the judges start wearing 6 shooters to court. :)

How do you know they don't already? :D

Here is a Science-Fiction story called Lone Star Planet (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20121) which the Calguns crowd would enjoy; it doesn't exactly involve judges packing heat in court but it's close enough.

In any case, the rather extreme-Libertarian and pro-gun tendencies of the author get full play, so Calgunners will enjoy it. As a teaser to get you to read it, killing a "practicing politician' is not a crime unless they got "more than they deserved." :eek:

7x57

Kid Stanislaus
02-16-2009, 9:53 AM
So if Nordyke gets an en banc hearing and the whole 9nth court hears it what is the chance they'll just reverse the 3 judge panel? AND if that happens, then what?

motorhead
02-16-2009, 10:08 AM
You will be able to tell when the judges start wearing 6 shooters to court. :)
many if not most judges already are.

ke6guj
02-16-2009, 10:39 AM
So if Nordyke gets an en banc hearing and the whole 9nth court hears it what is the chance they'll just reverse the 3 judge panel? AND if that happens, then what?

Sowhere from 0% to 100%. No way to know exactly. A lot will depend on the actual panel that hears it. The 9th circuit has 29 judges and normally the en-banc panel is a limited en-banc panel of 15 judges. Apparantly the rules do allow for a full en-banc panel, but it is rare for them to do so. So, the make-up of the actual panel will bias the court in one direction or another.

If they reverse, then it most likely gets appealed to the Supreme Court.

hoffmang
02-16-2009, 10:43 AM
I've done some research as I expect this to be an O'Scainlan written opinion. Based on other recent cases I'm expecting that we'll see an opinion in the second week of March.

-Gene

ke6guj
02-16-2009, 10:56 AM
THREE WEEKS!!!!



:D :D

SwissFluCase
02-16-2009, 11:17 AM
THREE WEEKS!!!!



:D :D

I thought it was two weeks! Now three?!? :willy_nilly:

Will we be able to mount our first challenges right away, or will we need to wait until it is heard by SCOTUS or cert is denied?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Harrison_Bergeron
02-16-2009, 11:39 AM
...and I will finally be able to say, "as a gun owner, I'm glad I live in California!"

When the AW ban is finally struck down I plan to take a day trip form here at the beach, to the mountains, to the desert with one of my rifles, and post the pics on the web while I eat lunch for all the folks who moved to "free states" to cry over. Sort of like the Calgunner's version of the rose parade.

DDT
02-16-2009, 11:55 AM
I've done some research as I expect this to be an O'Scainlan written opinion. Based on other recent cases I'm expecting that we'll see an opinion in the second week of March.

-Gene

Perfect! I'm going on a cruise starting Feb. 28th and returning March 14th. that would be a nice welcome home present to be sure.

SwissFluCase
02-16-2009, 12:07 PM
When the AW ban is finally struck down I plan to take a day trip form here at the beach, to the mountains, to the desert with one of my rifles, and post the pics on the web while I eat lunch for all the folks who moved to "free states" to cry over. Sort of like the Calgunner's version of the rose parade.

I *like* that idea. Kind of like the world travelling garden gnomes. Then we can post the pics on the Gunbroker forum. :D

Regards,


SwissFluCase

CCWFacts
02-16-2009, 1:19 PM
When the AW ban is finally struck down I plan to take a day trip form here at the beach, to the mountains, to the desert with one of my rifles, and post the pics on the web while I eat lunch for all the folks who moved to "free states" to cry over. Sort of like the Calgunner's version of the rose parade.

Ha ha, that's a good one. We had some really hot beautiful days here a few weeks ago. It would be great to get pics of some of us with an AR-15, at the beach, in short sleeves, in the middle of January, as retaliation against all those "you should just move" posts.

Anyway, for me, if the AWB suddenly disappeared it wouldn't change a thing for me. I guess I would sort of like a PS90 but I also sort of don't care. It has no personal impact on me, but it will still be a great day and worthy of a victory celebration. The point is, it's not the things that I want, because there isn't anything, but it's the victory itself and not having to worry (as much) about what will be here in 10 or 20 years from now.

Now, someday, years from now, if we can somehow remove 922(o), there are a couple of things I would like to buy... but that might never happen.

hoffmang
02-16-2009, 5:52 PM
Once the decision is published there will still be a couple of more months before it takes effect depending on whether we end up going en-banc or being appealed to SCOTUS.

-Gene

KWA-S
02-16-2009, 6:08 PM
Yeah, getting rid of 922(o) would be nice...but 922(o) needs normal sized mags/belts.
:83:

But I think that 922(o) would require a SCOTUS ruling which states that 2A applies to all firearms up to and including what the modern US military uses or something.

wash
02-16-2009, 7:41 PM
What's stopping you from getting a PS90?

I've got one.

Hopefully I'll have it assembled CA legal (featureless) pretty soon.

sfpcservice
02-16-2009, 9:02 PM
Once the decision is published there will still be a couple of more months before it takes effect depending on whether we end up going en-banc or being appealed to SCOTUS.

-Gene

Just thought this article might help explain what "en-banc" means and how it comes to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc

Kid Stanislaus
02-17-2009, 5:27 AM
When the AW ban is finally struck down I plan to take a day trip form here at the beach, to the mountains, to the desert with one of my rifles, and post the pics on the web while I eat lunch for all the folks who moved to "free states" to cry over. Sort of like the Calgunner's version of the rose parade.

Talk about count'n your chickens before they're hatched!!

SwissFluCase
02-17-2009, 9:15 AM
Talk about count'n your chickens before they're hatched!!

There is nothing wrong at all with positive visualization and affirmation.

"I will rub the CA haters noses in our success..." :D

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Liberty1
02-17-2009, 9:16 AM
Talk about count'n your chickens before they're hatched!!

Ya, but some of them will hatch so go ahead and name them and paint their rooms blue or pink;).

I up for banning Nordyke speculation threads. I was able to forget about Ndyk for the weekend as I stayed off line but now it's back in my thoughts non stop! I can't sleep again (just like W/ Heller).

yellowfin
02-17-2009, 9:25 AM
For your parade of envy photo tour to work, the AR you'll be taking the pics with will need a 11.5" upper and a real suppressor on it.

Harrison_Bergeron
02-18-2009, 4:35 PM
For your parade of envy photo tour to work, the AR you'll be taking the pics with will need a 11.5" upper and a real suppressor on it.

My list of what makes a free state a free state does not include the "freedom" to buy tax stamps.

12voltguy
02-18-2009, 4:47 PM
My list of what makes a free state a free state does not include the "freedom" to buy tax stamps.


your idea of a free state is fantasy land:D

383green
02-18-2009, 6:25 PM
In my idea of a free state, "machinegun tax" is what I spend on the ammo! :D

BlackReef
03-04-2009, 2:43 PM
What is going on with this?

Suvorov
03-04-2009, 3:34 PM
Ah, the poor slobs in NY have been hosed! They are going to be the last place in the US to have CCW and an end to AWBs. I think that soon enough, NY will rise to #1 on the Brady list, and California will drop back down the ratings, and I will finally be able to say, "as a gun owner, I'm glad I live in California!"

This is my dream....... :thumbsup:

Librarian
03-04-2009, 3:40 PM
What is going on with this?

Judges are thinking. Decision likely sometime around the end of March or early April.

sfpcservice
03-04-2009, 3:49 PM
I can't wait until I can call the Chief of Police and tell him to cancel my CCW application, I'll just carry openly cause it's easier!!!

Kid Stanislaus
03-04-2009, 4:24 PM
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. A LOT of things can go wrong.

sfpcservice
03-04-2009, 4:51 PM
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. A LOT of things can go wrong.

Don't take my dreams from me man!!!!!

GM4spd
03-04-2009, 5:26 PM
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. A LOT of things can go wrong.

I agree.Nordyke isn't going to change much---even if won. There is too much bad
law already in play and there is more coming fast from Washington. If you think
Nordyke is a cure all for any laws now on the books,it isn't. Pete

Rhyyke
03-04-2009, 5:30 PM
*waits with one eye on hk45"

bwiese
03-04-2009, 5:35 PM
Nordyke isn't an instant miracle - but it's the bulldozer.

Those thinking it won't be significant are uninformed.
Those thinking it immediately brings down the house are overeager.

sfpcservice
03-04-2009, 6:59 PM
I'm definitely overeager. I don't like corruption one bit.

hoffmang
03-04-2009, 7:19 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, Nordyke could be published as early as tomorrow at 10AM and as late as 60 days from now.

-Gene

bulgron
03-04-2009, 7:31 PM
Two Weeks!!!!!

:D

Theseus
03-04-2009, 9:24 PM
I sure hope tomorrow!!!:clap:

yellowfin
03-04-2009, 9:39 PM
As I mentioned in another thread, Nordyke could be published as early as tomorrow at 10AM and as late as 60 days from now.

-Gene Is there any particular advantage they would seek by publishing it any sooner or later, generally speaking? I know they take a good bit of time writing it to be effective and cite the relevent sources, but they've had quite a bit of time for that already. I know they've got plenty of other cases and have had them the whole time so it probably has to wait its turn in line, so where's the line now?

CCWFacts
03-04-2009, 9:41 PM
I sure hope tomorrow!!!:clap:

Me too.

But unfortunately it will probably be at least a few more months before it comes into force because there is likely to be a request for an en banc hearing and it will be stayed while that request is being considered, and it could be appealed and so on.

But the day when the Second Amendment finally comes into force in this state.... ah what a great day! The addition of an entirely new legally-defensible right!

yellowfin
03-04-2009, 9:50 PM
What more could the other side possibly argue? This is so tortured as it is there is likely little left to even mention unless it's from our side. The whole selective incorporation bit in itself is so much an irritating kid's game; the whole oral argument by Alameda's counsel was/is so sophomoric and reminescent of redefining "is" it almost seems contemptable for them to even attempt to speak again.

CCWFacts
03-04-2009, 10:01 PM
What more could the other side possibly argue?

They don't have to argue anything differently for an en banc hearing. They re-do the whole thing. Three-judge panels are designed to make the court system more efficient, so en banc hearings are rare. Doing so would require 11 judges in the 9th circuit, so it's rather a lot of hassle. However they are more likely to happen for cases of great significance, and Nordyke certainly is such a case.

This is so tortured as it is there is likely little left to even mention unless it's from our side. The whole selective incorporation bit in itself is so much an irritating kid's game; the whole oral argument by Alameda's counsel was/is so sophomoric and reminescent of redefining "is" it almost seems contemptable for them to even attempt to speak again.

Yeah, well, if abortion is an incorporated right, even though the constitution doesn't refer anywhere to it or any other medical issues, then it boggles the mind to think that the right to keep and bear arms might not be incorporated. And yet... the Second Circuit (NY) has already ruled that way. (Note that the person who brought that case to the Second Circuit is a raging idiot who should be tarred and feathered and tried for witchcraft the old fashioned way (see if he floats, see if he burns, etc).)

yellowfin
03-04-2009, 10:11 PM
There has to be a significant threshold reached to override the panel's decision, right? And if, heaven forbid, that were to take place is there any significant threat of non 2a supportive judges there simply being jerks?

hoffmang
03-04-2009, 10:29 PM
en-banc is almost like a restart. However you should remember a couple of things. First the three judge panel we were in front of will be on the en-banc panel. Second, losing en-banc would be bad only because it would delay the time it would take for us to be able to file cert to SCOTUS.

-Gene

lorax3
03-04-2009, 10:41 PM
Once the decision is published there will still be a couple of more months before it takes effect depending on whether we end up going en-banc or being appealed to SCOTUS.

-Gene
en-banc is almost like a restart.
-Gene

So if there is an en-banc after the decision, what becomes of the original ruling during that time?

Would the ruling be case law until the appeal is decided, or if an en-banc is filed, will the ruling of the case be "on hold" until the court rules on the appeal?

-lorax

7x57
03-04-2009, 10:42 PM
(Note that the person who brought that case to the Second Circuit is a raging idiot who should be tarred and feathered and tried for witchcraft the old fashioned way (see if he floats, see if he burns, etc).)

Hey, it's been a while since I recalled all that great old-school jurisprudence. Can we use hot pincers to get a confession? That's a real classic. :43:

7x57

hoffmang
03-04-2009, 11:01 PM
So if there is an en-banc after the decision, what becomes of the original ruling during that time?

Would the ruling be case law until the appeal is decided, or if an en-banc is filed, will the ruling of the case be "on hold" until the court rules on the appeal?

-lorax

Let me play out a hypothetical.

We get a published opinion next Wednesday - 3/11 that is a 3-0 win for the Nordykes.

Alameda would have 60 days to appeal for en-banc but usually would do so in 30. During the time that Alameda can appeal, the decision is not enforced. If Alameda doesn't appeal for en-banc (they almost certainly will) then once that clock of 60 days runs, there are still a couple of weeks before it's truly final - but it's final from a stare decisis point of view.

When Alameda appeals, the case will remain stayed until a sub en-banc review panel decides to grant or deny en banc review. If memory serves they have another 60 days to do that. If they deny (and I kinda think they will but its a crap shoot) then we're either done, or Alameda appeals this to SCOTUS. While being appealed to SCOTUS the decision is stayed until cert is either granted or denied (likely granted.)

If Alameda takes us en-banc, it can be 60-90 days before the new oral arguments and as much as a year after oral arguments for a ruling - though high profile cases like Nordyke usually move faster than that.

-Gene

lorax3
03-04-2009, 11:20 PM
Let me play out a hypothetical.

-Gene

Great explanation Gene! I now understand the different paths this can take.

Does Alameda need to be denied an en-banc before they can appeal to the SCOTUS? Or can they appeal to the SCOTUS right after the upcoming decision?

-lorax

mymonkeyman
03-04-2009, 11:39 PM
Great explanation Gene! I now understand the different paths this can take.

Does Alameda need to be denied an en-banc before they can appeal to the SCOTUS? Or can they appeal to the SCOTUS right after the upcoming decision?

-lorax

En banc review is completely optional (and rarely granted). An appeal directly to SCOTUS from the panel decision can be had. I think requesting en banc review does extend the due date for the cert petition to SCOTUS.

If en banc review is granted, typically the order granting en banc review will make the original panel decision non-precidential.

If the case goes up to SCOTUS, the panel decision remains good law (assuming it is a precedential decision, which it probably will be) until SCOTUS issues a final ruling (i.e. after already granting cert).

torsf
03-12-2009, 11:15 AM
Ruling tomorrow?

CCWFacts
03-12-2009, 11:24 AM
We get a published opinion next Wednesday - 3/11 that is a 3-0 win for the Nordykes.

Thanks for the information on that. It sounds like it will take roughly a six months to a year before this ruling comes into force, or more if the Supreme Court takes the case, which is not unlikely because there would be a circuit split if the Nordykes win in the circuit court.

I'm counting on close to two years (or more) before we start seeing real-world effects of this (effects on CCW issuance, the AWB, etc). All these follow-up cases will have to also trickle up through the same appeals process.

pullnshoot25
03-12-2009, 12:06 PM
Let me play out a hypothetical.

We get a published opinion next Wednesday - 3/11 that is a 3-0 win for the Nordykes.

Alameda would have 60 days to appeal for en-banc but usually would do so in 30. During the time that Alameda can appeal, the decision is not enforced. If Alameda doesn't appeal for en-banc (they almost certainly will) then once that clock of 60 days runs, there are still a couple of weeks before it's truly final - but it's final from a stare decisis point of view.

When Alameda appeals, the case will remain stayed until a sub en-banc review panel decides to grant or deny en banc review. If memory serves they have another 60 days to do that. If they deny (and I kinda think they will but its a crap shoot) then we're either done, or Alameda appeals this to SCOTUS. While being appealed to SCOTUS the decision is stayed until cert is either granted or denied (likely granted.)

If Alameda takes us en-banc, it can be 60-90 days before the new oral arguments and as much as a year after oral arguments for a ruling - though high profile cases like Nordyke usually move faster than that.

-Gene


I am definitely going to need more ADD medication for this.

gazzavc
03-12-2009, 12:35 PM
I'm just glad I'm not a lawyer. What language were you speaking just then ??

:) Seriously though Thanks Gene & Bill for deciphering the undecipherable for us ordinary chaps.

yellowfin
03-12-2009, 1:08 PM
So are they still writing it or just yanking our chain?

sfpcservice
03-12-2009, 1:24 PM
I keep hearing two weeks. This is like waiting for christmas to be approved. If it's a win, it's not christmas yet, but you know there will be one at some point.

KWA-S
03-12-2009, 2:18 PM
Well, we're supposed to her about a decision 30-90 days after the oral hearing, which was Jan 15. So right now, we're about two months in, so we can reasonably expect a hearing by mid April. I think I did the math shortly after the oral hearings and all, and I think 90 days after was April 8 or something. About, what...two weeks?:)

sfpcservice
03-12-2009, 2:52 PM
I think I did the math shortly after the oral hearings and all, and I think 90 days after was April 8 or something. About, what...two weeks?:)

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Librarian
03-12-2009, 3:05 PM
Folks need something to occupy their days.

Build a ship in a bottle. Read War and Peace. Start your flower garden, and wait for the blooms. Dig your gun vault under your house.

Remember that courts are still running on horse-drawn carriage time, not internet time. 9th Circuit will emit a decision when it's ready - like a crisp trigger-break, you'll be surprised at the 'Bang!'.

sfpcservice
03-12-2009, 3:14 PM
The federal courts have an 8 stage trigger.

ojisan
03-12-2009, 3:17 PM
Folks need something to occupy their days.
Build a ship in a bottle. Read War and Peace. Start your flower garden, and wait for the blooms. Dig your gun vault under your house.
Remember that courts are still running on horse-drawn carriage time, not internet time. 9th Circuit will emit a decision when it's ready - like a crisp trigger-break, you'll be surprised at the 'Bang!'.

:rofl2: Thanx, we needed that! :D



But the Shadow knows what lurks in mens hearts:
:toetap05:

capt.t
03-19-2009, 3:55 PM
Just wanted to give this a bump, and find out if anyone else can make sense of the 9th web page. I was trying to figure out what cases were heard before or after and if any of the opinions were given yet. Just trying to figure out where this is in the pipeline. But the dates for the once released recently were all over the place.

Window_Seat
03-19-2009, 4:18 PM
Folks need something to occupy their days.

Build a ship in a bottle. Read War and Peace. Start your flower garden, and wait for the blooms. Dig your gun vault under your house.

...

Or we could plan our 04/01/09 cracks...:devil2::devil2::devil2::devil2:

Erik; brainstorming.

hoffmang
03-19-2009, 4:55 PM
Nordyke could be any day now. However I wouldn't expect it on a Friday.

-Gene

CCWFacts
03-19-2009, 4:57 PM
Nordyke could be any day now.

And even when it comes out, it doesn't mean that we finally have a court-upheld right to keep and bear arms in California. That could still be a year or two away, with possibilities of en banc hearings and Supreme Court appeals.

yellowfin
03-19-2009, 5:05 PM
Nordyke could be any day now. However I wouldn't expect it on a Friday.

-Gene Could they at least give us a preview? Cmon! Would a peek or two really hurt?

aileron
03-19-2009, 5:59 PM
The federal courts have an 8 stage trigger.

8? Thats being conservative....

KWA-S
03-19-2009, 8:51 PM
Or we could plan our 04/01/09 cracks...:devil2::devil2::devil2::devil2:

Erik; brainstorming.

Oh god, that would be hilarious if it came out on 4/1. But I think they'll push it as far back as they are permitted to.

yellowfin
03-21-2009, 11:04 AM
I just hope they'll refrain from using Jason Mraz to write the opinion. I strongly suspect they put him behind the keyboard for Heller.

pullnshoot25
03-21-2009, 11:15 AM
I just hope they'll refrain from using Jason Mraz to write the opinion. I strongly suspect they put him behind the keyboard for Heller.

HAHAH, why Jason Mraz?

bulgron
03-21-2009, 1:19 PM
Two more weeks, right? :D

yellowfin
03-21-2009, 8:09 PM
Two more weeks, right? :D
I wish I could pay my bills by simply saying "Two weeks." And then upon further demand "It's just like that, you see." Strange how with matters smaller than fundamental freedom of over 30 million people that's not acceptable.

hoffmang
03-21-2009, 8:28 PM
I actually wouldn't be surprised if we get to see the opinion this week but that is just informed speculation...

-Gene

pullnshoot25
03-21-2009, 9:33 PM
Man, I am so stoked about this. Who wants to help me butcher the fresh calves again when we have our NORDYKE parties? MUAHAHHA!

Hanniballs
03-21-2009, 10:14 PM
meh.. 2 weeks..

KylaGWolf
03-22-2009, 8:42 PM
Pullnshoot not sure sure about the calves but a get together to celebrate would be a good thing. You know its bad when I get on line during class to check to see if anything has come up on it in the news.

rbgaynor
03-22-2009, 8:47 PM
I actually wouldn't be surprised if we get to see the opinion this week but that is just informed speculation...

-Gene

I was always taught that informed speculation trumps uninformed speculation - but maybe that's just me ;)

Liberty1
03-22-2009, 9:23 PM
I've actually had a very relaxing two weeks (I've been so busy at work I forgot all about Nordyke) and now I see this thread again. Gene, make them release a decision!!! :chris:

nicki
03-22-2009, 10:03 PM
What if we lose Nordyke, that the 9th circuit sides with Alameda.

What are our plans if that happens. Will we go en banc or will we go try to go directly for the SCOTUS?

I realize that the cards are in hands of the Nordykes and Don Kilmer and it will be their decision. The upcoming ruling most likely will be appealed regardless of who wins.

Nicki

hoffmang
03-22-2009, 10:30 PM
What if we lose Nordyke, that the 9th circuit sides with Alameda.


"If you strike us down we shall only become stronger!"

If we lose we get to run the appeals and we will appeal all the way.

However, I seriously doubt we're losing in this at the three judge panel.

-Gene

DDT
03-22-2009, 10:48 PM
if the unthinkable happens and we don't win I hope we get certified without having to go en banc. I suspect the current SCOTUS would take this in a heartbeat if 9th rules against us.

yellowfin
03-22-2009, 10:56 PM
if the unthinkable happens and we don't win I hope we get certified without having to go en banc. I suspect the current SCOTUS would take this in a heartbeat if 9th rules against us.
Can they rule on it quickly this time instead of taking 2 years? We've got an ugly ogre beating on the gate this time.

DDT
03-22-2009, 11:02 PM
I don't know what the exact timing would be but it would be at least a year from now if it gets there directly from the panel hearing. If it goes en banc first that would add at least another year in all probability.

This is assuming it doesn't get preferential docket treatment and since it hasn't up to now and Heller didn't I doubt it will.

tiki
03-23-2009, 7:14 AM
Are we going to get one of those Calguns breaking news emails when the Nordyke ruling comes out?

Piper
03-23-2009, 8:38 AM
"If you strike us down we shall only become stronger!"

If we lose we get to run the appeals and we will appeal all the way.

However, I seriously doubt we're losing in this at the three judge panel.

-Gene

Either way you look at this, it will be appealed, just like DC. I'm sure that this will probably be settled at SCOTUS.

CCWFacts
03-23-2009, 9:20 AM
Either way you look at this, it will be appealed, just like DC. I'm sure that this will probably be settled at SCOTUS.

Will it be? I don't really understand these things but here's my question: the appeal will cost Alameda a large amount of money ($1mil perhaps?). Budgets are tight everywhere right now. Isn't someone there doing a cost-benefit analysis on spending this money, especially after seeing what happened in DC (they spent millions fighting, they lost, they're going to have to pay millions to the NRA, and they have established a precedent that is a disaster for their side). And what's the absolute best case outcome for Alameda? They prevent gun shows, which are a source of revenue for the county and have never caused problems in the past.

I personally hope it is appealed, whatever the outcome, so we can get a SCOTUS ruling on incorporation before any of our "five" leave. Eight years from now the SCOTUS could look very different, and it could be a place that's very hostile to any form of personal liberties.

Paladin
03-23-2009, 9:23 AM
I actually wouldn't be surprised if we get to see the opinion this week but that is just informed speculation...

-Gene
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!" :p

Librarian
03-23-2009, 10:01 AM
Will it be? I don't really understand these things but here's my question: the appeal will cost Alameda a large amount of money ($1mil perhaps?). Budgets are tight everywhere right now. Isn't someone there doing a cost-benefit analysis on spending this money, especially after seeing what happened in DC (they spent millions fighting, they lost, they're going to have to pay millions to the NRA, and they have established a precedent that is a disaster for their side). And what's the absolute best case outcome for Alameda? They prevent gun shows, which are a source of revenue for the county and have never caused problems in the past.

But it's for the chilldrrreeeennnn! :chris:

If they were able to reason about the issue, the ordinance in question would never have been proposed.

DDT
03-23-2009, 10:06 AM
I think it is unlikely but possible that Alameda will decline to appeal on the assumption that an appeals decision against them is better than a SCOTUS ruling. Plus they can always just harass every attendee at any gun show on Alameda property. I am fairly certain that I read somewhere the gun grabbers are footing the bill for the county in this case.

Joe
03-23-2009, 10:09 AM
I actually wouldn't be surprised if we get to see the opinion this week but that is just informed speculation...

-Gene

"Fool me once, shame on... shame on you... But fool me can't get fooled again!" :p

fixed

jnojr
03-23-2009, 1:42 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King

Any chance of someone updating that page with current info?

ke6guj
03-23-2009, 1:49 PM
Any chance of someone updating that page with current info?
AFAIK, that is completely current with the exception being the last two lines stating that oral arguement were scheduled..... Now that oral arguements have been heard, nothing else has changed until we get a ruling.

Librarian
03-23-2009, 2:20 PM
Any chance of someone updating that page with current info?

Done.

"After the January 15 arguments, the Court is considering its ruling.

Typically such a ruling takes about three months, according to Don Kilmer, so a decision may be available about mid-April, 2009.

The page will be updated at that time. "

No point in rehashing all the guesses and en banc possibilities before the decision.

hoffmang
03-23-2009, 3:25 PM
There is no guarantee that Alameda will ask for Cert.

The peculiar politics of DC caused them to ask for Cert even when they were counseled not to by many of the anti-gun organizations.

I'd call it a tossup on whether Alameda will appeal to SCOTUS if they're the losing party.

-Gene

Mikeb
03-23-2009, 3:57 PM
TWO WEEKS

MP301
03-23-2009, 4:05 PM
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!" :p

No No No...say it right if your going to quote stuff...:43:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

MindBuilder
03-23-2009, 5:15 PM
I added a short summary and a brief explanation of incorporation to the Nordyke wiki page (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King). It could be useful to link to when explaining to people who are wondering what incorporation means.

Sgt Raven
03-23-2009, 6:55 PM
No No No...say it right if your going to quote stuff...:43:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

This one is better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiKBISeIySo
:p

Hopi
03-26-2009, 2:08 PM
Is it ok to be impatient yet?

Hans Gruber
03-26-2009, 2:12 PM
Is it ok to be impatient yet?

I really wanted to bump this thread but I didn't want to look like an impatient jerk.

Congrats Hopi on taking that honor for me! :D

Hopi
03-26-2009, 2:15 PM
I really wanted to bump this thread but I didn't want to look like an impatient jerk.

Congrats Hopi on taking that honor for me! :D

Everyone has a place in this world. :D

yellowfin
03-26-2009, 3:22 PM
So what's the 9th's excuse du jour, their hamster was feeling sick? This secrecy crap is making me really, really angry. What the heck would be so hard about simply announcing a date ahead of time? WTF are they so inconsiderate like this? Is there really any benefit to this BS?

Mstrty
03-26-2009, 3:25 PM
This is like waiting for my first born.

bulgron
03-26-2009, 3:29 PM
Two weeks!

Joe
03-26-2009, 4:20 PM
this wait is quite painful

Lex Arma
03-26-2009, 5:07 PM
So what's the 9th's excuse du jour, their hamster was feeling sick? This secrecy crap is making me really, really angry. What the heck would be so hard about simply announcing a date ahead of time? WTF are they so inconsiderate like this? Is there really any benefit to this BS?

“Travelling through hyperspace ain’t like dusting crops, boy…without precise calculations you could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova, and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn’t it?”

– Han Solo, Captain, Millenium Falcon :cool:

It takes time to get good legal opinions just right. I would rather have it right than fast.

DDT
03-26-2009, 5:09 PM
I would rather have it right than fast.

That's what she said.

7x57
03-26-2009, 5:14 PM
– Han Solo, Captain, Millenium Falcon :cool:


I like a lawyer that quotes Star Wars.


It takes time to get good legal opinions just right. I would rather have it right than fast.

I suppose the better written it is the more influence it will have on other circuits and future cases, which indeed is what we want.

7x57

yellowfin
03-26-2009, 5:23 PM
I fully appreciate them doing a thorough job. I have no problem with that. I have a big problem with the secrecy in timing. They should offer some courtesy for those waiting on them as to what date they'll be done by. They should be considerate of the real world people like us losing valuable time waiting on them and wasting effort continually checking on them. Give us an unambiguous date and stick by it. Everyone else from guys putting a roof on a house to launching rockets into space can do that. All they have to do is void 95% of CA's gun laws which exist almost nowhere else in the nation using the same Constitution. That's not asking very much. “Travelling through hyperspace ain’t like dusting crops, boy…without precise calculations you could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova, and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn’t it?”

– Han Solo, Captain, Millenium Falcon :cool:

It takes time to get good legal opinions just right. I would rather have it right than fast.

Lex Arma
03-26-2009, 5:31 PM
I fully appreciate them doing a thorough job. I have no problem with that. I have a big problem with the secrecy in timing. They should offer some courtesy for those waiting on them as to what date they'll be done by. They should be considerate of the real world people like us losing valuable time waiting on them and wasting effort continually checking on them. Give us an unambiguous date and stick by it. Everyone else from guys putting a roof on a house to launching rockets into space can do that. All they have to do is void 95% of CA's gun laws which exist almost nowhere else in the nation using the same Constitution. That's not asking very much.

The process is not secret. The fact that judges must give written opinions is part of the beauty of our system. Nor is the timing secret, its just unknown. Its not an issue of being considerate. The court is being as considerate as it can, but legal opinions at that level of litigation are unique. If the issue wasn't unique, it would not be at that level. Nobody needs to write a legal opinion about breach of contract or running a red light. The more unique/complex the issue, the more a legal opinion becomes like great art. And you can't rush great art.

tiki
03-26-2009, 5:33 PM
I know when the decision will be announced. Monday, 3/30.
Why? Two reasons.
1) Gene said not to expect it on a Friday.
2) I'll be flying across the !@#$%^& country on Monday.
That's why.
:)

7x57
03-26-2009, 10:26 PM
They should offer some courtesy for those waiting on them as to what date they'll be done by.

My guess is that this has not happened since about the time that the Saxons stepped foot on the Island (OK, so I don't actually know when a recognizable progenitor of the common-law first arose). Good idea or not, it's probably slightly less likely than Her Majesty getting a tongue piercing.

Besides, while in some sense I don't care about legal art, I care about having a good decision having legs and I suspect the "art" that Don seems to look forward to is part of having legs.

7x57

yellowfin
03-26-2009, 10:38 PM
The process is not secret. The fact that judges must give written opinions is part of the beauty of our system. Nor is the timing secret, its just unknown. Its not an issue of being considerate. The court is being as considerate as it can, but legal opinions at that level of litigation are unique. If the issue wasn't unique, it would not be at that level. Nobody needs to write a legal opinion about breach of contract or running a red light. The more unique/complex the issue, the more a legal opinion becomes like great art. And you can't rush great art.

I've heard demolition with explosives described exactly the same way. Placement, timing, and 100% reliability coming from experience, knowledge of physics, and intuitive feel make it all work just right. It comes down exactly right, only as it should, doesn't land on what it shouldn't, and there's no nasty fallout. If it isn't done right it may fall on someone's other building and destroy it unintentionally, or worse it still stands presenting a worse danger. Obviously doing it anything other than right isn't an option. This case is, or at least should be, a legal demolition job. The object to be demolished is the institutionalized legal disregard and outright sodomization of the 2nd Amendment. It must be blasted apart, crumbled to the ground, not left standing, remaining only in pieces small enough to be scraped away quickly and disposed of as the worthless refuse it is and always has been. It is an urban occurring blight which we cannot afford procrastinate any longer from wiping from this state, this country, and hopefully from the face of the Earth.

The thing that bugs the bejeepers out of me is the departure from the accepted practice that demolition experts will let you know ahead of time what the desired outcome is, they are accountable if it doesn't work, and generally those that don't do the job the way it's supposed to don't get to work again from that instant forward.

And no, "It's just not like that, get used to it" isn't consolation worth a damn for matters like this.

yellowfin
03-26-2009, 11:21 PM
My guess is that this has not happened since about the time that the Saxons stepped foot on the Island (OK, so I don't actually know when a recognizable progenitor of the common-law first arose).If memory serves, it was the vikings.
Besides, while in some sense I don't care about legal art, I care about having a good decision having legs and I suspect the "art" that Don seems to look forward to is part of having legs.

7x57
Functional legs, for pete's sake. Not one leg a foot longer than the other or missing a foot or turned around backwards making it useless. Not atrophied or too frail to go up stairs. Not with a complexion so pale you can't wear shorts without sunburn causing skin cancer. Not cramped up half the week. Not so fat they can't squeeze into compact car seats. And not three toes on one foot and the other having the other two.

nick
03-26-2009, 11:49 PM
My guess is that this has not happened since about the time that the Saxons stepped foot on the Island (OK, so I don't actually know when a recognizable progenitor of the common-law first arose). Good idea or not, it's probably slightly less likely than Her Majesty getting a tongue piercing.

7x57

That'd be the Danes. As for Her Majesty, she IS British, so I wouldn't preclude any such thing, if I were you. Brits are insane these days :p

7x57
03-27-2009, 12:05 AM
I
Functional legs, for pete's sake. Not one leg a foot longer than the other or missing a foot or turned around backwards making it useless. Not atrophied or too frail to go up stairs. Not with a complexion so pale you can't wear shorts without sunburn causing skin cancer. Not cramped up half the week. Not so fat they can't squeeze into compact car seats. And not three toes on one foot and the other having the other two.

All that bizzare mutated freak-show stuff pretty well describes the precedents we've been laboring under up to now. I'm willing to wait longer if the resulting decision (assuming we get incorporation) will be more convincing to other judges and end the cycle of horrible law and ridiculous precedent.

I was about a year old when the GCA was passed, so we have been playing defense, sometimes very bitter defense, for my entire life. I'll wait however long it takes to make sure we are playing by different rules for the next century.

7x57

DDT
03-27-2009, 12:12 AM
Like I tell my kids about dinner. "When it's ready you'll be the first to know."

I have a difficult time even understanding your issue with the process. This is how it always has worked. Once the decisions are written, shared with each of the justices and concurring and/or dissenting opinions are written and shared, final drafts are created and then we'll get to see the final decision. I don't believe they are actually holding back for political reasons. Well written and researched decisions take time and it isn't like Nordyke is the only thing on their plate.

I will admit I'm really close to creating a news search for "nordyke" and setting up SMS messages for anything that crosses the wires.

ilbob
03-27-2009, 8:11 AM
Its not like the decision is going to have any immediate effect, no matter how good it is.

Patience is warranted. Look at the Heller decision. DC residents are in only a very slightly better position now WRT handgun ownership in DC than they were before the decision.

tiki
03-27-2009, 10:17 AM
I think the DC residents are in a much better place than they were a year ago. Plus, having incorporation gives us the opportunity to spend some time on offense for a while. I like that. A Lot!

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 10:40 AM
Its not like the decision is going to have any immediate effect, no matter how good it is.

That's right. I assume it will be stayed no matter what, as the losing party decides what it wants to do (petition for an en banc, appeal to SCOTUS or let it be).

It may still be years before it takes effect.

2009_gunner
03-27-2009, 11:00 AM
Like I tell my kids about dinner. "When it's ready you'll be the first to know."

I have a difficult time even understanding your issue with the process. This is how it always has worked. Once the decisions are written, shared with each of the justices and concurring and/or dissenting opinions are written and shared, final drafts are created and then we'll get to see the final decision. I don't believe they are actually holding back for political reasons. Well written and researched decisions take time and it isn't like Nordyke is the only thing on their plate.

I will admit I'm really close to creating a news search for "nordyke" and setting up SMS messages for anything that crosses the wires.

I've done this with google alerts http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us using the search terms: nordyke king
nordyke alone is somewhat common and turns up unrelated news items.

7x57
03-27-2009, 11:24 AM
T
It may still be years before it takes effect.

I don't think the eagerness is *just* for effect, though it will turn to that about 37 milliseconds after the decision if it's a good one. I think there is an additional pent-up emotional need for catharsis, closure, and some better definition on what road we'll be taking over the next few years. Also, definitely, reassurance that we won't once again be screwed by judges who betray their oath to obey the constitution. While it seems unlikely, I believe at this point I may be incapable of confidence on that score and simply accept it as a minor irrationality on my part. :TFH:

Of course, as soon as the catharsis comes it will be replaced by a yawning hunger to go after certain unconstitutional laws, so it's unclear if there will be relief or just a rapid change in the nature of the unrest.

Most of all, I think the lions want to be let loose. Remember the Bugs Bunny cartoon where the lions are always trying to get at Yosemite Sam, and he abuses them at every chance? Eventually, the lions are let loose on bugs, but they have only one target in mind, the one who has been abusing them. People thirst for payback time. No Stockholm syndrome here! :43:

OK, come to think of it, I have no idea about the rest of you. That was just about me. :D

7x57

CCWFacts
03-27-2009, 11:39 AM
I don't think the eagerness is *just* for effect, though it will turn to that about 37 milliseconds after the decision if it's a good one. I think there is an additional pent-up emotional need for catharsis, closure, and some better definition on what road we'll be taking over the next few years. Also, definitely, reassurance that we won't once again be screwed by judges who betray their oath to obey the constitution......

I agree with your comments. You're right, that's what it's for, same as why we were so excited about Heller even though it had no real-world impact on us.

The other factor that makes some of us very eager for a Nordyke victory (or any outcome) is we need to get this question settled sooner than later, preferably at the SCOTUS level, because we're one unanticipated health problem away from losing our majority on the SCOTUS. Obama would love to appoint some socialist "the meaning of the constitution is that the government owns you" type of judge to replace some of our conservatives.

hoffmang
03-27-2009, 8:49 PM
Remember the Bugs Bunny cartoon where the lions are always trying to get at Yosemite Sam, and he abuses them at every chance? Eventually, the lions are let loose on bugs, but they have only one target in mind, the one who has been abusing them. People thirst for payback time. No Stockholm syndrome here! :43:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/picpops/images/lion22.jpg

You have no idea...

-Gene

7x57
03-27-2009, 9:27 PM
Here (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/animation/watch/v6248055aay5BPWb) is the cartoon I had in mind. The post-Nordyke scene I had in mind starts around 6:25.

Yeah, I'm quite capable of appealing to both Plato and Bugs Bunny as authorities. What's it to ya?

7x57

ke6guj
04-02-2009, 4:18 PM
I've done this with google alerts http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us using the search terms: nordyke king
nordyke alone is somewhat common and turns up unrelated news items.got my hopes up this morning when I saw a google alert on that, but it was a false alarm:mad:

DDT
04-02-2009, 8:19 PM
yeah, I'm starting to get itchy too. Gotta be RSN.

jjperl
04-02-2009, 8:27 PM
TWO WEEKS!:p

lioneaglegriffin
04-02-2009, 9:48 PM
TWO WEEKS!:p

ITs APRIL GOTDANG IT I WANT MY NORDYKE NEWSPAPER TO GO WITH MY HELLER!!!! AGGGGHHHH...... (sigh) Its like waiting for christmas and you don't know what day its going to be this year because they're using a zoroastrian calender. :mad:

Librarian
04-02-2009, 11:19 PM
ITs APRIL GOTDANG IT I WANT MY NORDYKE NEWSPAPER TO GO WITH MY HELLER!!!! AGGGGHHHH...... (sigh) Its like waiting for christmas and you don't know what day its going to be this year because they're using a zoroastrian calender. :mad:

Christmas 2009 will be 1379 Y.Z. Amardad Adar ShukraVar Zoroastrian (http://ahura.thelalis.com/) (Shensai).
April 2 is 1376 Y.Z. Ava Meher SoamVar.

Does that help? :)

capt.t
04-07-2009, 6:01 PM
Just wondering if the lawyers will know before the decision is published at 10am on the website. If so how much advanced notice do they get? Or do they find out the same why the rest of us do?

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 6:11 PM
Christmas 2009 will be 1379 Y.Z. Amardad Adar ShukraVar Zoroastrian (http://ahura.thelalis.com/) (Shensai).
April 2 is 1376 Y.Z. Ava Meher SoamVar.

Does that help? :)

No, i still want my newspaper. :(

Liberty1
04-07-2009, 7:04 PM
Here (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/animation/watch/v6248055aay5BPWb) is the cartoon I had in mind. The post-Nordyke scene I had in mind starts around 6:25.

Yeah, I'm quite capable of appealing to both Plato and Bugs Bunny as authorities. What's it to ya?

7x57


OT

but you gota see this great COLOR pre/early WWII US Army footage spliced into this Bugs Bunny cartoon!! goto 5:32 (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/animation/watch/v6248055aay5BPWb#watch%3Dv6254602j3s68Ajm)


and those of you who have my cell # better call me when the decision comes down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberty1
04-07-2009, 7:58 PM
Ops...Link added above and found another great one!!!!



http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/animation/watch/v6248055aay5BPWb#watch%3Dv6248857J9b7GxC8

hoffmang
04-07-2009, 9:12 PM
Counsel will generally be notified the morning of the release of the opinion.

In general the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will issue opinions every non holiday work week day. Opinions are issued before 10AM each day at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/

However, I would not expect to see this opinion on a Friday. With my luck, Judge O'Scannlain is reading this and he'll issue it on a Friday to poke us all...

-Gene

7x57
04-07-2009, 9:29 PM
but you gota see this great COLOR pre/early WWII US Army footage spliced into this Bugs Bunny cartoon!! (http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/animation/watch/v6248055aay5BPWb#watch%3Dv6254602j3s68Ajm)


I have both on DVD. The footage in that one is probably the best part about that cartoon; it's one of the weakest Bugs Bunny cartoons.


http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/animation/watch/v6248055aay5BPWb#watch%3Dv6248857J9b7GxC8

This one is much better, though not first-rank by any means. The ever-diminishing stripes on the sergeant's shoulder is a neat device, and the sergeant is really the best thing about the strip. Bugs is surprisingly weak, he exists mostly to set the sergeant up for destruction.

I have always figured that this was a wish-fulfillment fantasy for Chuck Jones and/or Mike Maltese and their memories of basic training. :-)

Whoops...going totally off the rails here...must try to be relevant....

So, uh, how about them guns? Good things, them guns. :rolleyes:

7x57

Liberty1
04-07-2009, 9:45 PM
With my luck, Judge O'Scannlain is reading this and he'll issue it on a Friday to poke us all...

-Gene

Well, I sure hope he likes WWII Bugs Bunny cartoons or we're sunk like a jap midget sub in Pearl Harbor.

7x57
04-07-2009, 9:46 PM
Well, I sure hope he likes WWII Bugs Bunny cartoons or we're sunk like a jap midget sub in Pearl Harbor.

Hmm. It doesn't quite flow, but I like a guy who isn't limited to the same old stereotyped similes!

ETA: if you honorable Nordyke justices are reading this, for God's sake quit playing and get back to cutting our chains immediately! This is just cruel to everyone. :chris:

But, somehow, well, I doubt it. :rolleyes:

7x57

Liberty1
04-07-2009, 9:53 PM
Hmm. It doesn't quite flow, but I like a guy who isn't limited to the same old stereotyped similes!

7x57

Well this thread is driving me crazy; waiting with baited breath on every new post. If Bugs Bunny can help get it locked down, I'm all for it. ;)

Heck I'd even support a Nordyke ban until the decision is released. Must try to sleep.....Nordyke on the brain.....oh the anticipation.....

KWA-S
04-08-2009, 5:15 AM
Well this thread is driving me crazy; waiting with baited breath on every new post. If Bugs Bunny can help get it locked down, I'm all for it. ;)

Heck I'd even support a Nordyke ban until the decision is released. Must try to sleep.....Nordyke on the brain.....oh the anticipation.....

Heh, I'm feeling the same way. Imagine my confusion when I hit the last page link hoping for a "HUZZAH We won" or something of the sort, and finding a conversation about WWII Bugs Bunny reels.

Well, 90 days is in, what, a week? (April 15)

Lex Arma
04-08-2009, 8:30 AM
Just wondering if the lawyers will know before the decision is published at 10am on the website. If so how much advanced notice do they get? Or do they find out the same why the rest of us do?

We (lawyers) find out the same way as the general public, by checking the 9th Circuit web site at 10:00 a.m. every day.

7x57
04-08-2009, 10:36 AM
We (lawyers) find out the same way as the general public, by checking the 9th Circuit web site at 10:00 a.m. every day.

Because, of course, the general public in fact checks the 9th Circuit web site at 10:00 a.m. every day. ;)

7x57

n2k
04-08-2009, 10:39 AM
Didn't know it was that easy to check:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov

yellowfin
04-08-2009, 11:28 AM
What do you think is the hardest aspect of the decision which makes it so difficult (and thus time consuming) to craft?

tiki
04-08-2009, 12:20 PM
Because, of course, the general public in fact checks the 9th Circuit web site at 10:00 a.m. every day. ;)

7x57

I do. :)

tiki
04-08-2009, 12:22 PM
Didn't know it was that easy to check:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov

It is that easy. :)
Much easier to refresh on the mobile device than scroll through bugs bunny posts.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/

CnCFunFactory
04-08-2009, 12:26 PM
I do. :)

I do now..... :thumbsup:

KWA-S
04-08-2009, 12:42 PM
Ha, I figure its easier to just wait for the news to get around Calguns. When the decision comes out (you know theres some Calgunner somewhere refreshing the 9th circuit's page every five seconds from 9:50 to 10:10 every morning.), it will be be heard here. Very loudly. In several different threads. I mean we've gotten so much coverage of HR45:banghead:, etc...even half that would, in my opinion, be overkill. :p

bulgron
04-08-2009, 12:46 PM
Ha, I figure its easier to just wait for the news to get around Calguns. When the decision comes out (you know theres some Calgunner somewhere refreshing the 9th circuit's page every five seconds from 9:50 to 10:10 every morning.), it will be be heard here. Very loudly. In several different threads. I mean we've gotten so much coverage of HR45:banghead:, etc...even half that would, in my opinion, be overkill. :p

Bets on how many dup threads we'll have on that topic?

I think 12.

pullnshoot25
04-08-2009, 12:56 PM
Bets on how many dup threads we'll have on that topic?

I think 12.

I will say 14... one for each day of two weeks. :)

pullnshoot25
04-08-2009, 1:00 PM
Like I tell my kids about dinner. "When it's ready you'll be the first to know."

I have a difficult time even understanding your issue with the process. This is how it always has worked. Once the decisions are written, shared with each of the justices and concurring and/or dissenting opinions are written and shared, final drafts are created and then we'll get to see the final decision. I don't believe they are actually holding back for political reasons. Well written and researched decisions take time and it isn't like Nordyke is the only thing on their plate.

I will admit I'm really close to creating a news search for "nordyke" and setting up SMS messages for anything that crosses the wires.

Even your kids are asking about it? That is freaking classic :)

bulgron
04-08-2009, 1:58 PM
I will say 14... one for each day of two weeks. :)

Naw, we'll be getting threads on Nordyke at for at least 6 months after it's released.

tiki
04-09-2009, 9:27 AM
As I mentioned in another thread, Nordyke could be published as early as tomorrow at 10AM and as late as 60 days from now.
-Gene

After the January 15 arguments, the Court is considering its ruling.

Typically such a ruling takes about three months, according to Don Kilmer, so a decision may be available about mid-April, 2009.


Damn, another day passes with no decision.
Is there a set date or timeframe that the decision has to be out by? Next Wednesday is the 90 day mark so is that it or can this roll out for another month if they wanted it to?

Untamed1972
04-09-2009, 9:34 AM
Bets on how many dup threads we'll have on that topic?

I think 12.

If people would put accurate titles on their threads regarding news events it would help to cut down on that alot.

sfpcservice
04-09-2009, 9:39 AM
Damn, another day passes with no decision.
Is there a set date or timeframe that the decision has to be out by? Next Wednesday is the 90 day mark so is that it or can this roll out for another month if they wanted it to?

I'm pretty sure there isn't a set time like the California Supreme Court has. I think about 90 days is just the "norm".

jasilva
04-09-2009, 9:57 AM
They may be waiting for all the hand wringing about recent events to die down. Even if they are not subject to recall election nobody likes to be trashed on the news and if they incorporate they will be.

ilbob
04-09-2009, 10:05 AM
It might be that they are trying to work out some kind of informal consensus with the rest of the circuit judges.

pullnshoot25
04-09-2009, 10:17 AM
Are these judges reading this forum and making us sweat on purpose? I've drenched a few shirts already...

yellowfin
04-09-2009, 10:45 AM
It might be that they are trying to work out some kind of informal consensus with the rest of the circuit judges.
That would likely kill the ruling altogether :(

sfpcservice
04-09-2009, 8:57 PM
The decision is coming out tomorrow. I can say that with confidence, because if it doesn't I'm gonna say the same thing the day after and the day after until I get it right.

Somebody said something about two weeks a while back.....

KWA-S
04-09-2009, 9:07 PM
If people would put accurate titles on their threads regarding news events it would help to cut down on that alot.

"ANOTHER SHOOTING"
"GOVERNMENT BAN"
"THE LIBS ARE AT IT AGAIN"
"YOU THOUGHT IT WOULDNT HAPPEN"
etc, etc

I often just skip those posts...usually they are 2 week or older dupes, and alarmists at that.

KylaGWolf
04-09-2009, 10:26 PM
Someone wake me up when two weeks is up.

bulgron
04-09-2009, 10:36 PM
I'm going to be out of town Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week, and away from my computer. So I can predict with complete sincerity that Nordyke will come out then, when I won't be here to witness it. :D

TheBundo
04-10-2009, 12:19 AM
Geez, the decision was handed down 2 weeks ago. Didn't you guys hear about it?

lioneaglegriffin
04-10-2009, 12:27 AM
Geez, the decision was handed down 2 weeks ago. Didn't you guys hear about it?

LIAR! :p

Librarian
04-10-2009, 5:03 PM
No, no, nothing important ....

Counsel will generally be notified the morning of the release of the opinion.

In general the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will issue opinions every non holiday work week day. Opinions are issued before 10AM each day at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/

However, I would not expect to see this opinion on a Friday. With my luck, Judge O'Scannlain is reading this and he'll issue it on a Friday to poke us all...

-Gene

Lots of things issued on Fridays; maybe this one might be kept off a Friday so it doesn't get lost in the week end.

But I was watching yesterday. Sometimes, opinions are posted after 10 am. That USA v SMITH listing didn't appear until almost 11 am. (LINKLINE was there almost on the dot of 10.)

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/

Watch the skies, er, web site!

hoffmang
04-10-2009, 7:58 PM
My point about Fridays was that I doubt the panel will want the opinion to be released in such a poor news cycle. Many opinions come out on a Friday - just not the big ones though there is nothing procedural stopping that.

-Gene

yellowfin
04-10-2009, 10:10 PM
It would have given new meaning to Good Friday, but they blew the chance.

7x57
04-10-2009, 10:12 PM
It would have given new meaning to Good Friday, but they blew the chance.

On the other hand, maybe they considered the symbolism of what happens shortly to those who have cause to celebrate on Good Friday. :eek:

7x57

wash
04-15-2009, 12:01 PM
I'm very anxious.

I did a little search to see if there is anything new but I only found old articles.

But reading old articles is neat because it shows how far we have come. (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1080858050545)

pullnshoot25
04-15-2009, 12:03 PM
*Biting nails*

yellowfin
04-15-2009, 12:45 PM
We've missed April Fool's Day, Good Friday, and April 15th, all good days to bring the decision. :mad:

Hopi
04-15-2009, 12:54 PM
We've missed April Fool's Day, Good Friday, and April 15th, all good days to bring the decision. :mad:

Of course they missed those days. Incorporation will stand on it's own holiday...Nordyke Celebration Day.

yellowfin
04-15-2009, 1:14 PM
Of course they missed those days. Incorporation will stand on it's own holiday...Nordyke Celebration Day.

The next person to say "two weeks" to this needs to get kicked in the crotch by a Clydesdale.

AngelDecoys
04-15-2009, 1:16 PM
Of course they missed those days. Incorporation will stand on it's own holiday...Nordyke Celebration Day.

I'm hoping for the 21st (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots'_Day). 'Patriots' Day' :thumbsup:

Python2
04-15-2009, 1:19 PM
*Biting nails*

Run out of finger nails. I am now unto my toe nails:43:

N6ATF
04-15-2009, 1:56 PM
The next person to say "two weeks" to this needs to get kicked in the crotch by a Clydesdale.

+1000

At this rate it may as well be the 5th of November.

Sgt Raven
04-15-2009, 3:25 PM
The next person to say "two weeks" to this needs to get kicked in the crotch by a Clydesdale.

How about 14 days or 336 hours, then. :p

Sgt Raven
04-15-2009, 3:27 PM
+1000

At this rate it may as well be the 5th of November.


More like the 8th of November. ;)

sorensen440
04-15-2009, 3:35 PM
The next person to say "two weeks" to this needs to get kicked in the crotch by a Clydesdale.
Two weeks :eek:

popeye4
04-15-2009, 3:43 PM
I'm hoping for the 21st (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots'_Day). 'Patriots' Day' :thumbsup:

Patriot's Day is really April 19 (Lexington & Concord anniversary). They made it a Monday holiday back when that became popular, but I think it is important to remember what happened on that particular day (in Massachusetts, of all places!). It is more important than a marathon......

Librarian
04-15-2009, 3:53 PM
The next person to say "two weeks" to this needs to get kicked in the crotch by a Clydesdale.

It'll be a fortnight.

AngelDecoys
04-15-2009, 4:00 PM
Patriot's Day is really April 19 (Lexington & Concord anniversary). They made it a Monday holiday back when that became popular, but I think it is important to remember what happened on that particular day (in Massachusetts, of all places!). It is more important than a marathon......

Yup. I know (that's why i linked it). Unfortunately, the court is closed on the weekend ;) I'm not willing to wait until 2010 for the 19th to be on a Monday. :p

DDT
04-15-2009, 4:57 PM
This is getting as nerve wracking as waiting for Florida to count the chads.

2009_gunner
04-15-2009, 5:43 PM
For some reason, I had thought the maximum amount of time to get the opinion would be 90 days from the January 15 oral arguments. My calendar says 90 days has passed as of today, so I was mistaken... does anyone know what is the maximum amount of time the court can take to give its opinion?

KWA-S
04-15-2009, 6:16 PM
does anyone know what is the maximum amount of time the court can take to give its opinion?

Two weeks. :rofl:

ke6guj
04-15-2009, 6:57 PM
does anyone know what is the maximum amount of time the court can take to give its opinion?


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000084
19. How long does it take from the time of argument to the time of decision?



The Court has no time limit, but most cases are decided within 3 months to a year.

sorensen440
04-15-2009, 7:01 PM
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000084
And thats where I am concerned
what if they don't decide on it ?

Whats the next step?

hoffmang
04-15-2009, 7:54 PM
And thats where I am concerned
what if they don't decide on it ?


They are legally obligated to issue an opinion of some sort.

-Gene

yellowfin
04-15-2009, 8:38 PM
They are legally obligated to issue an opinion of some sort.

-Gene And therein lies the very devil of it. Who are they talking to to tell them what to say? The more time goes by the less and less I like this. I don't like the idea that they might have been exposed to more pursuasion by the many powerful people who have too much to lose by a good ruling.

hoffmang
04-15-2009, 8:45 PM
http://publicintellectual.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/tin-foil-hat.jpg

Step away from the tinfoil...

O'Scainlan has been particularly busy as he's release a larger than normal amount of opinions that he authored over the last 30 days. As he is who I expect is going to write the Nordyke opinion, it may simply be that he has a high caseload of opinions of late.

-Gene

yellowfin
04-15-2009, 9:00 PM
Okay, so some non-tinfoil explanations:

A) He's going in chronological order and other cases came before this one
B) Other cases are more urgent (What could possibly have more contingent on it than this?)
C) Other cases are simpler so he wants to do them first
D) They're waiting on something else to happen first (What?)

...And will we know the reason afterwards?

trashman
04-15-2009, 9:18 PM
...And will we know the reason afterwards?

Justices seem to be uniformly opaque on this...

--Neill

hoffmang
04-15-2009, 9:23 PM
Okay, so some non-tinfoil explanations:

A) He's going in chronological order and other cases came before this one


They generally go in chronological order and if you look through the last month or two, you'll see that he has particularly been writing a lot of opinions.

-Gene

7x57
04-15-2009, 9:35 PM
They generally go in chronological order and if you look through the last month or two, you'll see that he has particularly been writing a lot of opinions.


If he's going in chronological order, then we can construct a progress bar for him. (Say, all government officials should have progress bars!) List all cases that he's sat on (and thus presumably construct a complete list of cases he *might* write a decision for), say in the last year (we can assume that everything older has been decided and is not a factor in his workload), in chronological order. Circle Nordyke in red, then mark those for which a decision has been written. They are the lit bars. Those remaining are the unlit bars representing unfinished work.

We can do better. Taking note of the date of the decisions, we can crudely estimate the rate of progess on the bar and thus the time remaining. We can even make pretty charts of progress over time to estimate the error, and can make animated charts showing the progress in the same manner as the animated map of the progress of "shall issue" in the various states.

The prettier the charts the better, as it will give people something to do while waiting. NordykeCountdown.com, anyone?

7x57

yellowfin
04-15-2009, 9:38 PM
They generally go in chronological order and if you look through the last month or two, you'll see that he has particularly been writing a lot of opinions.

-GeneCouldn't that go the other way, though? He's been writing the opinions because the others are tied up writing Nordyke?

hoffmang
04-15-2009, 10:14 PM
Those remaining are the unlit bars representing unfinished work.

We can do better. Taking note of the date of the decisions, we can crudely estimate the rate of progess on the bar and thus the time remaining.
They tell me that the hard sciences can cause certain obsessive/compulsive behaviour though causation may only be correlation in this instance. :p


Couldn't that go the other way, though? He's been writing the opinions because the others are tied up writing Nordyke?
And I could be a complete moron who has a completely uninformed opinion...

There is a north of 90% chance of O'Scanlian writing this opinion.

Everyone step away from their keyboards and take a deep breath. Realize that it took 40 years to erode our rights and not even 12 months has passed since the Heller decision was published.

Please keep some perspective.

-Gene

7x57
04-15-2009, 10:24 PM
They tell me that the hard sciences can cause certain obsessive/compulsive behaviour though causation may only be correlation in this instance. :p


That so offends me that I plan to disprove it by constructing a three-axis chart of compulsive behavior as a function of major and degree attained in order to demonstrate that there is no statistically significant correlation. Animation and sound will have to wait until version 2. ;)

Hey, science beats washing your hands a lot, right?


Please keep some perspective.


1. (Science OCD answer) Is that one or two-point perspective?

2. (Calgunner's answer) Can't make me!

7x57