PDA

View Full Version : Gorski/Mehl panel announced


hoffmang
06-02-2009, 2:45 PM
The panel that will hear Mehl will be Schroeder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_M._Schroeder), Roth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Richards_Roth) (3rd Cir.), Berzon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_L._Berzon), CJJ.

The calendering ruling is here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2009/05/29/sf06_09.pdf).

-Gene

racer_X_123
06-02-2009, 2:52 PM
So for those of us not up to speed... is this a good panel or not?

bulgron
06-02-2009, 3:05 PM
So for those of us not up to speed... is this a good panel or not?

Schroeder is a Carter appointee with a JD from the University of Chicago.

Roth is a Reagan appointee with a L.L.D. from Harvard.

Berzon is a Clinton appointee with a law degree from Berkeley.

They're all women. Have you noticed how some of the worst anti's in the world are always women? (Feinstein, Boxer, H. Clinton, the list goes on).

While I haven't looked at their actual decisions, at first blush I don't think this panel is particularly friendly to us.

GenLee
06-02-2009, 3:12 PM
Strike one: Schroeder

Strike two: Roth

Straike three: Berzon

Not to be a sour apple but this looks dismal.

rob
06-02-2009, 3:20 PM
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0430083P.pdf

it appears that schroeder does not consider the second amendment to be a 'core civil right':

Because Brailey’s misdemeanor conviction did not
remove Brailey’s core civil rights of voting, serving as a juror,
or holding public office, his civil rights have not been “re-
stored” within the meaning of federal law by Utah’s 2000
amendment permitting him to possess a firearm.

1JimMarch
06-02-2009, 3:42 PM
Wait: the ruling by Schroeder doesn't mean much to me. The legal groundwork via Heller and now Nordyke has changed things.

The ONLY question that matters now is, will these three be honest enough to admit that things have changed?

As an aside, let's recall that the guy in the case cited above was convicted of *felony* battery, and then got his charges dropped later. So he wasn't a good plaintiff to make a claim against the anti-DV rules.

hoffmang
06-02-2009, 3:57 PM
This is not a favorable panel.

-Gene

vrand
06-02-2009, 4:29 PM
Wait: the ruling by Schroeder doesn't mean much to me. The legal groundwork via Heller and now Nordyke has changed things.

The ONLY question that matters now is, will these three be honest enough to admit that things have changed?

As an aside, let's recall that the guy in the case cited above was convicted of *felony* battery, and then got his charges dropped later. So he wasn't a good plaintiff to make a claim against the anti-DV rules.

nope

Rivers
06-02-2009, 4:57 PM
What exactly will this panel of 3 be deciding?

And while their politics may be liberal, how are they as judges?

hoffmang
06-02-2009, 5:06 PM
What exactly will this panel of 3 be deciding?


The Mehl case was discussed at length in this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2481012).

-Gene

jacques
06-02-2009, 5:29 PM
This is not a favorable panel.

-Gene

WOuld that mean an appeal is inevitable?

GuyW
06-02-2009, 5:30 PM
This is not a favorable panel.

-Gene

Pro-corruption, eh?

Dang.

(I know...)
.

bulgron
06-02-2009, 5:53 PM
WOuld that mean an appeal is inevitable?

If Gorski pushes Mehl to this panel before (1) incorporation is nailed down and (2) sykes sets a solid precedence, he's gonna get his *** whipped. And there's a good chance SCOTUS won't review the case, so we'll all be stuck with the results.

hoffmang
06-02-2009, 5:56 PM
WOuld that mean an appeal is inevitable?

This is the appeal.

-Gene

artherd
06-02-2009, 5:58 PM
This could create some very bad precedent.

G17GUY
06-02-2009, 6:54 PM
Oh come on guys.. Gorski will pull this one off just like he did Silveira v. Lockyer. He is a HERO.
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/PTGPOD/826309.jpg

Roadrunner
06-02-2009, 7:05 PM
Would it be wise of Gorski to cut his losses and just drop it? Can he even do that? If the outcome is inevitable, why would a person proceed if a dead bang loser? Gary are you reading this?

Telperion
06-02-2009, 7:13 PM
He didn't drop Silveira when it went before Reinhardt, Magill, and Fisher. He seems like the kind of guy to make the same mistake twice.

Sobriquet
06-02-2009, 7:15 PM
Would it be wise of Gorski to cut his losses and just drop it? Can he even do that? If the outcome is inevitable, why would a person proceed if a dead bang loser? Gary are you reading this?

Don't waste your breath. We've begged, pleaded, and screamed until we're hoarse. Gary Gorski isn't listening.

God help us all.

G17GUY
06-02-2009, 8:43 PM
$ > gun rights?

DDT
06-02-2009, 9:00 PM
$ > gun rights?

If you read his posts I don't think you'll find this to be the case.

I think some people just think that the noble defeat is better than the strategic retreat.

1JimMarch
06-02-2009, 10:02 PM
If Gorski pushes Mehl to this panel before (1) incorporation is nailed down and (2) sykes sets a solid precedence, he's gonna get his *** whipped. And there's a good chance SCOTUS won't review the case, so we'll all be stuck with the results.

Before we get all gloom and doom, remember that the issue is "do these particular plaintiffs have standing"?

The district court decided that Lau was "un-permittable" due to various issues, and that Mehl hadn't properly applied and hence didn't have standing to sue.

Lau is maybe questionable, although a good claim can be made that he should have at least got his day in court. But the district court judge seriously mishandled Mehl. Mehl got about halfway through the application process the first time, and if it was just that, his standing to sue would be questionable. But he also applied a second time, did everything he was asked, and the Sacramento Sheriff's office basically just trashcanned his application without even dealing with it. To then say "he hasn't properly applied" is utterly and completely wrong.

In other words, we don't yet have a second amendment case here. We have a bad local judge who obviously bungled a summary judgment ruling in Mehl's case and arguably did so in Lau's case.

If this 3-judge panel rules in favor of either Mehl, Lau or both, it just means the issue gets bounced back to the lower court to decide if 2nd Amendment rights have been denied.

Gorski is NOT therefore going for a "big win" in front of this panel.

My prediction: Lau will be knocked out, Mehl will be bounced back to the lower court. And by the time a lower court decision happens, we'll know one way or the other whether Nordyke and incorporation will stand.

hoffmang
06-02-2009, 10:07 PM
Before we get all gloom and doom, remember that the issue is "do these particular plaintiffs have standing"?

Gorski is NOT therefore going for a "big win" in front of this panel.

But what if the panel is going for the "big loss?"

-Gene

bwiese
06-02-2009, 10:35 PM
But what if the panel is going for the "big loss?"
-Gene

I'm honestly surprised nobody in Sacto is standing outside his office with flaming torches or jamming his phone lines.

ChrisSig
06-02-2009, 10:35 PM
I thought Gorski was going to try to wait for the Nordyke en banc vote?

7x57
06-02-2009, 10:35 PM
$ > gun rights?

No. It is clear that Gorski isn't in it for the money, and we should never accuse him of that. It's more like arguing with Gen. Custer that maybe riding off to Little Big Horn isn't the right strategy. Nobody faults Custer's loyalty or desire to win, but there are questions to be asked about his judgement.

It's also like arguing with Gen. Custer in that Gary is approximately as willing to change course as Gen. Custer too. Our problem with that is he's determined to take Nell, the beautiful sweet daugher of the richest cattle rancher in the valley, with him to Little Big Horn, while we want her to stay home so we can marry her ourselves and live happily ever after.

Wait, where did Nell come from? I think maybe it's too late for me to be posting in legal threads....

7x57

DDT
06-02-2009, 11:26 PM
Before we get all gloom and doom, remember that the issue is "do these particular plaintiffs have standing"?

The district court decided that Lau was "un-permittable" due to various issues, and that Mehl hadn't properly applied and hence didn't have standing to sue.

Lau is maybe questionable, although a good claim can be made that he should have at least got his day in court. But the district court judge seriously mishandled Mehl. Mehl got about halfway through the application process the first time, and if it was just that, his standing to sue would be questionable. But he also applied a second time, did everything he was asked, and the Sacramento Sheriff's office basically just trashcanned his application without even dealing with it. To then say "he hasn't properly applied" is utterly and completely wrong.

In other words, we don't yet have a second amendment case here. We have a bad local judge who obviously bungled a summary judgment ruling in Mehl's case and arguably did so in Lau's case.

If this 3-judge panel rules in favor of either Mehl, Lau or both, it just means the issue gets bounced back to the lower court to decide if 2nd Amendment rights have been denied.

Gorski is NOT therefore going for a "big win" in front of this panel.

My prediction: Lau will be knocked out, Mehl will be bounced back to the lower court. And by the time a lower court decision happens, we'll know one way or the other whether Nordyke and incorporation will stand.

Your argument amounts to "there's nothing to actually win here so it doesn't matter." The problem is that even if there's nothing to win here there could well be something to lose.

What if the court's opinion is: "2A is an individual right in CA and the current legislation, though rife with corruption, adequately preserves 2A rights in CA.?"

Now, what happens to Sykes and any other claims trying to take down the law directly? Well, they get summary judgment dismissals because the case has already been heard and decided in Mehl.

vrand
06-03-2009, 12:09 AM
I thought Gorski was going to try to wait for the Nordyke en banc vote?

I will believe it when I see it. His track record so far doesnt look too good.

N6ATF
06-03-2009, 1:26 AM
If he were truly working in the best interests of his clients, he'd advise them to drop this like an atom bomb.

Maestro Pistolero
06-03-2009, 2:32 AM
Another case Gorskied.

Bugei
06-03-2009, 8:46 AM
Another case Gorskied.

Never a good sign when your name becomes a verb, is it?