PDA

View Full Version : Volokh: Nordyke goes en banc


pacifico
07-29-2009, 3:45 PM
http://volokh.com/posts/1248906855.shtml


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/29/0715763ebo.pdf

trashman
07-29-2009, 3:48 PM
Oh wow...

--Neill

Dr Rockso
07-29-2009, 3:49 PM
Aw crap.

HowardW56
07-29-2009, 3:52 PM
Aw crap.


And then some... :mad:

trashman
07-29-2009, 3:53 PM
Here's the link to the order. (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/29/0715763ebo.pdf)

--Neill

HowardW56
07-29-2009, 3:53 PM
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/29/0715763ebo.pdf

Very good.... I got a copy using PACER...

wildhawker
07-29-2009, 3:56 PM
F me running.

xxdabroxx
07-29-2009, 3:57 PM
very interesting. damn. damn.

edit: fingers crossed

Whats the time frame of an en banc hearing? is it long and drawn out thing too, or is it a sit down one afternoon and sort it out?

Does the original judge get to sit in on the panel?

fd15k
07-29-2009, 3:58 PM
sux :(

boxbro
07-29-2009, 4:02 PM
So what exactly does this mean and what's the likely outcome ?

technique
07-29-2009, 4:05 PM
someone should be in here shortly to give a good informed opinion for you...

trashman
07-29-2009, 4:11 PM
So what exactly does this mean and what's the likely outcome ?

What it means is that for the time being, until the case is re-heard, the 2nd Amendment is not Incorporated (http://www.hoffmang.com/archives/000950.html)against the State of California. It also means any pending cases before the judiciary (throughout the system) shall not cite the opinion as precedent.

A positive possible outcome would be that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the other cases (from the 2nd and 7th circuits) anyway and reviews, and finds for, Incorporation.

A negative possible outcome is that the SCOTUS decides not to review the 7th and 2nd Circuit cases since without the 9th Circuit Nordyke opinion there isn't a "split".

--Neill

HowardW56
07-29-2009, 4:13 PM
What it means is that for the time being, until the case is re-heard, the 2nd Amendment is not Incorporated against the State of California. It also means any pending cases before the judiciary (throughout the system) shall not cite the opinion as precedent.

A positive possible outcome would be that the Supreme Court agrees to hear the other cases (from the 2nd and 7th circuits) and reviews, and finds for, Incorporation.

A negative possible outcome is that the SCOTUS decides not to review the 7th and 2nd Circuit cases since without the 9th Circuit Nordyke opinion there isn't a "split".

--Neill


That is what I was thinking...

yellowfin
07-29-2009, 4:17 PM
What I want to know is how big a bribe they took doing this.

Roadrunner
07-29-2009, 4:18 PM
I think they will simply review what information the 3 judges used to come to their conclusion and not change a thing as far as incorporation. What I also expect will happen is that the en banc panel reverses the decision regarding gun shows on public property because the 2nd amendment is an individual right. To me the worst that can happen is that nothing changes and the en banc panel simply validates the 3 judges decision.

bulgron
07-29-2009, 4:19 PM
I think they will simply review what information the 3 judges used to come to their conclusion and not change a thing as far as incorporation. What I also expect will happen is that the en banc panel reverses the decision regarding gun shows on public property because the 2nd amendment is an individual right. To me the worst that can happen is that nothing changes and the en banc panel simply validates the 3 judges decision.

I think you're an optimist.

tiki
07-29-2009, 4:20 PM
What this means is these F***ers are going to reverse the Incorporation decision and fall back with the 7th and 2nd and say that they are bound by precedent.
My guess is that SCOTUS wont hear it. This is the way these F****ers are going to violate the 2nd Amendment.

Roadrunner
07-29-2009, 4:21 PM
I think you're an optimist.

One can always hope. ;)

bulgron
07-29-2009, 4:26 PM
My guess is that SCOTUS wont hear it.

Even without the circuit split, I would be jaw-dropped shocked if SCOTUS refuses to rule on incorporation. Every other damn thing is incorporated. Why wouldn't the 2A be?

Flopper
07-29-2009, 4:34 PM
Even without the circuit split, I would be jaw-dropped shocked if SCOTUS refuses to rule on incorporation. Every other damn thing is incorporated. Why wouldn't the 2A be?

Not that I think 2nd shouldn't be incorporated, but parts of V, VII, and VIII have been held to NOT be incorporated.

tiki
07-29-2009, 4:35 PM
Even without the circuit split, I would be jaw-dropped shocked if SCOTUS refuses to rule on incorporation. Every other damn thing is incorporated. Why wouldn't the 2A be?

I wouldn't be surprised. I believe this is the courts (SCOTUS) way of giving us the individual rights interpretation but not changing much nationally.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think the 9th Circuit was right in hearing this en banc because if they are in fact bound by precedent, then they shouldn't have ruled for incorporation in Nordyke.
I fully expect the 9th to reverse the incorporation ruling.
We will have to see if SCOTUS takes it up, but, I think there is going to be a lot of political pressure to leave it be. Especially since we have that b**** from the 2nd Circuit headed to SCOTUS.
I hope I'm wrong, but, I bet this is the way the way they shackle the 2nd Amendment.

CHS
07-29-2009, 4:50 PM
The 3rd is also not incorporated.

With Obama in office and his talk of some civil defense force, that scares the crap out of me.

1BigPea
07-29-2009, 4:51 PM
What I want to know is how big a bribe they took doing this.

Exactly my thoughts too...

Theseus
07-29-2009, 4:54 PM
Ouch.

press1280
07-29-2009, 4:57 PM
OK, so can someone run down the numbers we're looking at w/the 9th circuit judges? It looks as if Kozinski should be on the panel, and he should be a lock for our side. How many other pro-gun judges on this circuit?
I hope the original Nordyke panel wasn't all of them outside of Kozinski.......

Couldn't the 2 sides make a deal like the Nordykes admit the fairgrounds are a sensitive place and the county admits the 2A is incorporated and everyone leaves happy?

KDOFisch
07-29-2009, 5:01 PM
I'm enraged.:mad:

What's the timetable on the docket? At what point is this BS heard...then how f-ing long do we have to wait for a decision? Like 180 days again?

M1A Rifleman
07-29-2009, 5:05 PM
Help me out here guys, its been a long day and I'm a bit slow.

It says the opinion of the 3-judge panel will not be used as precident to other courts. Would that not mean they can't change anything - the ruling is as originally stated?

steadyrock
07-29-2009, 5:07 PM
My question is, what affect does this have on Sykes? Naturally (and, as stated above) it means that Sykes cannot cite Nordyke as precedent until the matter is resolved, but is there some mechanism by which Sykes can be put on hold, pending the en banc panel's decision? Or must Sykes continue on its own merit, without the benefit of incorporation?

command_liner
07-29-2009, 5:08 PM
Volokh page says the week of Sept. 21, 2009

I missed the last party in SFO, but plan to go to this one.
Anybody want a carpool from SoCal? The other possibility
is an organized motorcycle ride. (Please no squids and
please no slugs. It is a fast route through _rural_ California.)

smallshot13
07-29-2009, 5:10 PM
This very outcome was hypothesized in the original thread on Nordyke en banc. 9th reverses on en banc to remove the split, and SCOTUS then has no immediate reason to hear the 7th and 2nd cases, thus choosing to delay the debate until SCOTUS can be stacked against. I like the optimism I see on this board, but we need to dial in some pragmatic skepticism as well. If it can be foreseen by some dolt like me, maybe we should honestly take up the debate and plan for the contingency. I do expect that the masters here actually did consider and have something up their collective sleave, but.............

loather
07-29-2009, 5:15 PM
According to the Ninth Circuit, "En banc oral argument will take place during the week of September 21, 2009."

So, yeah, another two months at least before we get another decision.

To be honest, though, I'm of the opinion that although this does hurt us, the issue of incorporation will indeed be heard by SCOTUS in their next session. I think the amicus curiae filed by Jerry Brown and 2/3 of the remaining states will stand by itself and get the attention we want. That many states, including Kalifornjistan, supporting incorporation has to at least count for something.

Let's just hope that the outcome of, first, the en banc hearing, and then the SCOTUS hearing, go in our favor. Here's keeping my fingers crossed.

yellowfin
07-29-2009, 5:18 PM
Help me out here guys, its been a long day and I'm a bit slow.

It says the opinion of the 3-judge panel will not be used as precident to other courts. Would that not mean they can't change anything - the ruling is as originally stated? No, it nullifies it. It is possibly lost forever if the en banc panel overturns it. :mad:

pnkssbtz
07-29-2009, 5:18 PM
I thought it was past the allotted time for them to go en banc?

bulgron
07-29-2009, 5:18 PM
Not that I think 2nd shouldn't be incorporated, but parts of V, VII, and VIII have been held to NOT be incorporated.

Where did you get that?

According to Wikipedia, the 5th, 7th and 8th certainly have been incorporated. Or at least parts of them have, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)#Which_rights_have_b een_incorporated.3F

Dr Rockso
07-29-2009, 5:19 PM
So, yeah, another two months at least before we get another decision.

To be honest, though, I'm of the opinion that although this does hurt us, the issue of incorporation will indeed be heard by SCOTUS in their next session. I think the amicus curiae filed by Jerry Brown and 2/3 of the remaining states will stand by itself and get the attention we want. That many states, including Kalifornjistan, supporting incorporation has to at least count for something.

Let's just hope that the outcome of, first, the en banc hearing, and then the SCOTUS hearing, go in our favor. Here's keeping my fingers crossed.
I think that's a good analysis of the situation. My main concern is that it kills very-near-term litigation.

GaryV
07-29-2009, 5:36 PM
This very outcome was hypothesized in the original thread on Nordyke en banc. 9th reverses on en banc to remove the split, and SCOTUS then has no immediate reason to hear the 7th and 2nd cases, thus choosing to delay the debate until SCOTUS can be stacked against.

This doesn't really make sense though, because it's the justices on SCOTUS who will decide both questions. If they want a SCOTUS decision against incorporation (which seems highly unlikely given their statements), it would be stupid to wait "until SCOTUS can be stacked against" it, because they could simply take the case now, rule against incorporation, and not hope that at some uncertain time in the future a different court might rule the way they hope. Since it is the same people making the decision whether to grant cert as would be deciding incorporation, putting the decision off makes no sense at all, no matter which way they want the decision to fall.

Ding126
07-29-2009, 5:46 PM
:eek::confused: Waits for Bill & Gene

smallshot13
07-29-2009, 5:48 PM
I was not suggesting that SCOTUS wanted a delay, only the liberal 9th. If they overturn en banc, that is their only hope of delaying until Mr. O can stack the deck. If there is no split, then SCOTUS will need another reason to hear the other cases. I am sure I am wrong, but I thought both cited the split.

truthseeker
07-29-2009, 5:48 PM
:eek::confused: Waits for Bill & Gene

hehe! Me Too!!!!

trashman
07-29-2009, 5:51 PM
Someone stop me if I'm wrong, but I think one of the things to keep in mind is that a vote to rehear the case en banc is not necessarily a vote to overturn the case.

But this isn't the outcome we had hoped for, clearly. Don Kates actually foreshadowed this at the Nordyke dinner when he noted that in his 'many years of litigating he hadn't seen a court that liked guns' or something along those lines.

--Neill

Window_Seat
07-29-2009, 5:52 PM
:eek::confused: Waits for Bill & Gene

Likewise.

Erik.

bulgron
07-29-2009, 5:57 PM
I was not suggesting that SCOTUS wanted a delay, only the liberal 9th. If they overturn en banc, that is their only hope of delaying until Mr. O can stack the deck. If there is no split, then SCOTUS will need another reason to hear the other cases. I am sure I am wrong, but I thought both cited the split.

A circuit split certainly isn't required in order for SCOTUS to hear a case. It is simply a guaranteed way to get them to hear it.

SCOTUS hears cases every year that don't involve circuit splits.

Incorporation of the 2A is interesting law. Historical law. The 2A is one of the last areas of the Bill of Rights where SCOTUS has the opportunity to weigh in on the whole concept of incorporation.

As I've said before, I will be jaw-dropped shocked if SCOTUS doesn't hear McDonald, and I will be jaw-dropped shocked if SCOTUS doesn't find that the 2A is incorporated. My only question is if they're going to try to toss out Slaughter-House and restore Privileges and Immunities. If it did go that latter route, we might even pick up some liberal votes on the courts as P&I is apparently been interesting to the American political leftists.

wildhawker
07-29-2009, 5:58 PM
The opinion could stand pending rehearing, but Gene et al will have to chime in wrt probability.

GaryV
07-29-2009, 6:05 PM
I was not suggesting that SCOTUS wanted a delay, only the liberal 9th. If they overturn en banc, that is their only hope of delaying until Mr. O can stack the deck. If there is no split, then SCOTUS will need another reason to hear the other cases. I am sure I am wrong, but I thought both cited the split.

Ah, sorry. Slightly crossed wires. But I'm not worried about this either. With a majority of state AGs filing an amicus brief in support of incorporation, several of the SCOTUS justices voicing a desire to revisit cases like Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank, circuits claiming that they are bound by precedents that are virtually universally agreed to be outdated, and the clear disconnect of an amendment that makes sense, only if it reserves a right to state citizens, applying under Heller only to citizens of a non-state, there is already ample reason for SCOTUS to take up at least one incorporation case, even without a circuit split.

yellowfin
07-29-2009, 6:07 PM
My guess is Gene is VERY busy right now.

trashman
07-29-2009, 6:13 PM
My guess is Gene is VERY busy right now.

Yep - particularly since Pena v. Cid (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid) hung off of the Incorporation of the 2A against Calif. that was in place until the en banc order today.

--Neill

nick
07-29-2009, 6:16 PM
I may carpool from SoCal, if anyone's interested.

Irrational Voice
07-29-2009, 6:20 PM
The opinion DOES NOT STAND pending rehearing. That is specifically stated in the Kozinski's order: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/29/0715763ebo.pdf

I suspect the 9th is afraid they will not be overturned and don't want to lose their standing as the most overturned circuit in the nation.

That or maybe they just want to revisit "sensitive areas" and are all about helping out gun owners.

bwiese
07-29-2009, 6:29 PM
Gene's in a sales meeting followed up by a dinner/winetasting. People seem to be, yet again, giving him mo' money.

We have enough in the pipeline that we will get to the Supremes faster than Clarence Thomas can eat cheeseburgers.

The Supremes WANT to hear an incorporation case.

Yep - particularly since Pena v. Cid (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid) hung off of the Incorporation of the 2A against Calif. that was in place until the en banc order today.

Actually we're lucky. The AG's opinion submitted in favor of incorporation kinda moots the lack of it - making it somewhat of a nonissue.

RRangel
07-29-2009, 6:38 PM
Here we go again. Someone couldn't leave well enough alone, but at least there's a good chance SCOTUS will incorporate anyhow. We can have an even bigger party on that day.

AEC1
07-29-2009, 6:50 PM
Crap...

vrand
07-29-2009, 6:58 PM
I thought it was past the allotted time for them to go en banc?

Strange indeed. We live in interesting times.

trashman
07-29-2009, 6:58 PM
Actually we're lucky. The AG's opinion submitted in favor of incorporation kinda moots the lack of it - making it somewhat of a nonissue.

I agree the SCOTUS does want an Incorporation case....and so in the long run I feel we're still on track.

At the CA level it worries me that with the Nordyke opinion stayed, and the State having already asked for (and now could reasonably receive, since there is again no RKBA in California) a dismissal in Pena.

The timing is such that the en banc hearing for Nordyke (just the hearing, not the decision) will be the week of 21 Sept; since the opposition filings due by 1 Sept I presume the judgment (or not) in Pena will be sometime thereafter.

--Neill

Shotgun Man
07-29-2009, 6:59 PM
Gene's in a sales meeting followed up by a dinner/winetasting. People seem to be, yet again, giving him mo' money.

We have enough in the pipeline that we will get to the Supremes faster than Clarence Thomas can eat cheeseburgers.

The Supremes WANT to hear an incorporation case.



Actually we're lucky. The AG's opinion submitted in favor of incorporation kinda moots the lack of it - making it somewhat of a nonissue.

I hope we're lucky. We still have to deal with the state of law. The AG's opinion notwithstanding, the judge hearing the Pena v Cid case could dismiss it on 2A. The AG could also say that while they acknowledge that SCOTUS should incorporate, the current state of the law is no incorporation.

Liberty1
07-29-2009, 7:08 PM
Kozinski wants to put his .02 in on the 2nd A. He's a good dude. Well now he's got his chance. Let's hope they incorporate and limit the Nordyke "sensitive places" issue, find a "right" to sell arms, and that gatherings at gun shows are 1st Am. protected activities;). Is it too early Santa to put in my request? :chris:

Theseus
07-29-2009, 7:20 PM
What I want is a ruling that they can't make a sensitive place a sensitive zone that covers and includes property not attached to or owned by he government.

trashman
07-29-2009, 7:27 PM
Kozinski wants to put his .02 in on the 2nd A. He's a good dude.

Well, you're on to something here: David Hardy over at OfArmsAndTheLaw has this to say (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/nordyke_taken_f.php) about the potential Nordyke en banc panel:

The requirement that the en banc panel be composed of active judges takes several of the judges on those cases out of the running. I could those remaining in as split 2-2. (Kozinski, as chief judge, is always in, thank goodness!):

Reinhardt -- anti, wrote Silvera.
Fisher -- anti, joined in Silvera


O'Scanlainn -- pro, wrote Nordyke.
Gould -- pro, joined in Nordyke.

GaryV
07-29-2009, 7:29 PM
Kozinski wants to put his .02 in on the 2nd A. He's a good dude. Well now he's got his chance. Let's hope they incorporate and limit the Nordyke "sensitive places" issue, find a "right" to sell arms, and that gatherings at gun shows are 1st Am. protected activities;). Is it too early Santa to put in my request? :chris:

I think there's a decent chance you might get your wish. We already know that we'll (most likely) get Kozinski. The rest of the panel will be drawn by lots from the remaining justices. The split is almost 50/50 on justices appointed by Nixon/Reagan/Bush vs. Kennedy/Carter/Clinton. And two of the original Nordyke panel, who ruled in our favor on incorporation, were Carter/Clinton appointees.

There are a number of legal justifications for overturning the "sensitive places" portion of the ruling. With a little luck, we could draw a favorable panel and have an even better decision than we had. It's certainly not a slam-dunk, but there's a reasonable chance at least.

RP1911
07-29-2009, 7:37 PM
Judge Rawlinson did not participate or vote for the en banc hearing.

Wonder if Judge Rawlinson was the one who asked for an en banc hearing. do we know anything about this particular judge?

Answered my own question:

From wiki:

Background
Judge Rawlinson received most of her education in North Carolina, where she earned her bachelor’s degree summa cum laude from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. She graduated with distinction from the McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific. She had served as deputy district attorney and chief deputy for over 17 years in the office of the Clark County District Attorney in Las Vegas, NV [1] ,as well as receiving law practice as a clerk at Kiefer Clark & O'Reilly and other legal services throughout the United States prior to her appointments.[2] She served as a United States district judge after being nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate in 1997.


Ninth Circuit nomination and confirmation
Rawlinson was nominated by President Bill Clinton on February 22, 2000, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after being recommended for the post by U.S. Sen. Harry Reid. Judge Rawlinson was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a voice vote on July 21, 2000, making her the final appeals-court nominee to be confirmed during Clinton's presidency. Rawlinson subsequently took the oath of office on July 26, 2000, becoming the first African American woman to sit on the Ninth Circuit.

gregorylucas
07-29-2009, 7:53 PM
Gee, this bad day of mine just got worse.

Greg

yellowfin
07-29-2009, 8:11 PM
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/07/nordyke_taken_f.php
Nordyke taken for en banc review
Posted by David Hardy · 29 July 2009 06:49 PM

In Nordyke v. King, a 9th Circuit three judge panel ruled that the 2A was incorporated and applied to the States (and also that the regulation in question was reasonable). Neither party applied for en banc review, but at least one judge did (as the rules allow). Today the 9th Circuit issued an order stating that it would review the decision en banc (meaning that a majority of active duty judges had so voted), with argument to be set for week of Sept. 21 (quite rapidly for this sort of thing).

En banc review is traditionally review by all the judges of a circuit, not just a 3 judge panel of them. But the 9th is so large in terms of judges (27 active duty and 21 on senior status) that under its rules en banc is by a panel of the chief judge and 10 active duty judges picked at random.

The 9th has had at least two major anti 2A cases (Silveria and Hickman) and one major pro 2A case (the Nordyke panel). The requirement that the en banc panel be composed of active judges takes several of the judges on those cases out of the running. I could those remaining in as split 2-2. (Kozinski, as chief judge, is always in, thank goodness!):

Reinhardt -- anti, wrote Silvera.
Fisher -- anti, joined in Silvera

O'Scanlainn -- pro, wrote Nordyke.
Gould -- pro, joined in Nordyke.

BroncoBob
07-29-2009, 9:15 PM
Man this stuff drives me nuts.

Invisible_Dave
07-29-2009, 9:38 PM
In my 28 short years I have just begun to "enjoy the ride." (Insert shameless plug for calguns foundations and donations here)

HondaMasterTech
07-29-2009, 10:00 PM
Unfortunately, the universe doesn't appear to be a fair thing.

bodger
07-29-2009, 10:51 PM
No, it sure isn't .
It gave us Nancy Pelosi. And Diane Feinstein.

Grakken
07-29-2009, 11:07 PM
Anyone actually surprised? This should have been a given. Remember where you live.

motorhead
07-29-2009, 11:08 PM
so how soon do we find out the makeup of the panel? then we can start handicapping.

Blackhawk556
07-29-2009, 11:43 PM
:grouphug: I hope our leaders here are doing this right now

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 12:08 AM
The 3rd is also not incorporated.

With Obama in office and his talk of some civil defense force, that scares the crap out of me.

My question is how he expects a civil defense force without any guns, or is his plan more along the lines of the Gestapo/SS?

marshaul
07-30-2009, 12:25 AM
I was not suggesting that SCOTUS wanted a delay, only the liberal 9th. If they overturn en banc, that is their only hope of delaying until Mr. O can stack the deck. If there is no split, then SCOTUS will need another reason to hear the other cases. I am sure I am wrong, but I thought both cited the split.

The "other reason" is the fact that Heller has already suggested that the precedent against 2A incorporation was wrongly decided.

Mstrty
07-30-2009, 1:17 AM
This is insaine!

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 2:00 AM
Sorry all - day job took precedence today as happens from time to time.

Let me try to answer some questions.

1. This is certainly annoying in that it does make our lives a bit more complicated over the next 11 months. However, for reasons I'll lay out, it actually isn't all that bad and is certainly temporary.

2. There are three and only three issues in Nordyke:
a. Is the ordinance a violation of the First Amendment?
b. Is the 2A Incorporated via the 14A?
c. Does the ordinance violate the 2A per b.

3. Here is the really important thing to understand. 2.b. is a foregone conclusion. Everyone on both sides of our issue can count to 5. Cert will be granted on the issue in 2.b. Even though the 9th Circuit is moving quickly on Nordyke, they really can't move quickly enough or actually be able to stop cert being granted in McDonald or NRA. The absolute best that someone on the other side could do is make things weirder here until June of 2010.

4. Since everyone can count to 5, the only real issues out there are a. and c. The 9th Circuit is pretty evenly split on the issue of gun rights. The first amendment issues don't stack neatly against the justices 2A predilections either. What very well may be happening here is that people who think this was wrongly decided on the 1A issues or on the "sensitive places" 2A doctrine may be in an odd coaltion with the anti-2A folks who just want to delay.

5. What this really means for Nordyke is that we're going to have a real chance to argue that the ordinance violates a strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny analysis as well as being a violation of the 1A. Incorporation is basically a moot point at this time due to the activity out of Chicago.

6. The impact on Pena is oddly limited. The State of California has opined that the 2A should be incorporated in an Amicus in the Chicago cases. As such, they're all but foreclosed in arguing that Pena should lose on "not incorporated" plus they've already filed their motion to dismiss. There certainly is now a risk that we lose in the district on incorporation, but that is a very short term "loss." Either way, we'll simply now have to make the native incorporation argument where we otherwise would have simply cited Nordyke.

7. Sykes is similar in that the major change is just making the incorporation argument instead of citing Nordyke.

The only real risk we all run is being a bit delayed depending on the relatively complex matrix of decisions and timing interplay between all the various cases and the Supreme Court calendar. The opportunity is that if there is any sort of recalcitrance on the part of the 9th circuit to take the 2A seriously (and I don't think there is), that should actually have the effect of strengthening a decision we'll otherwise be getting from the Supreme Court on incorporation.

The best thing is we have an opportunity to be heard on the real merits of Nordyke were we can address the failings of the panels' misinterpretation of the "sensitive places" doctrine.

-Gene

artherd
07-30-2009, 2:27 AM
:grouphug: I hope our leaders here are doing this right now

This isn't a bad thing, we knew en banc was a possibility and are well prepared for it.

Oddly we're more protected now than we would have been otherwise thanks to Brown's Pro Incorporation brief. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=200613)

Summary: Nothing *really* changes, it's just going to take a little longer to get what we all want.

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 2:36 AM
Oddly we're more protected now than we would have been otherwise thanks to Brown's Pro Incorporation brief.


But some guys on Calguns tried to convine me that Mr. Brown's actions were actually bad for gunowners... :rolleyes:

-Gene

artherd
07-30-2009, 2:45 AM
But some guys on Calguns tried to convine me that Mr. Brown's actions were actually bad for gunowners... :rolleyes:

-Gene

And by "Bad" you mean "the best thing to happen to gun-owners by a Governor in recent memory" :)

marshaul
07-30-2009, 3:14 AM
But some guys on Calguns tried to convine me that Mr. Brown's actions were actually bad for gunowners... :rolleyes:

-Gene

lol! Good call. +1

yellowfin
07-30-2009, 3:57 AM
So which do you think we'll see first, Gene, Sykes or Nordyke decision?

Mulay El Raisuli
07-30-2009, 8:28 AM
My question is how he expects a civil defense force without any guns, or is his plan more along the lines of the Gestapo/SS?



The SA/SS/SD/GESTAPO guys didn't bring their guns from home to do their thing.

The Raisuli

FS00008
07-30-2009, 8:45 AM
So what happens if after all that they decide that Nordyke's original ruling stands?

nobody_special
07-30-2009, 9:18 AM
if there is any sort of recalcitrance on the part of the 9th circuit to take the 2A seriously (and I don't think there is)
Funny, because the panel decision essentially said that it only applies in the home...

The best thing is we have an opportunity to be heard on the real merits of Nordyke were we can address the failings of the panels' misinterpretation of the "sensitive places" doctrine.
Let's hope for the best here.

KylaGWolf
07-30-2009, 9:26 AM
I had a feeling this would happen. As to what the likely outcome is depending on which three judges wind up on the panel. Could go our way again or could go the other. I don't want to think what happens if it goes the other way though. :(

KylaGWolf
07-30-2009, 9:29 AM
Even without the circuit split, I would be jaw-dropped shocked if SCOTUS refuses to rule on incorporation. Every other damn thing is incorporated. Why wouldn't the 2A be?

Because California is an odd state at best. The state has never gone with the norms of any other state.

KylaGWolf
07-30-2009, 9:31 AM
Help me out here guys, its been a long day and I'm a bit slow.

It says the opinion of the 3-judge panel will not be used as precident to other courts. Would that not mean they can't change anything - the ruling is as originally stated?

No what it means that until this panel decides if the original ruling stands or not no other case may use Nordyke as precedent.

Hopi
07-30-2009, 9:31 AM
Because California is an odd state at best. The state has never gone with the norms of any other state.

The 2nd is not incorporated in any state at this time.

bulgron
07-30-2009, 9:32 AM
Because California is an odd state at best. The state has never gone with the norms of any other state.

Where incorporation is concerned, the main event is SCOTUS, not any of the various courts in and around California.

California is going to be dragged kicking and screaming back into the United States whether they like it or not.

KylaGWolf
07-30-2009, 9:41 AM
My question is how he expects a civil defense force without any guns, or is his plan more along the lines of the Gestapo/SS?

PNS three guesses and the first two don't count.

yellowfin
07-30-2009, 9:45 AM
The 2nd is not incorporated in any state at this time.The vast majority of states have it in their state constitutions so it is in force without federal incorporation.

KylaGWolf
07-30-2009, 9:46 AM
Where incorporation is concerned, the main event is SCOTUS, not any of the various courts in and around California.

California is going to be dragged kicking and screaming back into the United States whether they like it or not.

Yeah well that should have happened LONG LONG time ago. I used to love this state now I just shake my head and wonder what in the hell happened.

7x57
07-30-2009, 9:47 AM
The vast majority of states have it in their state constitutions so it is in force without federal incorporation.

But it's been interpreted away in many of them, I believe, same as the 2A has been since Slaughterhouse and Cruickshank.

7x57

yellowfin
07-30-2009, 9:52 AM
But it's been interpreted away in many of them, I believe, same as the 2A has been since Slaughterhouse and Cruickshank.

7x57Which is why even in the pro gun states and areas we need to always be on the offense until we completely eradicate the anti gun legal movement and make it our all important goal to do so.

bulgron
07-30-2009, 10:04 AM
Which is why even in the pro gun states and areas we need to always be on the offense until we completely eradicate the anti gun legal movement and make it our all important goal to do so.

Well that's never going to happen.

The people funding the anti gun movement are the wealthy and the powerful who want to retain the right of arms for themselves. They are, in effect, acting on the exact same impulse as the aristocracy has in other times and places throughout history. It boils down to a psychological need that the people at the top of the pyramid have to solidify their position there.

A well-armed populace is a direct threat to their power and their privilege.

So they're never going to stop trying to disarm us. People who don't have the psychological traits necessary to control other people don't climb to the top of the heap. So almost by definition, the people at the top of the heap WILL try to disarm us. That's just the sort of animal that they are.

The best we can do is put some kind of a political or economic smack-down on them once every generation or every other generation or so. Think of it as a kind of weed-whacking.

It seems to me that we're long overdue for a little yard work in the public commons....

pullnshoot25
07-30-2009, 10:19 AM
PNS three guesses and the first two don't count.

I was thinking civil more along the lines of "bring your own gun" so to speak.

bomb_on_bus
07-30-2009, 10:49 AM
This is just another attempt of California trying to set precedent and breaking away from the union. The CA politicians and liberals feel that we as Californias can't be in charge of our own lives and this is just another right they are taking away.

Look at the state trying to ban SMOKING in CA period. I don't smoke and have nothing against smokers but this bill is WRONG! I just about died when I saw the commercials for this campaign at the movies a month ago. The LIBERALS have rallied behind banning smoking, guns, any anything else they "deem" evil. They kicked god out of schools years ago and then they turned around and wanted the government to step in and force religious matters in play when prop 8 was on the ballots. They didn't get want they wanted so they are going to make the rest of us pay for it.

Look at the shifts in contributions since prop 8 vote. The contributions went towards stripping everyone of any right the politicians were trying to go after. The fight doesn't JUST involve guns, but several of our freedoms. If either one of these are banned then all is lost for this state. Going at the matter every few years isn't going to work. For every pearson lobbying for guns there are just as many against it. They never sleep and never should we in this fight and any other fight in which the liberals are wanting to take rights away.

They think in their minds that we can't think or know what is best for each and one of us. And they firmly believe that the government will cater to them when all is said and done. The liberals are like hourses with blinders on all they can see is what is directly in front of them and nothing of the dangers all around, namely the alterior motives of a too large a government.

yellowfin
07-30-2009, 10:58 AM
Weed whacking them is a good way to put it. What I'm saying is we need to spray RoundUp then put rock salt on the ground to keep them from growing again. This can be done.

bulgron
07-30-2009, 11:12 AM
Weed whacking them is a good way to put it. What I'm saying is we need to spray RoundUp then put rock salt on the ground to keep them from growing again. This can be done.

Sorry, but I disagree.

The weeds will always come back again, no matter how much salt you put on the ground. The only thing you can do is delay the re-growth.

Human beings have always tended to organize ourselves in hierarchical models (there are a few notable exceptions in hunter-gatherer societies, but for our purposes they don't really count). Once you have a hierarchy, and then add some wealth into the mix, the people at the very top of the pyramid will always do everything in their power to solidify their position.

It's just part of the human condition.

As far as I know, no one has ever invented a political and economic model by which humans can organize themselves in a complex society WITHOUT relying on a pyramid. I've never even read of one in the most "out there" science fiction, and I've read some pretty wacky stuff. There's always a pyramid and there's always a leader. Human's vision of utopia always include this model, but it also always includes a vision of a leader who isn't out to screw the bottom parts of the pyramid. That last bit is the actual fantasy.

The fight to retain our gun rights and, by extension, our freedoms is therefore eternal because this fight is really about internal tensions in the pyramid, which we can't escape.

Sucks, but there you have it.

woodsman
07-30-2009, 11:32 AM
This is just another attempt of California trying to set precedent and breaking away from the union. The CA politicians and liberals feel that we as Californias can't be in charge of our own lives and this is just another right they are taking away.

Look at the state trying to ban SMOKING in CA period. I don't smoke and have nothing against smokers but this bill is WRONG! I just about died when I saw the commercials for this campaign at the movies a month ago. The LIBERALS have rallied behind banning smoking, guns, any anything else they "deem" evil. They kicked god out of schools years ago and then they turned around and wanted the government to step in and force religious matters in play when prop 8 was on the ballots. They didn't get want they wanted so they are going to make the rest of us pay for it.

Look at the shifts in contributions since prop 8 vote. The contributions went towards stripping everyone of any right the politicians were trying to go after. The fight doesn't JUST involve guns, but several of our freedoms. If either one of these are banned then all is lost for this state. Going at the matter every few years isn't going to work. For every pearson lobbying for guns there are just as many against it. They never sleep and never should we in this fight and any other fight in which the liberals are wanting to take rights away.

They think in their minds that we can't think or know what is best for each and one of us. And they firmly believe that the government will cater to them when all is said and done. The liberals are like hourses with blinders on all they can see is what is directly in front of them and nothing of the dangers all around, namely the alterior motives of a too large a government.

Ban smoking and legalize pot!?!? Only in California.

bomb_on_bus
07-30-2009, 12:19 PM
Ban smoking and legalize pot!?!? Only in California.

LOL glad someone else made that connection. Makes ya wonder how you "would" use pot if smoking was illegal in CA.:)

popeye4
07-30-2009, 12:21 PM
LOL glad someone else made that connection. Makes ya wonder how you "would" use pot if smoking was illegal in CA.:)

Brownies. Name them after our next governor..... ;)

Digital_Boy
07-30-2009, 12:28 PM
LOL glad someone else made that connection. Makes ya wonder how you "would" use pot if smoking was illegal in CA.:)

Vaporizers like the Volcano, too.

marshaul
07-30-2009, 12:31 PM
Sorry, but I disagree.

The weeds will always come back again, no matter how much salt you put on the ground. The only thing you can do is delay the re-growth.

Human beings have always tended to organize ourselves in hierarchical models (there are a few notable exceptions in hunter-gatherer societies, but for our purposes they don't really count). Once you have a hierarchy, and then add some wealth into the mix, the people at the very top of the pyramid will always do everything in their power to solidify their position.

There is strong evidence that prior to the patriarchal/hierarchal model becoming dominant, a less-hierarchical, matriarchal model dominated human society for much of prehistory.

We're talking long past hunter-gathering.

I'm sorry, but hierarchy is not a part of my human condition. Respect for it is not something I was born with any inherent amount of.

It is purely a societal construct, although admittedly no longer a modern one.

The hope for humanity, IMO, lies in rejecting the notion that we are beholden to our most reprehensible traits. Humans are master of our environment. We are thus potential masters of our own nature.

yellowfin
07-30-2009, 12:53 PM
The three flaws in applying the pyramid structure which was true in the days of feudalism are that here in the free market era (while we still have it) are that the top of the pyramid is considerably wider and is or at least was widening all the time, that it's not static and hereditary as a matter of necessity, and that it's not a zero sum game where being at the top depends on screwing those at the bottom.

Unfortunately it is possible for the economic and political systems to be intwined to a harmful extent, and it is only when they are to extreme degrees that you run into the medieval model of oppress to survive. There is no need to fear a 1917 Russia style revolt in a free and prosperous society where improving one's circumstances is a matter of taking a few classes and/or having a few beers with the right people and handing out some resumes.

It's only when you have people mucking up the system--such as using the government as a mechanism of legalized organized crime-- where there is any incentive to beat back the masses. This of course -IS- happening now but is not a matter of necessity by design, but misuse. It is of course what our founders warned us against and quite explicitly told us would happen.

bulgron
07-30-2009, 12:55 PM
I'm sorry, but hierarchy is not a part of my human condition.

I'll bet that it is.

Do you have a boss? Do you do what he tells you to do?

Were you ever in the military? Did you do what your commanding officers told you what to do?

When you were in school, did you do what your teachers told you to do?

Almost certainly you've been submitting to authority your entire life. And if you think about it, the only claim to authority that those people have had over you is their position in the pyramid which happens to be higher than your own.

bulgron
07-30-2009, 1:01 PM
The three flaws in applying the pyramid structure which was true in the days of feudalism are that here in the free market era (while we still have it) are that the top of the pyramid is considerably wider and is or at least was widening all the time,

The flaw is believing that the pyramid can widen forever, without end. But this is true only for a society that has a near-limitless amount of resources to expand into.

When this nation was founded, we had a frontier and so we could continually expand the pyramid, because our very economic foundation was continually expanding. But now we have nearly 7 billion people on this planet, resources are getting tight, and the economic pyramid is becoming constrained.

A constrained pyramid is where things go to hell in a handbasket.

The fix for this is to find a new frontier, one where we can have limitless room for expansion (space). But the population is generally too short-sighted to realize that we really really need to do this, not just to avoid the loss of our most cherished freedoms, but also to avoid a catastrophic die-off entirely.

Aegis
07-30-2009, 1:04 PM
If the panel reaffirms incorporation that is good. If not, it appears that we will have to wait for a SCOTUS decision on incorporation sometime around June 2010. Then, after we get incorporation from SCOUTS, cases will have to be brought against the state for either LOC or shall issue CCW and that may take another year or so. Best case, it appears that California will not see LOC or shall issue CCW until January 2012 or possibly beyond. Is this timeline correct?

bulgron
07-30-2009, 1:15 PM
If the panel reaffirms incorporation that is good. If not, it appears that we will have to wait for a SCOTUS decision on incorporation sometime around June 2010. Then, after we get incorporation from SCOUTS, cases will have to be brought against the state for either LOC or shall issue CCW and that may take another year or so. Best case, it appears that California will not see LOC or shall issue CCW until January 2012 or possibly beyond. Is this timeline correct?

Gene doesn't seem to think that the Nordyke en banc is going to do very much to slow down Sykes. See this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2846326&postcount=72) post from earlier in this thread.

That said, sometime in early 2011 is the earliest that I can imagine getting a 9th-circuit-wide binding precedent that carry permits must be shall-issue. However, given the way court cases can get derailed, get sent back to lower courts for more work, stall as some part of the legal mechanism needs time to do it's thing, etc, this thing could easily delay until 2015 or even later.

Or it could never happen, if the courts decide to give us the shaft and treat the 2A differently than they treat the 1A.

E Pluribus Unum
07-30-2009, 1:35 PM
I don't care if its just a "short delay" or not... 11 months is 11 months... I'm still sad.

GaryV
07-30-2009, 2:23 PM
The flaw is believing that the pyramid can widen forever, without end. But this is true only for a society that has a near-limitless amount of resources to expand into.

When this nation was founded, we had a frontier and so we could continually expand the pyramid, because our very economic foundation was continually expanding. But now we have nearly 7 billion people on this planet, resources are getting tight, and the economic pyramid is becoming constrained.

A constrained pyramid is where things go to hell in a handbasket.

The fix for this is to find a new frontier, one where we can have limitless room for expansion (space). But the population is generally too short-sighted to realize that we really really need to do this, not just to avoid the loss of our most cherished freedoms, but also to avoid a catastrophic die-off entirely.

I agree with all of this, except the idea that space is the answer. The distances and difficulties of space make it a completely impractical source of resources (especially living space). In order to make space a viable option, we would have to develop such efficient technologies that the technologies themselves would solve most, if not all, of the resource problems themselves, without even needing to turn to space. Since we're nowhere near that level of technological development (and won't be unless we can ever develop an energy technology at least as effective as nuclear fusion), we're virtually guaranteed a major population crash.

domokun
07-30-2009, 2:35 PM
Oh :censored:...

tiki
07-30-2009, 2:38 PM
This is insaine!

And its spelled wrong too!

elSquid
07-30-2009, 2:39 PM
I agree with all of this, except the idea that space is the answer. The distances and difficulties of space make it a completely impractical source of resources (especially living space). In order to make space a viable option, we would have to develop such efficient technologies that the technologies themselves would solve most, if not all, of the resource problems themselves, without even needing to turn to space. Since we're nowhere near that level of technological development (and won't be unless we can ever develop an energy technology at least as effective as nuclear fusion), we're virtually guaranteed a major population crash.

There's always hope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

And if that's not enough, the gov't could pass a law forcing men to wear tight jeans 2 weeks a month. Or pass out free vasectomies. Or encourage gay marriage. Lots of lo-tech options! :thumbsup:

-- Michael

bulgron
07-30-2009, 2:41 PM
I agree with all of this, except the idea that space is the answer. The distances and difficulties of space make it a completely impractical source of resources (especially living space). In order to make space a viable option, we would have to develop such efficient technologies that the technologies themselves would solve most, if not all, of the resource problems themselves, without even needing to turn to space. Since we're nowhere near that level of technological development (and won't be unless we can ever develop an energy technology at least as effective as nuclear fusion), we're virtually guaranteed a major population crash.

I'm something like 99% certain that the human race is in for a population crash, and for the reasons that you state.

However, I don't think that space is outside of our grasp. It looks hard and expensive, and so everyone thinks it can't be done. But the research can be performed and the technologies invented if we as a species just got serious about it. Color me an optimist, but I honestly believe we could do it if we really really wanted to do it.

Sadly, I'm pretty sure that we absolutely have to get into space in order to get the energy technologies that we need to keep things going here on earth. You'd think we'd be all over the moon by now, just because of HE3, but no, there's nothing but delays and endless planning for getting back to our nearest neighbor.

It's sad. We can't go there because we don't believe we can get there. But we won't believe we can get there until we've actually gone there and done that.

GaryV
07-30-2009, 2:49 PM
There's always hope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

And if that's not enough, the gov't could pass a law forcing men to wear tight jeans 2 weeks a month. Or pass out free vasectomies. Or encourage gay marriage. Lots of lo-tech options! :thumbsup:

-- Michael

Yep, that is the only real viable answer (barring mass death of some type), but it brings up its own problems - primarily, who makes the decision, and how is it (en)forced on those who don't want to participate? It's even more problematic when you take into account the dynamics of population pyramids and how drastic these measures would have to be, even if we started them right now, if we want to hold the world population below 20 billion or so.

GaryV
07-30-2009, 2:59 PM
However, I don't think that space is outside of our grasp. It looks hard and expensive, and so everyone thinks it can't be done. But the research can be performed and the technologies invented if we as a species just got serious about it. Color me an optimist, but I honestly believe we could do it if we really really wanted to do it.

Yep, an optimist. When you understand just how much it costs in resources just to reach something as close as the moon, let alone anything beyond, and then bring stuff back, the costs in resources far outstrip what we could collect this way. And energy, especially, is the big problem. Once you consider just how far we are from solving these problems, it's extremely hard to be optimistic about our prospects of doing it in time to prevent a more drastic "solution".

But even if we did, it would still be unnecessarily wasteful to turn to space. If we solve our technology problems to the point that mining space would be cost-effective, those same technologies would make space mining unnecessary, because they could be used here on Earth and still be more cost-effective than exploitation of other planets. Space won't be a practical source of resources until we pass that technological boundary and exploit it here on Earth to the point where even the advanced technology is no longer efficient enough to keep Earth's own systems working without external inputs.

elSquid
07-30-2009, 3:10 PM
Yep, that is the only real viable answer (barring mass death of some type), but it brings up its own problems - primarily, who makes the decision, and how is it (en)forced on those who don't want to participate? It's even more problematic when you take into account the dynamics of population pyramids and how drastic these measures would have to be, even if we started them right now, if we want to hold the world population below 20 billion or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e#The_CIA_TFR_Ranking

I'm too lazy to do the math, but according to the CIA the current world fertility rate is 2.61 ( down from 2.80 in 2000 ) and if the replacement rate is around 2.3, and the current world population is 6.7 Billion, then 20 Billion wouldn't seem to be very likely just on those numbers in the short term ( say 100-200 years? ).

If the world fertility rate continues trending down ( as it appears to be ) then it won't be an issue at all.

Anyways, this subthread should probably be broken off and sent to OT. :)

-- Michael

GaryV
07-30-2009, 3:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e#The_CIA_TFR_Ranking

I'm too lazy to do the math, but according to the CIA the current world fertility rate is 2.61 ( down from 2.80 in 2000 ) and if the replacement rate is around 2.3, and the current world population is 6.7 Billion, then 20 Billion wouldn't seem to be very likely just on those numbers in the short term ( say 100-200 years? ).

If the world fertility rate continues trending down ( as it appears to be ) then it won't be an issue at all.

Anyways, this subthread should probably be broken off and sent to OT. :)

-- Michael

Except that you've missed at least three important factors. The first is that population growth is currently held low because there already is a large die-off in some of the most reproductive areas because of diseases, especially AIDS. But that likely won't continue indefinitely. Second, the cultures in which higher fertility rates occur will, obviously, become larger and larger portions of the world population as the current trends progress, eventually reversing these trends. Third, you didn't take into account population momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum), which is one of the population pyramid dynamics I mentioned. Because the populations with the highest fertility also have age structures shifted most to the youngest ages, their growth rates will continue to be very high (and will probably grow dramatically) as things progress. While it sounds counter-intuitive, this can actually cause populations to continue to grow, sometimes dramatically, even if they have sub-replacement fertility rates. In short, it's not a simple matter of taking the average fertility rate. Fertility rate is not the same as growth rate, and they can be very different. The vast differences in rate, population age structure, etc. cause it to be a much less optimistic picture.

Yeah, we've gotten pretty far off track. At least there are 2 or 3 other active Nordyke threads :)

Mulay El Raisuli
07-30-2009, 3:57 PM
Referencing back to my memories of the late 70's:

I prefered to boil the MJ in a pot of water with a pound of butter. The active ingredient (THC) is oil based and boiled out of the plant material and combined with the melted butter. I Poured off the liquid into a bowl and put it into the fridge. The butter/thc mixture solidified. You could then pour off the water and cook whatever you wanted to with the butter. Tollhouse cookies were particularly good.

Or you could just use the butter like butter. Spread it on a bagel, or mix it with other herbs and make a nice sandwich with herb butter. The good thing was, you could carry your lunch with you wherever you wanted to go, and nobody gave it a second thought.

You could even do the same process with shortening. After it hardened you could mix confectioners sugar with the shortening and use it as a cookie filling like Oreos, but with Nilla Wafers or any other kind of cookie.



GEE! When I indulged back in the 70s, I thought a bong was high tech!

I haven't so indulged in decades. Still, I'm going to save this 'recipe' because, well, one never knows.

One question though: When I last bought, 'decent' stuff was about $20/oz. Is it close to that anymore?

The Raisuli

Decoligny
07-30-2009, 4:14 PM
GEE! When I indulged back in the 70s, I thought a bong was high tech!

I haven't so indulged in decades. Still, I'm going to save this 'recipe' because, well, one never knows.

One question though: When I last bought, 'decent' stuff was about $20/oz. Is it close to that anymore?

The Raisuli

I heard someone on the news referring to "dime bags" and then they showed several bags that contained one gram each.

$10 = dime bag, 28 grams = 1 oz. or 28 dime bags per ounce, $280.00 = 1 oz.

But I am sure that the price range will vary drastically (higher), and what we consider "decent stuff" would be on the low end of what is available today. I have heard that the "good stuff" is referred to as "one-toke smoke" because you can't function anymore after you take that one toke.

bodger
07-30-2009, 4:30 PM
I heard someone on the news referring to "dime bags" and then they showed several bags that contained one gram each.

$10 = dime bag, 28 grams = 1 oz. or 28 dime bags per ounce, $280.00 = 1 oz.

But I am sure that the price range will vary drastically (higher), and what we consider "decent stuff" would be on the low end of what is available today. I have heard that the "good stuff" is referred to as "one-toke smoke" because you can't function anymore after you take that one toke.

I found out the hard way after years of abstaining from smoking pot just how "good" the stuff is nowadays.

I took a lot more than one one toke and was reduced to a slobbering mass.

I'll pass on reviving what once was a fun habit to indulge.

GaryV
07-30-2009, 4:32 PM
Back to Nordyke, does anyone know of a way to find out who will sit en banc? According to the court rules, that would have been decided today, but when looking at the status of en banc cases on the 9th Circuit's page, it looks like it takes them 2 months to post the choices (the most recent case where it lists the en banc court was taken up at the end of May).

bomb_on_bus
07-30-2009, 5:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e#The_CIA_TFR_Ranking

I'm too lazy to do the math, but according to the CIA the current world fertility rate is 2.61 ( down from 2.80 in 2000 ) and if the replacement rate is around 2.3, and the current world population is 6.7 Billion, then 20 Billion wouldn't seem to be very likely just on those numbers in the short term ( say 100-200 years? ).

If the world fertility rate continues trending down ( as it appears to be ) then it won't be an issue at all.

Anyways, this subthread should probably be broken off and sent to OT. :)

-- Michael

Like the Avatar!

Hope those figures are correct. I am so damn tired of paying for all those illegitimate kids running around.

Maybe things will turn into something like Children of Men and anarchy and chaos would be the norm. Then the government might just sit back and enjoy the maelstrom created from decades of political muckery.

GaryV
07-30-2009, 6:02 PM
Hope those figures are correct. I am so damn tired of paying for all those illegitimate kids running around.

They're not. Fertility rate is only one part of the equation. Even a population with a fertility rate of 1 (less than half replacement) can experience significant growth if the age structure is right. It takes many generations for a low fertility rate to overcome population momentum. Until then, lots more kids, illegitimate and otherwise.

Kid Stanislaus
07-30-2009, 6:11 PM
I'm enraged.:mad:

What's the timetable on the docket? At what point is this BS heard...then how f-ing long do we have to wait for a decision? Like 180 days again?

The wheels of justice turn SLOOOOOOOOWLY!

hoffmang
07-30-2009, 8:41 PM
Back to Nordyke, does anyone know of a way to find out who will sit en banc? According to the court rules, that would have been decided today, but when looking at the status of en banc cases on the 9th Circuit's page, it looks like it takes them 2 months to post the choices (the most recent case where it lists the en banc court was taken up at the end of May).

It appears to take a few days before the panel is posted. When it is, you can see it here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/view.php?pk_id=0000000037

-Gene

elSquid
07-31-2009, 11:00 AM
Yeah, we've gotten pretty far off track. At least there are 2 or 3 other active Nordyke threads :)

:D

If you want to continue, we should probably slide over to OT.

-- Michael

aileron
07-31-2009, 12:21 PM
It appears to take a few days before the panel is posted. When it is, you can see it here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/view.php?pk_id=0000000037

-Gene

Which is now showing at the top.

yellowfin
07-31-2009, 1:06 PM
Is it really random selection, or will they pick their worst?

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 1:12 PM
Is it really random selection, or will they pick their worst?

Random with two exceptions.

1. Kozinski is on the panel.
2. If a judge hasn't been picked in the last 2 I believe he/she is an automatic invite.

-Gene

7x57
07-31-2009, 1:19 PM
Random with two exceptions.

1. Kozinski is on the panel.
2. If a judge hasn't been picked in the last 2 I believe he/she is an automatic invite.


#2 means that means when they have the panels for the cases before it we could start handicapping the panel before it's picked.

7x57

Irrational Voice
07-31-2009, 1:25 PM
2. If a judge hasn't been picked in the last 2 I believe he/she is an automatic invite.


Invite? Does that imply they are not required to hear the case if they don't choose to or is it simply a turn of phrase?

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 2:11 PM
Invite? Does that imply they are not required to hear the case if they don't choose to or is it simply a turn of phrase?

Turn of phrase. Digging more, we're not finding actual support for the "hasn't recently been on a panel" rule and it may be apocryphal. Note that no judge with Senior status is elligible for the random draw except those who were on the panel. This means that Alarcón is part of the pool.

-Gene

Racefiend
07-31-2009, 3:04 PM
Sorry all - day job took precedence today as happens from time to time.
7. Sykes is similar in that the major change is just making the incorporation argument instead of citing Nordyke.
-Gene

But wouldn't citing precedent hold a lot more weight in an argument than making another argument? Seems like a big difference.

Maestro Pistolero
07-31-2009, 3:07 PM
I'll bet this hearing is going to be contentious. I still think it is quite possible to emerge from this with incorporation. The Heller court practically begged for this by declaring modern incorporation analysis to be necessary going forward. Some judges may feel that the ruling was light on this analysis.

That may be all this is . . . they may just want their ducks in a neat little row when the national spotlight is shined on them in the next term. i don't blame then for wanting an en banc review, this is a huge, important ruling that warrants their most careful attention. If it were just judicial sabotage as some have suggested, we are in deeper doo-doo than we think, and I'm not just talking about 2A rights.

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 3:44 PM
But wouldn't citing precedent hold a lot more weight in an argument than making another argument? Seems like a big difference.

Quite. This is not a happy thing unless and until we hear from the en banc court.

-Gene

artherd
07-31-2009, 10:07 PM
But wouldn't citing precedent hold a lot more weight in an argument than making another argument? Seems like a big difference.

Yes, a cite is far more persuasive, in that is persuasive by definition rather than argument. We'll have to win a mini-Nordyke in Sykes unless En Banc returns in our favor in time.

It's less scary, because we're likely to win either way. It's simply better to have already won.

bulgron
07-31-2009, 10:28 PM
Yes, a cite is far more persuasive, in that is persuasive by definition rather than argument. We'll have to win a mini-Nordyke in Sykes unless En Banc returns in our favor in time.

It's less scary, because we're likely to win either way. It's simply better to have already won.

But isn't it possible for the district judge to say "this isn't incorporated, so your arguments are moot, now go away"?

7x57
07-31-2009, 10:33 PM
Quite. This is not a happy thing unless and until we hear from the en banc court.


I just had the unhappy thought that perhaps our aggressive charge out of the starting gate might have given enough judges pause to get the votes for en banc review. Did we move too fast?

7x57

7x57
07-31-2009, 10:34 PM
But isn't it possible for the district judge to say "this isn't incorporated, so your arguments are moot, now go away"?

That might be an APPEALing possibility. :)

7x57

ke6guj
07-31-2009, 10:37 PM
But isn't it possible for the district judge to say "this isn't incorporated, so your arguments are moot, now go away"?They can, but then you appeal.

Irrational Voice
07-31-2009, 11:06 PM
Even if a district court judge feels 2A should be incorporated is it within his/her power to do so, or is that a right reserved for appellate courts and the supreme court?

hoffmang
07-31-2009, 11:48 PM
Even if a district court judge feels 2A should be incorporated is it within his/her power to do so, or is that a right reserved for appellate courts and the supreme court?

A district court Judge will be facing incorporation on first impression so he can incorporate. Knowing that there is very senior fireworks may make him pause but there are no givens.

As to too much too soon, we have much more serious issues. Even if the concern is correct it is undermined completely by two things. Making it a neutral issue is the fact that it is almost a given that cert will be granted in the Chicago cases and that we have at least 5 votes for incorporation. Far more compelling though is that we already have a bunch of pro-se and near pro-se sub optimal cases out there. If we'd waited there would have been quite a few more.

One could argue that, if we did compel en banc (and I don't think we did), we did ourselves a favor to keep the battlefield free of poorly thought out cases until things get settled at SCOTUS.

-Gene

7x57
08-01-2009, 12:21 AM
....we already have a bunch of pro-se and near pro-se sub optimal cases out there. If we'd waited there would have been quite a few more.


Well, yes, I didn't mean "too soon" in the sense that there was a better option. It was pretty clear to me that you could not wait to file a CCW case, but it would be unfortunate if it forced us into a sub-optimal play ourselves.


One could argue that, if we did compel en banc (and I don't think we did), we did ourselves a favor to keep the battlefield free of poorly thought out cases until things get settled at SCOTUS.


That's an interesting angle.

7x57

Meplat
08-01-2009, 12:56 AM
The 3rd is also not incorporated.

With Obama in office and his talk of some civil defense force, that scares the crap out of me.

Can you say: "Target Rich Enviroment"?

Gray Peterson
08-01-2009, 12:56 AM
Well, yes, I didn't mean "too soon" in the sense that there was a better option. It was pretty clear to me that you could not wait to file a CCW case, but it would be unfortunate if it forced us into a sub-optimal play ourselves.


If there's anyone I can see who can take a **** sandwich and turn it into a golden nugget, it's Alan Gura especially. Same goes with Kilmer too.

navyinrwanda
08-01-2009, 1:08 AM
OK, I'll opine on what the 9th will do with Nordyke en banc.

Nothing. They'll postpone any decision until SCOTUS rules on one of the incorporation cases such as McDonald/NRA.

If SCOTUS rules 2A is incorporated, then the 9th would have the opportunity to revisit what some judges might have seen as an overly hasty decision by the three-judge panel on "sensitive places".

If the incorporation cases fail, then Nordyke is moot.

hoffmang
08-01-2009, 1:44 AM
If the incorporation cases fail, then Nordyke is moot.

The one potential wrinkle in all of this is that Nordyke is likely a winner on the 1A - though it is a close call.

-Gene

ilbob
08-01-2009, 7:49 AM
Its entirely possible, maybe likely, that the word came down that anyone that wants any chance at all of getting a higher appointment from the messiah had better do something about this decision. Liberal judges who were appointed primarily because they could care less what the constitution actually says are easily swayed by such pressure.

Meplat
08-01-2009, 10:52 AM
I agree with all of this, except the idea that space is the answer. The distances and difficulties of space make it a completely impractical source of resources (especially living space). In order to make space a viable option, we would have to develop such efficient technologies that the technologies themselves would solve most, if not all, of the resource problems themselves, without even needing to turn to space. Since we're nowhere near that level of technological development (and won't be unless we can ever develop an energy technology at least as effective as nuclear fusion), we're virtually guaranteed a major population crash.



Regardless of the problems involved, we really need to colonize other planets and star systems or we will not just have periodic catastrophic population collapse, we will become extinct.

Ground Loop
08-01-2009, 11:59 AM
No offense intended, but this thread is of great interest to those of us following the en banc developments.

Could I ask the population scientists to start a new thread in General about overcrowding, replacement rate, extra-terrestrial colonization, and space travel?

GaryV
08-01-2009, 12:05 PM
No offense intended, but this thread is of great interest to those of us following the en banc developments.

Could I ask the population scientists to start a new thread in General about overcrowding, replacement rate, extra-terrestrial colonization, and space travel?

I'm in the process of building a new thread on the OT forum.

And here it is (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=208477).

Ground Loop
08-01-2009, 2:10 PM
Much obliged!

navyinrwanda
08-01-2009, 2:26 PM
The one potential wrinkle in all of this is that Nordyke is likely a winner on the 1A - though it is a close call.

-Gene
Forgot about that. This case has had a very complex history, so making generalizations is tricky.

Irrational Voice
08-01-2009, 3:09 PM
The one potential wrinkle in all of this is that Nordyke is likely a winner on the 1A - though it is a close call.

-Gene

interesting opportunity to moot incorporation and be essentially non-appealable.