PDA

View Full Version : Sykes: MSJ suspended


hoffmang
09-01-2009, 10:53 AM
It appears his honor changed his mind from his oral ruling. Today in his written order (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/038-Order-Continuance.pdf) he has continued our MSJ until Nordyke is resolved.

-Gene

bsim
09-01-2009, 11:01 AM
So basically he wants to have someone tell him the 2nd is incorporated and applies to Sykes before he makes a decision that may or may not stand later?

dantodd
09-01-2009, 11:02 AM
No surprise. I suspected that was his intent all along. The good news is that he doesn't seem to care much about standing etc. I'm sure he'll simply grant an MSJ for plaintiffs if Nordyke is upheld and in favor of defendants if overturned. Hopefully we won't end up with an injunction if the County appeals Nordyke.

b.faust
09-01-2009, 11:03 AM
It's probably to soon to know, but do you have any sense of how the Nordyke en blanc will go hoffmang?

Foulball
09-01-2009, 11:13 AM
Seems kind of fishy to me. Why didn't he just issue this on the 27th? Sounds like he sat at home all weekend long, took a few phone calls and was moved by the hand of god to suspend the whole affair.

wash
09-01-2009, 11:23 AM
I don't like it.

On the other hand, this means that incorporation has a direct effect on the outcome of the case. If we can lose with incorporation there would be no reason to wait for the Nordyke en-banc. If we can win without incorporation, same thing. Unless the judge is just lazy.

If that's true, and Nordyke gets reversed, we'll get another shot at shall issue CCW if SCOTUS incorporates the second amendment.

elenius
09-01-2009, 11:28 AM
This seems like a reasonable decision.

What does this mean:


Defendants have not had time to even depose Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ representatives


Suppose Nordyke goes south. By that time, will we know whether SCOTUS will hear one of the incorportation cases, and if so, can our side try to suspend Sykes until SCOTUS has incorporated?

Gray Peterson
09-01-2009, 11:32 AM
This seems like a reasonable decision.

What does this mean:



Suppose Nordyke goes south. By that time, will we know whether SCOTUS will hear one of the incorportation cases, and if so, can our side try to suspend Sykes until SCOTUS has incorporated?


It's likely going to take 9 or so months before Nordyke is decided, possibly longer. We'll likely get an answer from SCOTUS beforehand.

hollabillz
09-01-2009, 11:38 AM
No comment. :whistling: :cuss:

tommyid1
09-01-2009, 11:40 AM
Waiting time. Good work though guys

Librarian
09-01-2009, 11:42 AM
So, I follow the Nordyke reasoning, but what was all that cruft about discovery and standing? Defendants surely would have griped about standing long before this.

Librarian
09-01-2009, 11:44 AM
It's likely going to take 9 or so months before Nordyke is decided, possibly longer. We'll likely get an answer from SCOTUS beforehand.

I doubt 9 months. Hearing 9/24. Could be as little as a week, as 7th circuit did for McDonald/NRA (but I doubt it'll be that quick, too.)

wash
09-01-2009, 11:48 AM
The defense motion was about standing, they claimed they couldn't determine standing before discovery.

pullnshoot25
09-01-2009, 11:52 AM
Gosh dammit...

yellowfin
09-01-2009, 11:53 AM
Precisely as the sabateur judge who ordered the en banc vote intended. Pathetic cowards, the both of them.

trashman
09-01-2009, 11:54 AM
So the court punted.

conducting hearing on
Plaintiffs’ MSJ will result in a waste of judicial resources in
light of the Ninth Circuit’s pending en banc hearing scheduled in
Nordyke v. King

Hmph. Hasn't stopped the Courts before.

--Neill

HondaMasterTech
09-01-2009, 12:02 PM
Puh C . Doesn't want to be responsible for making a decision.

ke6guj
09-01-2009, 12:07 PM
So, while you are waiting on Nordyke, is the clock now running for the defendants to do Discovery? Or, are they gonna be able to wait until a positive Nordyke ruling and then decide that they need to start Discovery?

rob
09-01-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm trying to understand the Defense here. They claim to not have enough time to figure out if they would be denied...does that mean everyone who files will get the same treatment? Or are they just going above and beyond because this is a lawsuit?

artherd
09-01-2009, 12:34 PM
My guess is that the judge slept on it - and decided that essentially no matter what he did, it'd all likely be re-heard on Nordyke.

See how quickly these little old cases can become important? - and why we and those before us put effort money blood sweat and tears, into all of them :)

kf6tac
09-01-2009, 12:36 PM
I'm trying to understand the Defense here. They claim to not have enough time to figure out if they would be denied...does that mean everyone who files will get the same treatment? Or are they just going above and beyond because this is a lawsuit?

I suppose it's conceivable that these sheriff's departments may have stopped doing the background check on most CCW applicants at all -- since they need to have "good cause" even if they pass a background check, it'd be easier for the sheriffs, when they get the applications, to skip straight to the section on good cause, take a look at the reason that is given, and (in most cases) reject for lack of good cause. If that's how things are being done, then it might well be true that the defendants lack necessary information to determine standing.

dantodd
09-01-2009, 12:42 PM
So, I follow the Nordyke reasoning, but what was all that cruft about discovery and standing? Defendants surely would have griped about standing long before this.

Defendant's petition for a delay is not REALLY related to the delay the judge has decided upon. I'm pretty confident the majority of the defense's discovery would be toward getting CGF/SAF disqualified as plaintiffs. The only real standing issue for the individuals is their county of residence and their criminal backgrounds. Since the prayer for relief is to remove "good cause" the defense won't find a loss of standing there.

From reading the pleadings it does sound like the parties met a number of times before the defendants' asked for a delay. I'm sure Gene could answer with some detail if he is at liberty to do so.

hoffmang
09-01-2009, 1:10 PM
There will be depositions in the interim.

-Gene

HowardW56
09-01-2009, 2:12 PM
It's likely going to take 9 or so months before Nordyke is decided, possibly longer. We'll likely get an answer from SCOTUS beforehand.

I wouldn't think it wil be that long. Arguement is September 24.... 90~120 days or so we should know...

wash
09-01-2009, 2:19 PM
I know what I want for Christmas.

G17GUY
09-01-2009, 2:20 PM
Does this case pending have a chance of affecting the outcome of nordyke?

jdberger
09-01-2009, 2:23 PM
Depositions!

Fun!

dantodd
09-01-2009, 2:33 PM
Does this case pending have a chance of affecting the outcome of nordyke?

No. Even if Nordyke is overturned SCOTUS will almost certainly accept McDonald/NRA before Nordyke gets on the docket.

artherd
09-01-2009, 5:41 PM
Depositions!

Fun!

Put on your Depo Pants!

artherd
09-01-2009, 5:45 PM
I'm pretty confident the majority of the defense's discovery would be toward getting CGF/SAF disqualified as plaintiffs.

Heh, GL with that.

Gray Peterson
09-01-2009, 5:50 PM
Fisher v. City of San Jose took 9 months. I don't get where this 90-120 days thing is coming from. 3 judge panels, yes. 11 judge panels are different.

KylaGWolf
09-01-2009, 8:12 PM
Sorry Gene I was hoping the judge wouldn't do this. All I can say is I hope this is a speedy decision for Nordyke. As for the depositions for Sykes too bad you can't tell the defense to sit and spin.

HondaMasterTech
09-01-2009, 8:15 PM
I still say the judge is simply too chicken sh** to make a decision on his own. He seems to need something to hide behind.

mblat
09-01-2009, 8:19 PM
It appears his honor changed his mind from his oral ruling. Today in his written order (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/038-Order-Continuance.pdf) he has continued our MSJ until Nordyke is resolved.

-Gene

That is exactly what I was saying in original "we have very good chance" post.
There is NO WAY something like this will EVER pass before SCOTUS issues "what part of 'shall not be infringed' can't you understand?"

Before that any hopes that lower courts will do something significant in support of 2A is futile.

AEC1
09-01-2009, 8:27 PM
I sure hope we win this one. I am a military member, resident of FL. I want a CA CCW so bad. We have to win this so I can get turned down based on my residence status and I can sue.... By that time I might be transfered....

Gray Peterson
09-01-2009, 9:07 PM
I sure hope we win this one. I am a military member, resident of FL. I want a CA CCW so bad. We have to win this so I can get turned down based on my residence status and I can sue.... By that time I might be transfered....

You're not the only one who's waiting for that possibility, living on the west coast and having a large state like California in the way.

bruss01
09-01-2009, 9:39 PM
I haven't seen a recent gun-case decision in CA that made legal sense to me, except Nordyke which they got half right and are bringing it back so they can screw up the half they DID manage to get right. There's no way these decisions are being made for strictly legal reasons, it's pretty obvious there is an agenda and a lot of goings-on behind the scenes that no one wants to own up to. They find some obscure or convoluted justification to allow things to continue to hang on by a fingernail, it's not plain spoken straightforward justice that they are interested in, it is a perversion of the legal system to serve certain ends that is sought.

I understand that those with ties to the legal system want to play nicey-nice and so have to put a very PC spin on things so as not to offend judgey-wudgy, but the arrogance of assuming that we peons will never suspect our betters is just so galling that I have to call it like I see it.

BigDogatPlay
09-02-2009, 8:54 AM
With Nordyke essentially in suspense until the en banc decision is released, the rulling to suspend this case seems perfectly reasonable. The discovery process on Sykes will continue to move forward, as noted throughout the thread, and that is not a bad thing.

Assuming a favorable outcome for us with Nordyke, and that the SCOTUS will decide McDonald in our favor (which given Heller they almot certainly must) the whole issue of standing is going to go out the window anyway as there will still be nothing material in dispute with Sykes as we've already seen.

in that sequence, we win. It just takes a little longer and will open the door for more litigation across other issues. But in the record it's still a 'W'.

yellowfin
09-02-2009, 9:18 AM
That is exactly what I was saying in original "we have very good chance" post.
There is NO WAY something like this will EVER pass before SCOTUS issues "what part of 'shall not be infringed' can't you understand?"

Before that any hopes that lower courts in California, New York, Illinois, Maryland, or New Jersey will do something significant in support of 2A is futile.Fixed it for you. The states that don't have the problems don't mind ruling in favor of the 2nd Amendment, but that is of course why they don't have the problem in the first place. Bruss01 nailed it: the judges who make all these ridiculous contrived rulings against RKBA know perfectly well they're speaking nonsense but their anti 2A agenda absolutely compels them to do ANYTHING, say ANYTHING at all possible no matter how ridiculous to withold the RKBA from the anti 2A states. Period. It can't get any plainer than that. They'd rather swallow a jar full of razor blades than admit the truth and rule according to what's right. It's as if their very lives depended on it. Something possesses these people deeper than religion, drugs, or illness compelling them against us. It's at least as bad if not worse than the kamikazes.

Kharn
09-02-2009, 11:32 AM
Maryland will be interesting, pending McDonald v Chicago, as all of the state's anti-shall-issue case law is built around the 2A not being incorporated (MD does not have a 2A-equilvalent in its constitution). Incorporation happens, and people will be beating on the MSP's door demanding a permit listing the very rulings that previously denied their permits as justification.

kf6tac
09-02-2009, 11:56 AM
With Nordyke essentially in suspense until the en banc decision is released, the rulling to suspend this case seems perfectly reasonable. The discovery process on Sykes will continue to move forward, as noted throughout the thread, and that is not a bad thing.

Assuming a favorable outcome for us with Nordyke, and that the SCOTUS will decide McDonald in our favor (which given Heller they almot certainly must) the whole issue of standing is going to go out the window anyway as there will still be nothing material in dispute with Sykes as we've already seen.

in that sequence, we win. It just takes a little longer and will open the door for more litigation across other issues. But in the record it's still a 'W'.

+1 to this. I get that people want to see this case resolved, but bashing this judge for doing what more federal judges should do (putting dispositive motions on hold while the applicable law is under review by a higher authority) makes no sense.

demnogis
09-02-2009, 12:07 PM
I expected the judge to pause this case until after Nordyke's resolution. It looks like the legal eagles at CGF can now focus a bit more on Nordyke to get a positive result in that battle.

yellowfin
09-02-2009, 6:49 PM
+1 to this. I get that people want to see this case resolved, but bashing this judge for doing what more federal judges should do (putting dispositive motions on hold while the applicable law is under review by a higher authority) makes no sense. Here, let me help it make more sense for you. A judge, I would think, should know the prior decisions which have thus far allowed anti gun laws to continue to exist. Specifically, that judge should know the nature of those decisions, that they were absolutely wrong to the core both in their findings and the reasons they were ruled the way they were. If said judge cannot bring him/herself to rule against the anti gun rulings before them given that they will inevitably will be struck and are pointless to defend then I for one see very little to respect in them.

"Oh now come on, just because you disagree with them..." blah blah. Let's be clear about this. You have to live on the underside of a rock to think that this issue exists in a vacuum. As previously stated, anyone who's arguing this in a court of law on either side is full well past the point of being plausibly ignorant on the matter--judges and opposing lawyers know perfectly well that the specious drivel against RKBA has at its root absolutely ZERO interest in public safety or legal propriety. Granted the CIA's top interrogators couldn't get a confession of that out of them with a dozen blonde strippers and a bottle of Jack Daniels, a quart of scopalamine, or an Easton baseball bat to the knees and knuckles or all of the above, but you know, I know, and they know that it's the truth.

I hope they'll stop this absurd game real soon. This whole contrived ballet of tiptoeing around the apple carts, which this no doubt is, really defies credibility.

hoffmang
09-02-2009, 6:53 PM
Here, let me help it make more sense for you.

I too was disappointed that his honor delayed our motion. However, you should assume his honor reads this thread and I see little value in not showing him respect unless and until he issues a wrong decision.

-Gene

HowardW56
09-02-2009, 6:55 PM
I too was disappointed that his honor delayed our motion. However, you should assume his honor reads this thread and I see little value in not showing him respect unless and until he issues a wrong decision.

-Gene

Absolutely....

HondaMasterTech
09-02-2009, 7:13 PM
He gets paid to make decisions. He seems to have avoided making one. At, least until he has excuse to "blame" his eventual decision on someone else. I wish as an automobile technician I had that luxury.

Lex Arma
09-02-2009, 8:07 PM
HondaMasterTech:
I was an aircraft and auto mechanic for 15 years before I became a lawyer. I don't know what that has to do with legal reasoning.

All:
The judge here took an entirely reasonable position. Heller and Nordyke are foundational cases. Sykes (and Pena) are framing and superstructure cases. With Nordyke pending en banc, the foundation has been called into question. The judge cannot be faulted with halting our construction project while foundation gets checked and signed off again.

I might not like the delay, but I can't fault the judge for taking a reasonable course.

trashman
09-02-2009, 8:13 PM
reasoning. The judge here took entirely reasonable position. Heller and Nordyke are foundational cases. Sykes (and Pena) are framing and superstructure cases. With Nordyke pending en banc, the foundation has been called into question.

[...]

I might not like the delay, but I can't fault the judge for taking a reasonable course.

Very well put. It took me a little bit to get over the emotional disappointment in the memorandum, but there really isn't anything in the judge's reasoning to object to with the en banc decision looming.

--Neill

yellowfin
09-02-2009, 8:14 PM
Why couldn't the judge take an alternate reasonable course and bring incorporation to this case itself on its own merits? Does it really have to be spoonfed to them at this point? How is it not simply a given--the reasoning is completely inescapable.

Lex Arma
09-02-2009, 8:32 PM
Yellowfin:
Your point only makes sense if Nordyke in NOT pending. With no appellate cases in play on incorporation (and there are 4: Nordyke, McDonald, NRA, and the nunchuck case) a trial judge might use Heller to do the analysis on incorporation and even come to the right result. But with those 4 APPELLATE cases in the pipeline, it would be the height of judicial activism for a trial judge to take on the issue. Part of our argument to keep the Sykes SJ on track, even with Nordyke pending, was that the judge could hear the SJ argument and hold the decision until Nordyke.

All:
Taking potshots at the judicial system is counter-productive. If you are going to use the system, you have to respect the system -- which necessarily includes accomodations for delays, time-consuming investigations and research/writing.

Our rights were not placed in jeopardy in an instant, they cannnot be reasserted in an instant. The generations (even those who were pro-gun) that came before us let slide some very egregious encroachments on our rights. They probably did so in good faith believing that they were addressing issues of crime prevention. We are now seeing that the hard-core anti-gun people are not advocating good policy in good faith, they believe that the civilian poplulation should be disarmed.

It is up to us to persuade, with words and civilized action, the majority (which necessarily includes judicial officers) that we were right all along about the principles behind the Second Amendment, and that we should prevail in the end.

Loss of hope leads to violent revolutions. (See 1860 to 1864 and the aftermath.)

Trusting our constitutional system of government leads to non-violent revolutions and a secure future with liberty and justice for all.

:79:

El Gato
09-02-2009, 9:01 PM
... it'd be easier for the sheriffs, when they get the applications, to skip straight to the section on good cause, take a look at the reason that is given, ...

That's what happens in Kern.. the sheriff reviews the good cause and does a local records check... approves it... the applicant takes the course, provides certain documents and does the fingerprints and pays the fees... the Sheriff then waits for the DOJ before issuing .. if there is a problem, the Sheriff will ask for clarification or deny the permit is something shows in the fbi/doj check.