PDA

View Full Version : NORDYKE III Orals.


dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:09 PM
Sorry I jumped the gun. Not ruled from the bench.

bodger
10-19-2010, 1:10 PM
Thanks!
Any link to more info or live updates?

Havoc70
10-19-2010, 1:10 PM
HELL YES! And didn't the court say "strict scrutiny"? It seems like since Alameda allowed CCW holders onto the fairgrounds, that lost them the "sensitive area" argument as even CCW holders can't enter sensitive areas.

HELL YAH AGAIN!

dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:10 PM
Twitter from @calgunsfdn That's where I got my info.

RivCoFireman
10-19-2010, 1:11 PM
I thought that's what that meant. :hurray::Ivan::party::cheers2:

dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:11 PM
HELL YES! And didn't the court say "strict scrutiny"? It seems like sense Alameda allowed CCW holders onto the fairgrounds, that lost them the "sensitive area" argument as even CCW holders can't enter sensitive areas.

HELL YAH AGAIN!

From what I sw posted (I'm not there) it sounds like they didn't feel the ordinance would even pass a rational basis test.

ocspeedracer
10-19-2010, 1:11 PM
More details please!

dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:12 PM
More details please!

Go look at http://www.twitter.com/calgunsfdn for the blow by blow.

krucam
10-19-2010, 1:12 PM
Oh come on!!! Enough with the tease! We're watching this with fingers/toes crossed out East...
:)

HowardW56
10-19-2010, 1:15 PM
Wasn't "Please strike the ordinance", Don Kilmers statement?

They wouldn't have ruled from the bench...

Havoc70
10-19-2010, 1:16 PM
From twitter:


McDonald emphasizes that the 2A is a substantial fundamental right, suggesting strict scrutiny - why shouldn't we apply strict scrutiny?


To me that says the court was going to apply strict.

Kodemonkey
10-19-2010, 1:16 PM
wohoo!

emcon5
10-19-2010, 1:16 PM
Where are you seeing that?

http://twitter.com/CalgunsFDN

Exile Machine
10-19-2010, 1:16 PM
:clap:

kf6tac
10-19-2010, 1:17 PM
Wasn't "Please strike the ordinance", Don Kilmers statement?

That's what I got out of it. "Please strike the ordinance" was the last thing said by counsel at the bar. Then "Court adjourned" is the person updating the tweets indicating that court is, well, adjourned.

If the court had ruled from the bench, they probably would've dispensed with the "please" and just said "The ordinance is stricken."

dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:18 PM
I could have read it wrong. I was dumbfounded that they would rule from the bench like that. But if you read the posts from CalgunsFdn they always put Nordyke: or Alameda: in front if it was one of the litigants speaking and the "please strike the ordinance" and "court adjourned" were a single tweet.

greasemonkey
10-19-2010, 1:18 PM
Oooh, I like!

dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:19 PM
hopefully someone who is there will straighten me out if I misread it. I really hope not but I'm starting to suspect that is the case.

Havoc70
10-19-2010, 1:19 PM
I'm sure we'll get more info from those in the courtroom in two weeks :gene: :).

ocspeedracer
10-19-2010, 1:20 PM
so what does this mean?

stix213
10-19-2010, 1:21 PM
this is why I hate twitter

dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:21 PM
so what does this mean?

I'm trying to find out. Either we're having a big celebration or I misinterpreted a tweet.

bandook
10-19-2010, 1:21 PM
False alarm...
(I'll drink the beer anyway :) )

kf6tac
10-19-2010, 1:22 PM
I could have read it wrong. I was dumbfounded that they would rule from the bench like that. But if you read the posts from CalgunsFdn they always put Nordyke: or Alameda: in front if it was one of the litigants speaking and the "please strike the ordinance" and "court adjourned" were a single tweet.

Yeah, it's confusing. Though if court were adjourned, they may have needed to hammer out the tweet in a hurry before getting ushered out of the area or getting out of the way of people leaving the room.

Barbarossa
10-19-2010, 1:23 PM
False alarm...

GAH!!!!

dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:24 PM
Not ruled from the bench. It was Don's statement then the court adjourned.

sorry for jumping the gun.

greasemonkey
10-19-2010, 1:29 PM
Eh, it happens. By the looks of the twitter feed, the arguments seemed to be going well, though. At least we're used to patiently waiting for the Nordyke decision...:(
Not ruled from the bench. It was Don's statement then the court adjourned.

sorry for jumping the gun.

The Shadow
10-19-2010, 1:30 PM
Could this potentially settle the issue on other public buildings that are deemed sensitive by the wave of a hand and the whim of local government authorities?

RivCoFireman
10-19-2010, 1:36 PM
Wouldn't the court be in recess if they needed to decide, Once they adjourn I thought it is over.

tiki
10-19-2010, 1:36 PM
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.


Oh, wait...

HowardW56
10-19-2010, 1:39 PM
Wouldn't the court be in recess if they needed to decide, Once they adjourn I thought it is over.

Once they adjourn the hearing is over....


They still need to confer and decide the case, and then one or more of of the judges will prepare the opinion.

dantodd
10-19-2010, 1:42 PM
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.


Oh, wait...

Hopefully it won't be a Dewey Defeats Truman moment. I don't mind jumping the gun IF the decision goes the right way.

Glock22Fan
10-19-2010, 1:54 PM
I know that the judges will rule "in two weeks" but is there any real deadline for this result?

oepirate
10-19-2010, 2:03 PM
Don was so inspiring. Time to go donate some more. I almost felt bad for the alameda attorney. Almost.

HowardW56
10-19-2010, 2:07 PM
I know that the judges will rule "in two weeks" but is there any real deadline for this result?


Nope...

But this is the same panel that heard the case before. I bet it won't take that long. Maybe January...

HowardW56
10-19-2010, 2:08 PM
Hopefully it won't be a Dewey Defeats Truman moment. I don't mind jumping the gun IF the decision goes the right way.

Lets hope not....:pinch:

Liberty1
10-19-2010, 2:16 PM
Could this potentially settle the issue on other public buildings that are deemed sensitive by the wave of a hand and the whim of local government authorities?

Ca already allows carry in gov. buildings with a PC 12050 License to Carrying.

Crom
10-19-2010, 2:18 PM
Could this potentially settle the issue on other public buildings that are deemed sensitive by the wave of a hand and the whim of local government authorities?

I don't think so. I understand that we'll need separate litigation to explore the sensitive places doctrine that SOCTUS wrote about.

I know that the judges will rule "in two weeks" but is there any real deadline for this result?

I don't know but I did a cursory search for opinions being published from the 9th. Civil cases with oral arguments at their longest took 9 months, most appeared to take 4-6 months and a few only three months. I hope we don't have to wait too long.

Liberty1
10-19-2010, 2:20 PM
I know that the judges will rule "in two weeks" but is there any real deadline for this result?

None, but this panel will do their job in a timely fashion. I expect 2-3 months.

Anti-Hero
10-19-2010, 2:29 PM
Is there a transcript of the oral arguments?

The Shadow
10-19-2010, 2:29 PM
Ca already allows carry in gov. buildings with a PC 12050 License to Carrying.

However, restrictions can be imposed on the licensee to include prohibiting a person to carry on a schools property. The other consideration is how this would deal with 626.9 (GFSZ). The main crux of my concern would be a person getting in a bind if the right circumstances exist while a person is innocently carrying a firearm and gets stopped by law enforcement within 1000' of a school. Unless a public building contains information vital to national security, contains instruments of monetary exchange, or is a confinement facility for criminals, how do you justify a building as being sensitive?

Liberty1
10-19-2010, 2:51 PM
However, restrictions can be imposed on the licensee to include prohibiting a person to carry on a schools property. The other consideration is how this would deal with 626.9 (GFSZ).

Sac. Co. has now removed that restriction. How can it be 'reasonable' when state law allows carry in schools? I would not worry about the unreasonable regs with CGF on the prowle.

lazyworm
10-19-2010, 2:55 PM
somebody has a link to the transcript or audio?

Liberty1
10-19-2010, 3:00 PM
License to Carrying.

I hate that these thumb (dumb) phones think they can just 'correct' the spelling automatically. :(

choprzrul
10-19-2010, 3:56 PM
I've read this thread, read the tweets, and now have come to the conclusion that I need someone with a big brain to give me the Reader's Digest version of what just happened. Would prefer someone that was in attendance and at the dinner to give us the Right People's input also. What was the 'feeling' in the court? What are our chances of a favorable ruling based on that 'feel'?

.

RP1911
10-19-2010, 4:26 PM
Ca already allows carry in gov. buildings with a PC 12050 License to Carrying.

??

Have things changed? I was told absolutely not by state police (before they bacame part of CHP) back around 1995.

Window_Seat
10-19-2010, 4:40 PM
Nordyke audio:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000006368

ke6guj
10-19-2010, 5:02 PM
??

Have things changed? I was told absolutely not by state police (before they bacame part of CHP) back around 1995.

look here, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_%28CC W%29#Where_is_concealed_carry_allowed_by_the_licen se.3F , it has links to the specific PC sections that say that it is not illegal to carry at places like the state capitol or governor's mansion. But that doesn't mean that security has to allow you to carry on the secure side of the metal detectors, just that it is not a violation of the law to do so.

Liberty1
10-19-2010, 5:21 PM
Nordyke audio:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000006368

Sweet! You're my new best friend!

Window_Seat
10-19-2010, 5:23 PM
Sweet! You're my new best friend!

Just don't call me "Tony Stewart"... :D

Erik.

RP1911
10-19-2010, 5:34 PM
look here, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/California_License_to_Carry_Concealed_Weapon_%28CC W%29#Where_is_concealed_carry_allowed_by_the_licen se.3F , it has links to the specific PC sections that say that it is not illegal to carry at places like the state capitol or governor's mansion. But that doesn't mean that security has to allow you to carry on the secure side of the metal detectors, just that it is not a violation of the law to do so.

Thanks.

171 b

...

(b)Subdivision (a) shall not apply to, or affect, any of the following:

...

(3)A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

(4)A person who has permission to possess that weapon granted in writing by a duly authorized official who is in charge of the security of the state or local government building.

....

(c)As used in this section, "state or local public building" means a building that meets all of the following criteria:

(1)It is a building or part of a building owned or leased by the state or local government, if state or local public employees are regularly present for the purposes of performing their official duties. A state or local public building includes, but is not limited to, a building that contains a courtroom.

(2)It is not a building or facility, or a part thereof, that is referred to in Section 171c, 171d, 626.9, 626.95, or 626.10 of this code, or in Section 18544 of the Elections Code.

(3)It is a building not regularly used, and not intended to be used, by state or local employees as a place of residence.


(b) is controlling language while (c) is definition.

I may have a legal Q that I will ask tomorrow after I make a couple of calls. I'll start either another thread or ask one of our legal eagles.

choprzrul
10-19-2010, 6:18 PM
Just got done listening to the audio. Sounded like the county is running an uphill race. They really had to drag it out of her that CCW was specifically allowed on the fairgrounds; and I think that is where the county is going to lose. I also am leaning towards thinking that the court will apply strict scrutiny in this case also. Just my $.02 from listening to the audio. Now, if we can tear Gene away from the previously scheduled libations and culinary delights, maybe we can get a professional's opinion.

.

Theseus
10-19-2010, 7:07 PM
My take on it is that Alameda is confident that they won because the court sided with them in the last ruling. . . I think they might underestimate the issue here.

Window_Seat
10-19-2010, 7:23 PM
Just got done listening to the audio. Sounded like the county is running an uphill race. They really had to drag it out of her that CCW was specifically allowed on the fairgrounds; and I think that is where the county is going to lose. I also am leaning towards thinking that the court will apply strict scrutiny in this case also. Just my $.02 from listening to the audio. Now, if we can tear Gene away from the previously scheduled libations and culinary delights, maybe we can get a professional's opinion.

.

One of the Judges asks the County's Counsel:

"McDonald tells us not only is the Heller right preserved Ť— it applies to the states, but it really emphasized the fact that the Second Amendment is a substantial, fundamental right, suggesting as we've seen in some of these other post McDonald cases, strict scrutiny perhaps ought to be applied, why shouldn't we apply strict scrutiny to this ordinance?"
Good questions for good projections for the future. :D:D

Erik.

Nor-Cal
10-19-2010, 8:12 PM
I hope all this works out and the ruleing comes soon!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-19-2010, 8:17 PM
Can someone explain why the Alameda County attorney wasn't hammering the fact that without the gun show, gun buyers would just go directly to the FFL where they have to go to pick up the gun anyway? Nothing stopping gun buyers from simply buying direct from the FFL somewhere else any day of the week. The judges were lobbing tons of softballs at her on there needing to be a burden on the right, and strict scrutiny (are there any cases post McDonald that actually describe a specific situation where strict scrutiny should be used?) but she certainly sounded like she was on the defensive.

On the other hand the plaintiffs' attorney would not answer the judges' direct questions about what it was he wanted them to do with the case. Going into the oral argument there is no second amendment claim even alleged. The district court denied the motion to amend the complaint to state a 2A claim and the denial is what is being appealed. The plaintiffs' attorney was just kind of dancing around whether there was a sufficient record on which to decide the case but he never came right out and said I want you to reverse the denial of the motion to amend, then rule on the merits based on the allegations in the amended complaint and on the record in the case, whatever it might be, and here are the authorities saying you can do that. But obviously there isn't any factual record (e.g., findings of fact by the district court judge after trial, decision on summary judgment motion) on the 2nd amendment claim because there is no second amendment claim alleged The district court only dealt with the 2A on pleading motions. And the most recent brief doesn't cite any authority that I can see saying the panel is authorized to do what the plaintiffs seem to be suggesting the panel should do, i.e., just go ahead and decide the case on the merits in their favor.

Window_Seat
10-19-2010, 8:29 PM
Justice: "Was the record developed that the Fairgrounds is a sensitive place, and therefore guns should be banned there?"

County Counsel: "Yes, the County’s position is it certainly was, we didn’t have the rubric of what is a sensitive place, but in terms of the sensitive places category, first of all, the Supreme Court has identified two very different locations; “Government buildings”, and “schools”. There are different things about those two locations that make them sensitive places. One way to look at that is to say the Court is indicating that there’s a Legislative role in deciding what’s a sensitive place, just as the Heffron Court looked at the Fairgrounds and determined in essence, this is a sensitive place with respect to assertion of First Amendment Rights, because we have crowd control issues; because we have people who come here with the expectation that the Governmental body is going to be protecting them while they are using the Fairgrounds for its principle purpose."

Justice: "But there’s no finding is there… by the trial Judge that this is or is not a sensitive place…"

County Counsel: "There’s no finding by the trial judge on that point, but if there’s sufficient evidence before this court, for the court to buttress it’s other findings regarding the Second Amendment with the conclusion that the Fairgrounds fits nicely within the category, then there is no reason to send it back to the trial court…"

Erik.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-19-2010, 8:42 PM
The question is, what authority is there that a court of appeal can decide a case on the merits, when there has been no factual findings by the trial court, just because the parties say there is sufficient evidence in the record for the court of appeal to make that decision? The parties seem to be asking the court of appeal to do what a trail court ordinarily should be doing, without providing any authority for it to do that. Maybe there is authority, I don't know, but it's not jumping out at me from the briefs or the oral arguments.

Window_Seat
10-19-2010, 10:13 PM
In case anyone takes interest, the total combined audio time for I, II, and III is 2:17:56.

Erik.

wildhawker
10-20-2010, 1:34 AM
I read Judge Alarcon's inquiry similarly. I don't think Ms. Weaver understood enough about the law to answer the question.

The answer is that only certain categories of firearms are not received at the gun show. While another regulation(s) may create a doubly infringing condition, it does not moot the fact that the Alameda ordinance does indeed infringe our right to keep arms by imposing unequal restrictions on lawful commerce in arms.

I'd like to buy and take home a Garand for self-defense, Your Honor.

It would be interesting, but not shocking, for the panel to rule strictly on 1A and EP causes.


Can someone explain why the Alameda County attorney wasn't hammering the fact that without the gun show, gun buyers would just go directly to the FFL where they have to go to pick up the gun anyway? Nothing stopping gun buyers from simply buying direct from the FFL somewhere else any day of the week. The judges were lobbing tons of softballs at her on there needing to be a burden on the right, and strict scrutiny (are there any cases post McDonald that actually describe a specific situation where strict scrutiny should be used?) but she certainly sounded like she was on the defensive.

On the other hand the plaintiffs' attorney would not answer the judges' direct questions about what it was he wanted them to do with the case. Going into the oral argument there is no second amendment claim even alleged. The district court denied the motion to amend the complaint to state a 2A claim and the denial is what is being appealed. The plaintiffs' attorney was just kind of dancing around whether there was a sufficient record on which to decide the case but he never came right out and said I want you to reverse the denial of the motion to amend, then rule on the merits based on the allegations in the amended complaint and on the record in the case, whatever it might be, and here are the authorities saying you can do that. But obviously there isn't any factual record (e.g., findings of fact by the district court judge after trial, decision on summary judgment motion) on the 2nd amendment claim because there is no second amendment claim alleged The district court only dealt with the 2A on pleading motions. And the most recent brief doesn't cite any authority that I can see saying the panel is authorized to do what the plaintiffs seem to be suggesting the panel should do, i.e., just go ahead and decide the case on the merits in their favor.

Al Norris
10-20-2010, 5:11 AM
While the lower court did not develop any record on the 2A merits, enough of a record has been developed within the appeals briefs and by the various amici briefs, that the record is there. This was inferred by Don when asked by the panel what they should do: send the case back or rule on the claim as pleaded.

As to the sensitive places argument, the County shot its own foot, when it admitted that it cannot exclude licensed CCW.

Despite what Mrs. Weaver claimed, the court can most certainly take under notice what the legislatures have said about what they passed. This was done in both Heller and McDonald.

Another fatal claim by the county was that people wanting to purchase a gun could do so at any of the 29 FFL's located in the county, therefore the right to purchase is little affected. This is akin to D.C. saying that they allow rifles and shotguns, therefore handguns can be banned, as the right is little affected.

The above are just a few random points that are percolating through my brain as I get ready for Jury duty this AM. Therefore...

In order to pursue judicial economy, at this late date, the panel may simply take de novo review from the pleadings as they stand: Ness v. Commissioner, 954 F.2d 1495, 1497 (9th Cir. 1992). Such review is 'independent.' Premier v. Fuentes, 880 F.2d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1989).

HowardW56
10-20-2010, 7:30 AM
The question is, what authority is there that a court of appeal can decide a case on the merits, when there has been no factual findings by the trial court, just because the parties say there is sufficient evidence in the record for the court of appeal to make that decision? The parties seem to be asking the court of appeal to do what a trail court ordinarily should be doing, without providing any authority for it to do that. Maybe there is authority, I don't know, but it's not jumping out at me from the briefs or the oral arguments.

This is why think it will get sent back to the trial court, hopefully with direction as to scrutiny.

I got the feeling that the Judges were looking for a reason to punt, and send it back to the trial court.

timdps
10-20-2010, 8:08 AM
What is the story with the "29 FFL's located in the county"?

I'm guessing that the "4 FFLs" that were mentioned are 01 dealers and the other 25 are 03/07s?

Tim

loather
10-20-2010, 8:21 AM
None, but this panel will do their job in a timely fashion. I expect 2-3 months.

2-3 months is hardly a "timely fashion" for something they could have reasonably decided fifteen minutes after the arguments were over.

I know I'm bickering here and preaching to the choir, but there's no good reason for the ruling to take that long. If they were actually doing their jobs in a timely manner, we'd have a ruling by the end of the week. Sorry, justice moves too slowly.

krucam
10-20-2010, 8:21 AM
This was on the 9th Ckt's Nordyke Docket (Pacer) last evening:

10/19/2010 171 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN and RONALD M. GOULD. [7514480] [07-15763] (AT)

Would someone be able to elaborate?

Librarian
10-20-2010, 8:45 AM
This was on the 9th Ckt's Nordyke Docket (Pacer) last evening:

10/19/2010 171 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO Judges ARTHUR L. ALARCON, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN and RONALD M. GOULD. [7514480] [07-15763] (AT)

Would someone be able to elaborate?

Looks like the notice that the arguments took place as scheduled? This whole thread is, of course, the discussion of the content of those arguments.

berto
10-20-2010, 8:47 AM
2-3 months is hardly a "timely fashion" for something they could have reasonably decided fifteen minutes after the arguments were over.

I know I'm bickering here and preaching to the choir, but there's no good reason for the ruling to take that long. If they were actually doing their jobs in a timely manner, we'd have a ruling by the end of the week. Sorry, justice moves too slowly.

Deciding and writing the opinion are different beasts.

Crom
10-20-2010, 8:49 AM
This was on the 9th Ckt's Nordyke Docket (Pacer) last evening:

Would someone be able to elaborate?

It's just information telling you that on that date, appeals case [07-15763] was orally argued and after arguments were concluded the case is submitted for a ruling to the 3-judge panel (DIARMUID, O'SCANNLAIN, and GOULD).

BlindRacer
10-20-2010, 9:47 AM
Just listened to the audio.

Seems like the judges were a little tough on Don. Probably the same as the judges were tough on Gura during McDonald, though.

Sounded like they tore apart everything that Alameda had, though.

And it was wonderful that they were asking why they shouldn't apply strict scrutiny! It sounds like they are expecting to apply strict scrutiny, and are looking for additional ways to support their decision.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-20-2010, 9:54 AM
This is why think it will get sent back to the trial court, hopefully with direction as to scrutiny.

Seems to me the panel has 2 options with respect to the second amendment issues: (1) reverse the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to state a 2A claim or (2) affirm the denial of the motion to amend, which it already did before in '09.

There was a weird exchange at 6:00 where the plaintiffs' attorney affirmed that he wanted the panel to go ahead and decide the merits of the 2A complaint that was previously dismissed on futility grounds (that's a paraphrase of what the judge said, it wasn't really a dismissal of a 2A complaint but a denial of leave to file a 2A claim). Then the plaintiffs' attorney affirmed that even though he was asking the panel to do that, he was not asking the court to permit him to actually go back and file an amended second amended complaint. This is like, "let's pretend there is a 2A claim alleged, but I'm not asking you to actually let me allege one, then go ahead and decide the merits of this 2A claim that has not been alleged, based on the record which does not include any factual findings by the trial court on the claim, only whatever evidence may have made it into the record through some avenue other than a trial or summary judgment motion on the 2A claim."

Anyway, however this turns out I don't think there's even a snowball's chance that any form of "strict scrutiny" is going to come out of the decision. The post-McDonald cases, specifically Marzarella which the judges honed in on, pretty much validate the panel's prior decision, whether because the ordinance does not "burden" the exercise of the right (in which case you don't even need to talk about scrutiny), or because under intermediate scrutiny analysis the ordinance does not interfere with the core right.

Window_Seat
10-27-2010, 10:46 PM
Scuse me for bringing this back for a really DQ...

Is there a recap docket pacer case # for Nordyke?

Erik; duh...:o

dantodd
10-27-2010, 10:51 PM
Seems to me the panel has 2 options with respect to the second amendment issues: (1) reverse the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to state a 2A claim or (2) affirm the denial of the motion to amend, which it already did before in '09.


How could the panel have incorporated the Second Amendment if there was no 2A claim at question?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
10-28-2010, 4:04 AM
Pages 4475-4501 of the panel's '09 opinion (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf).

Crom
10-28-2010, 6:24 AM
Scuse me for bringing this back for a really DQ...

Is there a recap docket pacer case # for Nordyke?

Erik; duh...:o

There are no DQ's my friend. It is appeals case 07-15763, and for reasons I don't yet know, I have been unsuccessful in locating Nordyke in RECAP. Perhaps someone who knows could explain why.

Gray Peterson
10-28-2010, 6:43 AM
There are no DQ's my friend. It is appeals case 07-15763, and for reasons I don't yet know, I have been unsuccessful in locating Nordyke in RECAP. Perhaps someone who knows could explain why.

RECAP doesn't work with Court of Appeals cases.

dantodd
10-28-2010, 9:27 AM
Pages 4475-4501 of the panel's '09 opinion (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/04/20/0715763.pdf).

Of course the 2A claim was reviewed. Not only did they do the proper analysis to decide incorporation they went on to say that they had to determine if the right they found to be incorporated was in fact infringed. If they denied the Nordyke's the right to raise a 2A claim why would they write this:

Though we conclude that the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment applies the protections of the Second
Amendment to state and local governments, the question
remains whether such application invalidates the specific
Ordinance the Nordykes challenge.

There can be no clearer message that they believe a gun show is an expression of 2A rights and that an ordinance must not infringe that right. So, the question really is do they apply the same level of scrutiny and, in light of intervening jurisprudence, does their analysis change in such a way that the ordinance would infringe the fundamental right found in McDonald.

With the emphasis the court gave to the fundamental nature of 2A rights in McDonald I think it will be hard for this panel to not accept some level of scrutiny that resembles strict. I think Gould is 100% there already.

So, the question is will a policy that prevents guns for a gun show but permits them for other, similar events and permits concealed carry on the grounds survive strict scrutiny. I think not. I think that sending the case back to district is possible but it is also likely that, given the fundamental nature of the issue of either a directed verdict or an injunction against the ordinance so as to stop the ongoing violation of the Nordyke's fundamental civil rights.

Funtimes
10-28-2010, 10:20 AM
2-3 months is hardly a "timely fashion" for something they could have reasonably decided fifteen minutes after the arguments were over.

I know I'm bickering here and preaching to the choir, but there's no good reason for the ruling to take that long. If they were actually doing their jobs in a timely manner, we'd have a ruling by the end of the week. Sorry, justice moves too slowly.

I don't think this will be a short opinion -- it will take those clerks + judges a little while to prep their opinions. This ruling will be ground breaking to say the least. I imagine they will want to cautiously word their opinions for the 9th circuit.

hoffmang
10-28-2010, 9:51 PM
O'Scannlain hinted during the en-banc oral arguments that his '09 opinion may have been incorrect on the 2A issue.

-Gene

Purple K
11-26-2010, 8:00 PM
My the wheels of justice turn mighty slowly..... Heavy sigh!

vantec08
11-27-2010, 6:36 AM
I don't think this will be a short opinion -- it will take those clerks + judges a little while to prep their opinions. This ruling will be ground breaking to say the least. I imagine they will want to cautiously word their opinions for the 9th circuit.

Agree. They are going take plenty of time to groom their opinions, dot every I and cross every T. They know darn well how important Nordyke is. It will very likely finish off CA politicians pretense of the gun "vapors." The 2nd will be elevated to the same importance as the other amendments. The county has targeted a specific amendment to COTUS with absolutely no authority to do so. How do you think it would have gone if the county had prohibited a journalists convention?

hoffmang
11-27-2010, 9:46 AM
My the wheels of justice turn mighty slowly..... Heavy sigh!

Appeals court opinions usually take 60-90 days so we're well within the correct time window.

Changing the world doesn't happen via overnight via Fedex...

-Gene

Purple K
11-27-2010, 10:15 AM
I firmly believe that it'll be worth the wait. It is, none the less, frustrating.

hoffmang
11-27-2010, 10:16 AM
I firmly believe that it'll be worth the wait. It is, none the less, frustrating.

You my friend really need a dose of patience ;)

-Gene

Purple K
11-27-2010, 12:39 PM
I'll go have a sandwich and take a nap....

Scott Connors
11-27-2010, 4:22 PM
You my friend really need a dose of patience ;)

-Gene

76695
:D

ddestruel
12-11-2010, 11:36 AM
76695
:D

:rolleyes:

With all the pessimism surrounding Puerta vs SD and the judges msj we should all remember that the 9th circuit trumps anything that judge had to say. how the 9th rules on scrutiny is far more important than that judges erroneous ruling....a bad ruling here or there by lower judges can be set straight if another federal ruling is handed down. there were many failed attempts before Heller and McDonald

Shouldn't the 9th be ruling on Nordyke in the next 2 weeks? :D sorry next month to 40 days?


had to bring this one back up since it should be getting closer.

hoffmang
12-11-2010, 1:48 PM
Shouldn't the 9th be ruling on Nordyke in the next 2 weeks? :D sorry next month to 40 days?

Yes.

-Gene

press1280
12-11-2010, 2:38 PM
:rolleyes:

With all the pessimism surrounding Puerta vs SD and the judges msj we should all remember that the 9th circuit trumps anything that judge had to say. how the 9th rules on scrutiny is far more important than that judges erroneous ruling....a bad ruling here or there by lower judges can be set straight if another federal ruling is handed down. there were many failed attempts before Heller and McDonald

Shouldn't the 9th be ruling on Nordyke in the next 2 weeks? :D sorry next month to 40 days?


had to bring this one back up since it should be getting closer.

I'd have Peruta sit back and wait for Nordyke. If Nordyke goes intermediate scrutiny, we may be better off letting a different case move ahead, preferably from another circuit.

yellowfin
12-11-2010, 2:47 PM
Changing the world doesn't happen via overnight via Fedex...

-GeneSo Mr Gura uses UPS instead?

ddestruel
01-17-2011, 8:47 AM
:rolleyes:

Shouldn't the 9th be ruling on Nordyke in the next 2 weeks? :D

a
time to bump it and bring this one back up since its hitting 90 days not saying anything is going to happen just like to keep it on the radar screen


link to recent Chester ruling being added to the documents (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=383219)

Purple K
01-25-2011, 5:06 PM
It's been 90-days.......

not-fishing
01-28-2011, 12:54 PM
It's been 90-days.......

It's been 93 days.....

Tic

Toc

I could use some good news.

Tic :D

Window_Seat
01-28-2011, 1:15 PM
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mgd/lowres/mgdn27l.jpg

CEDaytonaRydr
02-07-2011, 11:07 AM
:toetap05:

Still no decision? Really...?



How long could they realistically "stall" on this?

I'm no legal expert, so forgive me if this is a dumb question: could they just not get around to ruling on Nordyke? A judicial 'pocket veto', if you will?

N6ATF
02-07-2011, 11:44 AM
How long could they realistically "stall" on this?

Another decade? LOL

press1280
02-07-2011, 2:31 PM
Another decade? LOL

Maybe when Palmer comes out ;)
No really it should be any day now I expect.

Patrick-2
02-07-2011, 2:53 PM
The Palmer judge has been known to take a year or two to rule on cases...

CEDaytonaRydr
02-07-2011, 8:31 PM
The Palmer judge has been known to take a year or two to rule on cases...

Is he on "our side", or should we initiate a phone-call marathon to his office... :43:

HowardW56
02-07-2011, 8:38 PM
Is he on "our side", or should we initiate a phone-call marathon to his office... :43:

That would be a good way to piss off a judge....

Blackhawk556
02-08-2011, 1:14 AM
^^^^^what if we make the calls but act like we are the Antis group??? :-)

Patrick-2
02-08-2011, 3:29 AM
Is he on "our side", or should we initiate a phone-call marathon to his office... :43:

Judge Kennedy (not one of those Kennedy's) - from both Princeton and Harvard - has a strong reputation for being meticulous to a fault. Literally, the things trial lawyers dislike about him the most is the fact his level of detail can be excruciating and this takes time.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/sites/dcd/files/kennedy.jpg
District Judge Henry Kennedy

He is viewed by lawyers on all sides of an issue to be a fair jurist. His recognized strength is civil rights law.

His whole 2010 case log was delayed by mistakes made by the Justice Department and CIA in a Habeus case (nothing to do with guns). That took months to fix up. Based on recent decisions he has released it looks to be another 5-6 months, if he were working in chronological order. Add time for the little details he is known for in civil rights cases and the DC Palmer case could take as long as two more weeks.

Purple K
02-08-2011, 5:43 AM
"Two weeks!!!!!"

choprzrul
02-08-2011, 5:55 AM
Judge Kennedy (not one of those Kennedy's) - from both Princeton and Harvard - has a strong reputation for being meticulous to a fault. Literally, the things trial lawyers dislike about him the most is the fact his level of detail can be excruciating and this takes time.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/sites/dcd/files/kennedy.jpg
District Judge Henry Kennedy

He is viewed by lawyers on all sides of an issue to be a fair jurist. His recognized strength is civil rights law.

His whole 2010 case log was delayed by mistakes made by the Justice Department and CIA in a Habeus case (nothing to do with guns). That took months to fix up. Based on recent decisions he has released it looks to be another 5-6 months, if he were working in chronological order. Add time for the little details he is known for in civil rights cases and the DC Palmer case could take as long as two more weeks.

Thank you for the excellent analysis. I think that I prefer a judge with his MO over any activist judge regardless of orientation.

.

Patrick-2
02-08-2011, 8:20 AM
I'm not suggesting he will go our way. Just that whatever he does it will probably be detailed. I have no idea how he feels about civil rights when it comes to guns.

In other, related news: The Federal Appeals Court for DC is looking to rule on the DC laws in part by analyzing whether they meet the semantic definition of "usual laws". This is in response to what most people would recognize as the "Heller II" lawsuit.

Such a decision could allow them an end-run around Second Amendment issues, or it could be an additional analysis they felt was required due to DC being a federal district under congressional control. And this discussion is unique to DC. There is a feeling among some that the appeals court is following the Constitutional Avoidance Principle: meaning you decide a case using non-constitutional arguments when you can avoid them. And the structure of DC laws is such that they can get rid of AW bans, guns restrictions (Heller II) and maybe even go Shall-Issue (Palmer) without evaluating a single Second Amendment argument.

Heller II is at the appellate level; Palmer is one rung below that. Knowing that the appeals court is looking to Heller might cause another backup of Palmer. It would make sense. Why rule now when you can wait for some guidance from the appeals court?

I realize I am deep into thread-jack territory already, so will just point out that if the DC Circuit rules that DC's laws are moot because they are not "usual" in the context of national legislation, we could get an interesting (Onanistic?) juxtaposition: DC will have become more gun friendly per court order - but it would have nothing to do with a Second Amendment finding. The ruling would not be applicable anywhere else.

These judges are crafty.

Window_Seat
02-08-2011, 8:26 AM
^^^^^what if we make the calls but act like we are the Antis group??? :-)

We would need to get our hands on letterheads from the BC. :devil:

Erik.

CEDaytonaRydr
02-08-2011, 8:53 AM
Judge Kennedy (not one of those Kennedy's) - from both Princeton and Harvard - has a strong reputation for being meticulous to a fault. Literally, the things trial lawyers dislike about him the most is the fact his level of detail can be excruciating and this takes time.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/sites/dcd/files/kennedy.jpg
District Judge Henry Kennedy

He is viewed by lawyers on all sides of an issue to be a fair jurist. His recognized strength is civil rights law.

His whole 2010 case log was delayed by mistakes made by the Justice Department and CIA in a Habeus case (nothing to do with guns). That took months to fix up. Based on recent decisions he has released it looks to be another 5-6 months, if he were working in chronological order. Add time for the little details he is known for in civil rights cases and the DC Palmer case could take as long as two more weeks.

Yeah, thanks man! Great info... ;)

Purple K
02-20-2011, 9:20 PM
.......

hoffmang
02-20-2011, 10:12 PM
u2mqqCMu-LM

All we can do is wait.

-Gene

nicki
02-20-2011, 11:14 PM
This is the same three Judge Panel that ruled that the second amendment does apply in California before the MacDonald ruling.

These panel is not stupid, they know the minute the ruling comes out that there will be a flood of second amendment cases so IMHO what they may be doing is writing a opinion that will set the standard in the 9th.

Nicki

Zak
02-21-2011, 12:20 AM
Thank you for the excellent analysis. I think that I prefer a judge with his MO over any activist judge regardless of orientation.

.

I agree, and that's the way it ought to be. I'm really looking forward to the Palmer ruling (if I'm still alive by then).

Anchors
02-21-2011, 1:07 AM
u2mqqCMu-LM

All we can do is wait.

-Gene

I have been listening to this for over seven minutes in the background.
It is actually very relaxing. Haha.

It would make a great "call back" tone (one that someone hears when calling you instead of hearing ringing).

LibertyGuy
02-21-2011, 12:05 PM
I haven't been keeping up with the Nordyke case at all. I have no idea what is going on. I don't even remember what it's about anymore, lol.

ddestruel
03-14-2011, 8:26 PM
i just like digging this thread up each time the court could possibly make a ruling

believe they are in session this week then we'll have to wait until april for the next go around

Blackhawk556
03-14-2011, 8:44 PM
I hope the decision is released some time this year :[

Dreaded Claymore
03-14-2011, 9:21 PM
I haven't been keeping up with the Nordyke case at all. I have no idea what is going on. I don't even remember what it's about anymore, lol.

LOL :rofl: Ostensibly it's about gun shows in Alameda County, specifically whether Alameda County is allowed to not let them happen (even though they have guns actually firing blanks for the Scottish Games). But what it comes down to is the level of scrutiny on the Second Amendment. We hope they'll give us strict scrutiny, but even with intermediate scrutiny a lot of things will fall down. See Quark's FAQ (stickied in 2nd Amendment Discussion) for more information.