PDA

View Full Version : Pena: How long after Nordyke will we get a decision?


Paladin
04-15-2011, 12:35 AM
Pena, challenging the CA "safe handgun" roster, was stayed pending resolution of Nordyke. Assuming Nordyke goes our way, how long after that should it take to get a decision in Pena?

Will Hanson, the D.C. case equivalent to Pena, get decided first?

After the district court's decision, how long until the roster is actually dead? (I assume it won't be "dead", until the resolution of an appeal of Pena to the 9th)

Just trying to figure out a timeline since I want to buy an off-roster handgun to CCW if Richards goes our way.

Thanks.

E Pluribus Unum
04-15-2011, 12:37 AM
Two Weeks???


I fear that contemplating that might be counting our chickens before they hatch.

press1280
04-15-2011, 3:26 AM
I thought Hanson was already mooted by DC adapting the rosters of both MD and MA?

robcoe
04-15-2011, 7:19 AM
It will be in :twoweeks:

Tier One Arms
04-15-2011, 7:43 AM
I'm also interested in knowing how long it will take.

Window_Seat
04-15-2011, 7:54 AM
I thought the DC would have to issue an injunction, and if they do, then the roster is dead, am I correct? If the decision is stayed pending an appeal to CA9, then it's not dead, but the Judge would have to stay a decision awarding a perm. injunction, right?

Erik.

Blackhawk556
04-15-2011, 10:59 AM
Single shot. By the time nordyke gets decided, you will want a different gun.

nick
04-15-2011, 11:51 AM
I wonder if this case's dependence on Nordyke can be challenged, and if it's even worth doing so. The reason it was tied to Nordyke was due to incorporation. Well, McDonald case did the incorporation, so that's a moot point now.

Blackhawk556
04-15-2011, 12:08 PM
^^ I think it has something to do with the sale of firearms that's holding it up.

nick
04-15-2011, 1:04 PM
^^ I think it has something to do with the sale of firearms that's holding it up.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pena/gov.uscourts.caed.191444.24.0.pdf

In their reply, plaintiffs request a stay pending resolution of the incorporation issue by either the Supreme Court of the Ninth Circuit, withdraw their pending motion for summary judgment, and seek an order allowing discovery to proceed.

The Court’s decision in Heller, however, did not address whether the Second Amendment is incorporated and thus, applies against states and local governments. In April 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment, but concluding that the ordinance at issue did not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. In July 2009, the Ninth Circuit accepted the case for rehearing en banc and directed that “[t]he three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.” Nordyke, 575 F.3d 890.

4
The issues to be addressed by the court in Nordyke are broad cope and material to the case brought by plaintiffs. Specifically, a foundational issue in both Nordyke and in this case is whether the Second Amendment is incorporated and thus, applicable to state and local governments.

Further, the en banc decision in Nordyke will also evaluate a firearms regulation in light of Heller and McDonald. Such evaluation will almost certainly provide crucial direction to the court in its analysis of the firearms regulation in this case.

So it looks like the court is waiting on incorporation (has already happened) and the level of scrutiny from Nordyke before deciding on how it can skirt around both :)

Blackhawk556
04-15-2011, 4:25 PM
So if nordyke says "intermediate scrutiny",is that enough to kill the roster? If yes, why? If not, why not? (Where's Fabio gets goosed) ;)

nick
04-15-2011, 5:24 PM
So if nordyke says "intermediate scrutiny",is that enough to kill the roster? If yes, why? If not, why not? (Where's Fabio gets goosed) ;)

I might be wrong, but the answer to the first question is "whatever the judge thinks it can do". Judges have been very "creative" in ruling whatever way they please.

The answer to the second question is probably "getting goosed".

hoffmang
04-15-2011, 8:03 PM
1. Hanson is over. DC mooted it by making almost every handgun available.

2. We have a new judge (the former Magistrate in Sykes/Richards appointed by Obama) but that only means we'll get going after Nordyke.

3. We'll need to refile the MSJ as some important subsequent events have happened. As such it will take 90 to 180 days post Nordyke to get to the next substantive ruling in Peņa.

-Gene

Paladin
04-15-2011, 9:16 PM
1. Hanson is over. DC mooted it by making almost every handgun available.

2. We have a new judge (the former Magistrate in Sykes/Richards appointed by Obama) but that only means we'll get going after Nordyke.

3. We'll need to refile the MSJ as some important subsequent events have happened. As such it will take 90 to 180 days post Nordyke to get to the next substantive ruling in Peņa.

-Gene
Thanks, Gene.

It looks like the rest of 2011 is going to be very productive (hopefully, for our side): Nordyke decided between March and June; Richards decided between June and Sept; and Pena decided between Sept and Dec. Is that correct (as best you can guess and assuming nothing unexpected occurs)?

If so, 2011 will be HISTORIC for gun rights in CA!

Cokebottle
04-15-2011, 9:28 PM
3. We'll need to refile the MSJ as some important subsequent events have happened. As such it will take 90 to 180 days post Nordyke to get to the next substantive ruling in Peņa.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=94208&stc=1&d=1302928086