PDA

View Full Version : NINTH CIRCUIT NORDYKE OPINION IS OUT


Pages : [1] 2

HowardW56
06-01-2012, 8:34 AM
Opinion is HERE (http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/litigation/nordyke_v_king/07-15763%20Nordyke%20Opinion%206-1-12.pdf)

No ruling on 2A, but the county must permit gun shows to be held.

putput
06-01-2012, 8:39 AM
I’m definitely going to attend the next gun show as a sign of support but, that court is messed up in their pretzel like contortions to avoid the issue.

morfeeis
06-01-2012, 8:44 AM
So a win in the end!

BobB35
06-01-2012, 8:48 AM
So the other cases on hold for this decision were depending on this for what exactly?

Seems to be a a delaying tactic and nothing more.

Guess it will be 2 Weeks now for those case to start moving forward.....:cool:

OleCuss
06-01-2012, 8:50 AM
I'd kind of like to see the opinion. . . I'm not entirely sure that the case is totally finished - at a minimum I'd expect the Nordykes to be pursuing compensation for loss of income, but that might be in district court.

taperxz
06-01-2012, 8:53 AM
With this, I assume a whole lot of cases will now move forward.

Calplinker
06-01-2012, 8:53 AM
Interesting decision. If I'm understanding this correctly, Kilmer is in a strong position to get his fees paid by the county since the court clearly states that the county recently reversed their position about gun shows being allowed.

That's good news for us.

The concurring opinions also argue that the court should have addressed the 2A issue and found intermediate scrutiny to be the correct standard for 2A cases. While we would have preferred strict scrutiny, at least they gave voice to their thinking on the issue.

If it does eventually land at intermediate, we'll need to remain ever vigilant to ensure it doesn't get watered down to rational through incremental court decisions that whittle away at it.

What do the experts here think of the decision?

RKV
06-01-2012, 8:55 AM
Years of effort to get the county to cave. Thanks for sticking with it Nordykes. Hope you make money at your shows. Schedule them now!! Hold Alameda's feet to the fire. In fact, maybe we should make it a CalGuns event and show up en masse.

HowardW56
06-01-2012, 8:56 AM
With this, I assume a whole lot of cases will now move forward.

I'm sure there will be documents filed in many cases now to lift the various stays and get the ball rolling again...

dantodd
06-01-2012, 8:58 AM
Interesting decision. If I'm understanding this correctly, Kilmer is in a strong position to get his fees paid by the county since the court clearly states that the county recently reversed their position about gun shows being allowed.


This is my understanding of the case but I will wait for those with much more legal knowledge to weigh in.

Nick Justice
06-01-2012, 8:58 AM
The show goes on, but since courts hate making decisions without precedent to back them up, they refused to set a standard of review, or make a 2 amd related desicion.

The consessions at oral arguments meant that they didn't have to.

Interesting how the county caved, and changed their position. Proves that it had a very weak position to begin with.

Nordykes got what they wanted, so the court did not have to go any further than they did, and be accused of activism, or take heat for "bowing to the gun lobby."

BigDogatPlay
06-01-2012, 8:58 AM
I'd kind of like to see the opinion. . . I'm not entirely sure that the case is totally finished - at a minimum I'd expect the Nordykes to be pursuing compensation for loss of income, but that might be in district court.

The opinion is here. (http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/litigation/nordyke_v_king/07-15763%20Nordyke%20Opinion%206-1-12.pdf)

I'd like to see Mr. Kilmer compensated for the years he has put into this action as well. :D

From having attended the hearing when the county's counsel, essentially, reversed the county's position that gun shows were all right with certain conditions met... which is not what the ordinance really says but okay... today's decision was what was going to happen. The lower court had already affirmed 2A as an individual right and a higher court has affirmed and incorporated it. The county's reversal moots the 2A claim in this particular case, but doesn't do anything else as I read it.

Now we get to watch and listen for the announcement of the next gun show at the AlCo fairgrounds, and the lifting of the stays on all the cases being held by this one.

CHS
06-01-2012, 8:59 AM
Oh great, we're back to the "substantial burden" test.

This means a giant LOSE for Peruta, Richards, Pena, and Haynie.

Uxi
06-01-2012, 9:00 AM
So the other cases on hold for this decision were depending on this for what exactly?

Seems to be a a delaying tactic and nothing more.

Guess it will be 2 Weeks now for those case to start moving forward.....:cool:

Yeah that matches my feelings since they ducked the 2nd Amendment issue. Happy for the Nordykes though.

taperxz
06-01-2012, 9:02 AM
Oh great, we're back to the "substantial burden" test.

This means a giant LOSE for Peruta, Richards, Pena, and Haynie.

Not sure how you come to this conclusion.

CHS
06-01-2012, 9:08 AM
Not sure how you come to this conclusion.

Rather than leave the level of scrutiny in doubt, I would expressly adopt the measured, calibrated approach developed in the original three-judge panel majority opinion, which considers carefully the extent of the regula-tion’s burden on Second Amendment rights.

And

Rather than applying a constitutional
standard of review to Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment chal-lenge, see maj. op. at 6168, the majority applies the ever pop-ular “rule of thumb” standard, concluding that an amendment of Plaintiffs’ complaint is futile because the majority has the strong impression that County’s newly interpreted ordinance
is not sufficiently burdensome to violate the Second Amend-ment

speedrrracer
06-01-2012, 9:09 AM
Oh great, we're back to the "substantial burden" test.

This means a giant LOSE for Peruta, Richards, Pena, and Haynie.

Probably, but at least we can get that over with, and on to the endless appeals, eventually to the Supreme Court (circa 2309 AD)

Bhobbs
06-01-2012, 9:12 AM
Oh great, we're back to the "substantial burden" test.

This means a giant LOSE for Peruta, Richards, Pena, and Haynie.

Is that really a surprise?

dantodd
06-01-2012, 9:15 AM
Oh great, we're back to the "substantial burden" test.

This means a giant LOSE for Peruta, Richards, Pena, and Haynie.

I'm not sure how the sheriff denying you the right to bear arms is not a "substantial burden" on the right to bear arms. Perita and Richards are going to be contended until SCOTUS chimes in on the definition of bear. At least now they will not be stalled when that inevitably happens. I just hope it is by June of next year.

taperxz
06-01-2012, 9:16 AM
CHS, I see that as a draw and only specific to the SALES of guns at a gun show. Person possession SHOULD get stricter scrutiny? (my impression, individuals bearing arms that are not yet theirs, until purchased)

I might be wrong.

BigDogatPlay
06-01-2012, 9:20 AM
CHS, I see that as a draw and only specific to the SALES of guns at a gun show. Person possession SHOULD get stricter scrutiny? (my impression, individuals bearing arms that are not yet theirs, until purchased)

I might be wrong.

And that's what those cases are going to be litigated, in part, to determine.

The county caved and reversed it's position in the middle of the hearing, which (as I read the court's opinion) mooted the Nordyke's 2A claim on point. Because the county was willing to allow gun shows after all, there was no burden to be tested. Great... no real harm there, and let's then move on to cases that will test it.

At least that's how I see it.

Python2
06-01-2012, 9:21 AM
Hmnnnn......I wonder if we'll have Gun show back in San Mateo County.

yellowfin
06-01-2012, 9:25 AM
Oh great, we're back to the "substantial burden" test.

This means a giant LOSE for Peruta, Richards, Pena, and Haynie.Loss at district and maybe Circuit, maybe, but that's not necessarily a bad thing in total for the long run.

jdberger
06-01-2012, 9:27 AM
CHS, the phrases you refer to are in the concurring opinion, not the majority opinion, which according to the concurring opinion still doesn't set a standard of scrutiny.

safewaysecurity
06-01-2012, 9:31 AM
At least we can continue moving forward.

Rossi357
06-01-2012, 9:32 AM
Wollard will be buzzing in the ears of the 9th circuit Judges.
Does anyone smell a circuit split?

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 9:38 AM
And that's what those cases are going to be litigated, in part, to determine.

The county caved and reversed it's position in the middle of the hearing, which (as I read the court's opinion) mooted the Nordyke's 2A claim on point. Because the county was willing to allow gun shows after all, there was no burden to be tested. Great... no real harm there, and let's then move on to cases that will test it.

At least that's how I see it.


Even though the previous decision was vacated or whatever......after putting in writing a decision about scrutiny can they really later just pretend like they didn't reach that decision and just go a totally different direction without a ruling from a higher court to back them up?

Or since they rescinded that....does it mean they can act like it never happened?

Untamed1972
06-01-2012, 9:43 AM
I'm not sure how the sheriff denying you the right to bear arms is not a "substantial burden" on the right to bear arms. Perita and Richards are going to be contended until SCOTUS chimes in on the definition of bear. At least now they will not be stalled when that inevitably happens. I just hope it is by June of next year.

I tend to agree with this.....with LOC & UOC both now illegal....the only legal means to bear arms is with an LTC....so how is discretionary denial of the LTC not a substanial burden? It is essnetially a defacto ban on the bearing of arms for defense for nearly the entire population who are not otherwise prohibited from posessing firearms. Like was said in Heller: "that cannot withstand any level of scrutiny."

taperxz
06-01-2012, 9:57 AM
I tend to agree with this.....with LOC & UOC both now illegal....the only legal means to bear arms is with an LTC....so how is discretionary denial of the LTC not a substanial burden? It is essnetially a defacto ban on the bearing of arms for defense for nearly the entire population who are not otherwise prohibited from posessing firearms. Like was said in Heller: "that cannot withstand any level of scrutiny."

To be more specific, LOC & UOC have specific bans but are not illegal across the state. Just adding this as I think it helps our cause under equal protection.

OleCuss
06-01-2012, 10:03 AM
Interesting read.

I really don't see anything at all surprising.

But there was a bit of perspective which is worth paying attention to for those of us who are frustrated with the pace of things. Essentially at the beginning they talk about the "recent" Heller decision and the "even more recent" McDonald. My point being that if you and I were saying recent we might mean something in the last few days, weeks, or months. To the courts, however, a decision from years ago is "recent" and that may help us understand what feels to me like the glacially slow pace of RKBA progress in the courts.

Bigedski
06-01-2012, 10:14 AM
Will this do anything to get the Pomona gun show back, I'm tired of driving to Phoenix every December.

Crom
06-01-2012, 10:34 AM
I think this is a wonderful outcome for Nordyke. Personally, I'm glad they kept the 2A out of it.

We hold the County to its interpretation of the ordinance, and its reading is a reasonable one. With that interpretation in mind, Plaintiffs cannot state a viable Second Amendment claim. Thus read, the ordinance regulates the sale of firearms at Plaintiffs’ gun shows only minimally, and only
on County property. No matter how broad the scope of the Second Amendment—an issue that we leave for another day
—it is clear that, as applied to Plaintiffs’ gun shows and as interpreted by the County, this regulation is permissible

IVC
06-01-2012, 10:46 AM
If the 2A argument is moot due to the county's position reversal, this ruling should be very, very limited to the cases stayed pending Nordyke. I am leaning toward seeing this as not negative to neutral or slightly positive.

Window_Seat
06-01-2012, 11:02 AM
Should the County add new requirements or enforce
the ordinance unequally, or should additional facts come to
light, Plaintiffs or others similarly situated may, of course,
bring a new Second Amendment challenge to the relevant
laws or practices. But in the present case, they cannot succeed,
no matter what form of scrutiny applies to Second
Amendment claims.

This sounds like a loss to me, unless I'm reading it wrong and still don't have a good understanding of this thing.

This Court just declared that no matter how the Second is interpreted, the plaintiffs have no standing, and that rational basis applies, even though the defendant made it clear that rational basis was off the table.

The equal protection claim fails because Alameda County
could reasonably conclude that gun shows are more dangerous than military
reenactments. This is enough to satisfy rational basis scrutiny.

Or maybe there are parts of this thing that I'm not reading properly. Otherwise, this is more than definitely not consistent with ANY other Court decision in any other constitutional context, and no court could legitimately conclude that gunshows are more dangerous than the live firing of blanks in a Military reenactment, especially since there (as far as my memory serves me) has never been a fatality as a direct result of a gunshow event.

But we have to remember, that this is the Ninth Circuit that we are dealing with here.

So is it "SCOTUS, here we come!" (providing certiorari is granted)?

Erik.

morfeeis
06-01-2012, 11:03 AM
Will this do anything to get the Pomona gun show back, I'm tired of driving to Phoenix every December.
What, are you kidding!:D that show is the highlight of my year. all that freestate goodness just fills my heart with joy.:36:

Nick Justice
06-01-2012, 11:06 AM
Will this do anything to get the Pomona gun show back, I'm tired of driving to Phoenix every December.

I doubt it. Alameda County wanted to reduce the risk of serious injury or death from gun crime on county property (but let re-enactors carry) . Los Angeles County (Zev Y. at least) wanted to stop the sale of illegal guns and gun parts within the county after an undercover agent found full-auto parts for sale at one of the last shows held at Pomona.

Different reasons to ban the show + different facts = probably a different outcome.

Don't count on this case helping bring back our beloved Great Western Fair - Best Gun Show in The U.S.

ojisan
06-01-2012, 11:07 AM
I'm sure the 9th is thrilled...after 12 years, the easy way out was finally found and they avoided having to make a pro-2A decision.

Nick Justice
06-01-2012, 11:10 AM
The equal protection claim fails because Alameda County
could reasonably conclude that gun shows are more dangerous than military
reenactments. This is enough to satisfy rational basis scrutiny.

Even though at many reenactments the participants fire their guns (albiet blanks), and I have never been to a gun show that suffered one single discharge, accidental or otherwise. We must gather the facts that overturn the "rationale" used to support these bad laws, and then present them to the courts as EVIDENCE, not just EXHIBITS. Then we apply Cal. Civil Code Sec. 3510: When the reason of a rule ceases, so should the rule itself.

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2012, 11:12 AM
I see nothing in the ordinance or the decision that addresses ammo sales. That's a good thing. I think even the county will be so glad to have this behind them that piling on of new, unusual restrictions is unlikely, especially after they get their bill!

Each justice characterized the 11th hour consessions as broad, sweeping, etc.

The County now avers that a gun show is an event within the meaning of the exception . . . . We hold the county to it's interpretation of the ordinance, . . .

Twelve years into this appeal, the County now represents that its ordinance presents no barrier to conducting gun shows. Contrary to its previous assertions, the County now concedes . . .etc, etc,

The County's sweeping concession - made at oral argument before the en banc court - change the game and make this a far different case from the one argued before the three judge panel.

In light of the breadth of the County's concessions at oral argument, I am satisfied that the ordinance, as applied to Plaintiff's gun shows and as now interpreted by the County, survives this [undue burden] standard

Looks to me like Don's going to get paid. May it cause an undue burden on the county coffers.

Librarian
06-01-2012, 12:09 PM
Sticky, for a few days at least.

mofugly13
06-01-2012, 12:19 PM
Does this mean guns need to be tethered then? How does this jive with Fabio's predictions?

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2012, 12:51 PM
Does this mean guns need to be tethered then?Yes, that's quite clear, as it was the fulcrum on which the whole case turned at orals, and the crux of the ruling.
How does this jive with Fabio's predictions?I'll let Fabio and others speak to that.

Meplat
06-01-2012, 12:56 PM
So, the county lost the first round, got a do-over, knowing they would lose round 2, and so with the help of the ninth circus they jerked the silk table cloth of precedent out from under the wine glass of oppression without spilling a drop.

And they did it all with our money. Sweet.:mad:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 1:01 PM
I see nothing in the ordinance or the decision that addresses ammo sales.

The decision did quote the ordinance which generally bans possession of firearms and ammunition on county property, then rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to the ordinance entirely. An ammunition ban would not be a "new requirement" because it is already in the ordinance.

The posture of the case is basically the same as it was when the district court granted the MSJ 5 years ago in 2007: motion to amend to state a 2A claim denied, 1A and equal protection claims tossed, and the court affirming that secured guns at gun shows are o.k.

The majority opinion (is that what you call it?), didn't buy the "this is the first time I'm hearing this" spin on the latter point, it recognized that the county was making these arguments at least as early as "in its initial and supplemental briefing before the three judge panel" and the intial briefing was filed 4 1/2 years ago. In other words, the decision affirms that the county has taken this position consistently throughout the entire appeal. The audio transcripts of the various panel and en banc arguments only bolster this.

In the panel's previous decisions, O'Scannlain didn't clue in on the fact that the county has been arguing the latter since at least 2006, so his take on it now in the concurrence isn't too surprising. What is he going to say, I guess I glossed over that when I read the briefs and didn't listen carefully enough when the county told me this twice before in open court? He's not letting go of his substantial burden standard either. The district court judge got it (i.e., the county's arguments) all the way back in 2007, but he's a state court appellate justice now, so it will be interesting to see what the new judge does with a fee motion if that's the way the plaintiffs go.

I thought the history and tradition arguments were the best thing going for the plaintiffs, even though the plaintiffs had been doggedly arguing for strict scrutiny which was never going to happen and basically tossed in the history and tradition stuff at the last minute before the en banc arguments. Even when this was a "no guns, no exceptions" case, it was a loser under the usual burden and scrutiny rubric. The San Francisco trigger lock case makes the history and tradition arguments more directly and coherently; I think that is a promising approach and have thought so for some time (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3918781&postcount=84).

This en banc opinion avoids ruling that firearms sales are even within the scope of the 2A and avoids articulating any 2A standard of review. The decision is supported by how "minimally" the ordinance regulates "only on county property" and the Heller language about restrictions on commercial sales on firearms being ok. None of this is particularly helpful.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 1:06 PM
How does this jive with Fabio's predictions?

Mixed bag haha. I predicted that the court would deny the motion to supplement the factual record which it did.

I made an assessment in the prior thread that:

The plaintiffs have the better argument that the county's position pre-MSJ was no guns, no exception, and some of the judges on the panel are receptive to the idea that the county is now reversing itself, so this presents opportunity for the plaintiffs to argue they've won and try to recoup some fees and costs, either with the county agreeing on the amount or agreeing to leave it to the court to make a prevailing party determination and assess fees. Going into mediation the plaintiffs have leverage and could very well end up with gun shows closely resembling gun shows as usual.

That was in addition to my general observations in that thread that the case had basically devolved into a tit for tat about whether the county should pay fees, and that's where it looks like it's going right now, some of the judges bought the plaintiffs' spin and there will be a judicial determination on fees (if that's where the plaintiffs want to go).

My most recent prediction (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8554315&postcount=672) about what the en banc panel would actually do with the case was wrong. I thought they would reverse the order denying the motion to amend and send it back to the district court. I think that's what they should have done, along with some guidance on how to evaluate the 2A claim. But instead the 9th circuit signaled clearly that they're done with this one, and they did it not duck it by saying there's no controversy but instead by directly ruling that no viable 2A claim can be stated against the ordinance as interpreted by the county.

wash
06-01-2012, 1:36 PM
I doubt it. Alameda County wanted to reduce the risk of serious injury or death from gun crime on county property (but let re-enactors carry) . Los Angeles County (Zev Y. at least) wanted to stop the sale of illegal guns and gun parts within the county after an undercover agent found full-auto parts for sale at one of the last shows held at Pomona.

Different reasons to ban the show + different facts = probably a different outcome.

Don't count on this case helping bring back our beloved Great Western Fair - Best Gun Show in The U.S.
I don't think that's it at all.

We just won't have much of a decision to rely on.

We say "we want a gun show"

They look at Nordyke and say "that's nice, go away".

Hopefully we'll get a better scrutiny answer that we can import back to California some time.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 2:48 PM
This law professor (http://calapp.blogspot.com/2012/06/nordyke-v-king-9th-cir-june-1-2012.html) has an "excellent track record" with predictions and he predicts no fees for the Nordykes:

No settlement, despite an order by the Ninth Circuit to go to mediation. No attorney's fees, because the federal courts don't allow a catalyst theory. (Though I wouldn't be surprised to see plaintiffs file a motion given their partial practical victory, it'll be denied.) No grand Second Amendment holding. Just a decision that, yeah, what the County now says seems reasonable.

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2012, 2:53 PM
The decision did quote the ordinance which generally bans possession of firearms and ammunition on county property, then rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to the ordinance entirely. An ammunition ban would not be a "new requirement" because it is already in the ordinance.Why does the same exemption to the ordinance not apply? They are an "event", therefore exempt under the Count's "new" interpretation.

The exemption pertains to 9.12.120(b) which is the firearms and ammunition restriction, together, and are therefore covered under the exemption.

IPSICK
06-01-2012, 2:58 PM
So Alameda County just bails out the Federal 9th Circuit from having to make a 2nd Amendment ruling?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 3:01 PM
The exemption pertains to 9.12.120(b) which is the firearms and ammunition restriction, together, and are therefore covered under the exemption.

Again, the exception is quoted in the opinion:

(f) Exceptions. Subsection 9.12.120(b) does not
apply to the following:
. . . .
(4) The possession of a firearm by an
authorized participant in a motion picture,
television, video, dance or theatrical
production or event, when the
participant lawfully uses the firearm
as part of that production or event,
provided that when such firearm is not
in the actual possession of the authorized
participant, it is secured to prevent
unauthorized use.

The exception is for possession of firearms by authorized participants in events, and there is no exception for possession of ammunition by authorized participants in events. The ammo ban is a flat ban with no exceptions. The 9th circuit en banc panel does not appear to have any problem with this.

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2012, 3:31 PM
If Alameda attempts to enforce an ammo ban at the gun show I think that puts a 2A claim back on the table. Ammo is traditionally sold at gun shows, and it's part and parcel of the exercise of the right. Also, Scottish Games have ammo IIRC, albeit blanks. The ordinance doesn't make a distinction between live ammo and blanks. There is no exception for blanks.

kcbrown
06-01-2012, 3:42 PM
If Alameda attempts to enforce an ammo ban at the gun show I think that puts a 2A claim back on the table. Ammo is traditionally sold at gun shows, and it's part and parcel of the exercise of the right. Also, Scottish Games have ammo IIRC, albeit blanks. The ordinance doesn't make a distinction between live ammo and blanks. There is no exception for blanks.

My bet is that blanks are not regarded as "ammunition".

By the way, I have to eat some crow on this. I thought the court would sit on this for many months. They didn't. That is surprising to me. I may have to adjust my timeline predictions accordingly.

Please pull the crow meat off the bone before serving. :D

jdberger
06-01-2012, 3:52 PM
My bet is that blanks are not regarded as "ammunition".

See what they charge yo with when you try to bring one onto an airplane.

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2012, 3:53 PM
My bet is that blanks are not regarded as "ammunition".It doesn't say. And blanks can be lethal (http://propguys.com/gundanger/)at close range. It's still ammunition, especially until defined differently in the ordinance.

IPSICK
06-01-2012, 3:53 PM
My bet is that blanks are not regarded as "ammunition".

Aren't they shipped like "other regulated material" just like any other ammunition.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 4:02 PM
Also, Scottish Games have ammo IIRC, albeit blanks. The ordinance doesn't make a distinction between live ammo and blanks. There is no exception for blanks.

I'm going to encourage you, again, to read the text of the ordinance; this post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8303572&postcount=847) would be a good starting point on the "ammo" and "blanks" issue.

kcbrown
06-01-2012, 4:07 PM
See what they charge yo with when you try to bring one onto an airplane.

For some reason, I thought it was defined in state law, but I'm probably wrong about that since I can't find any such definition (EDIT: Fabio pointed it out).

I'm sure the county will attempt to claim in court that their interpretation for the purpose of the ordinance is that blanks are not ammunition, should it come to that.

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2012, 4:14 PM
Point taken. How about the 2A claim based on an ammo ban in an environment where ammo is historically and traditionally purchased? The en banc court didn't even consider the matter.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 4:30 PM
How about the 2A claim based on an ammo ban in an environment where ammo is historically and traditionally purchased? The en banc court didn't even consider the matter.

The opinion quoted the ordinance's ban on firearms and ammunition on county property, and then ruled no viable 2A claim could be stated against the ordinance. The plaintiffs' motion to supplement the factual record also argued the ammunition question and, embarassingly, "why hasn't the county explained by blanks are ok for the Scottish games?":

Nor does the “tethered-guns” suggestion address whether ammunition can be possessed at the gun shows. Are boxes of ammunition to be tethered to the display tables? Is ammunition still forbidden? State law already forbids anyone from simultaneously possessing a firearm and the ammunition for that firearm at a gun show. Yet the County’s Ordinance has already been interpreted as permitting the Scottish Games to possess firearms and blank ammunition for those firearms. The County has never explained how their exceptions for the possession of firearms at the Scottish Games expanded into an exception for possessing ammunition – and why that exception would not extend to gun shows.

The en banc panel considered and then denied this motion. So if you had to bet on whether or not the panel considered the ammo question, I know where I would place my bet. No they didn't spend any time on it in today's decision but they didn't spend much time on anything else either.

ojisan
06-01-2012, 4:52 PM
The 9th didn't "catch" the ammo ban?
I find that hard to believe.
Knowing full well that no ammo sales would cripple the show, perhaps it was not ducked, but purposely ignored.
If the show fails because a significant number of vendors won't attend since they cannot sell ammo, and a significant number of customer's won't attend since they cannot buy ammo, then Alameda / the 9th wins in the real world.
Profit margins are always ultra thin these days, a 20-30-40-50% reduction in attendance by vendors and customers would kill most any show.
Actually this is quite a slap-down zinger from the 9th.

Despite the "victory" for having guns at a gun show, as a businessman, I would have to advise the Nordykes to take their gun show elsewhere.

hoffmang
06-01-2012, 5:29 PM
I understand that dates for the re-started Alameda Fairgrounds gun show have already been reserved.

Fees will certainly be an interesting issue, but damages don't require a catalyst theory.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 5:43 PM
Oh yeah, damages. For the 2A claim that never made it into the pleadings, or the 1A and EP that got tossed by MSJ?

Gray Peterson
06-01-2012, 5:46 PM
Oh yeah, damages. For the 2A claim that never made it into the pleadings, or the 1A and EP that got tossed by MSJ?

What is your experience with s 1983 fees?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 5:57 PM
I quoted a law professors blog... maybe ask him about that?

navyinrwanda
06-01-2012, 6:14 PM
But instead the 9th circuit signaled clearly that they're done with this one...
This is the real message from the Ninth Circuit. Nordyke had become a procedurally, factually and legally muddled case. Both litigants and the three-judge circuit panel all contributed to the chaos. Major constitutional law is rarely made in messy cases. So the en banc panel chose to put it down.

If a bona fide gun show is once again soon held at the Fairgrounds in Pleasanton, then the Nordykes will have won. But this opinion will not make it easy for them (or their attorneys) to recover fees or damages. Judge Kozinski's irritation that this case hadn't been settled years ago has been palpable throughout the en banc proceedings. Too many people (on both sides) tried to make Nordyke into a vehicle for settling major Second Amendment issues. They reached too far, so now this case ends as a misunderstanding about local retailing regulations.

dantodd
06-01-2012, 6:33 PM
I understand that dates for the re-started Alameda Fairgrounds gun show have already been reserved.

Fees will certainly be an interesting issue, but damages don't require a catalyst theory.

-Gene

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Can the Nordykes/Don/CGF arrange a small $50 or $100 a plate party on the fairgrounds after day 1? We can all show our appreciation and kick a little more toward the cause.

Gray Peterson
06-01-2012, 7:01 PM
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Can the Nordykes/Don/CGF arrange a small $50 or $100 a plate party on the fairgrounds after day 1? We can all show our appreciation and kick a little more toward the cause.

That might be worth flying down.

eaglemike
06-01-2012, 7:21 PM
Blanks have killed, many times.........

I'll fly up or drive up for the first (new) show if at all possible.

BigDogatPlay
06-01-2012, 8:41 PM
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Can the Nordykes/Don/CGF arrange a small $50 or $100 a plate party on the fairgrounds after day 1? We can all show our appreciation and kick a little more toward the cause.

I'd be in for that... and more than happy to man the booth.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 8:47 PM
Oh yeah, damages. For the 2A claim that never made it into the pleadings, or the 1A and EP that got tossed by MSJ?

Anyone have an answer to this? lol.

dantodd
06-01-2012, 8:57 PM
Anyone have an answer to this? lol.

It would seem that it is impossible to determine which cause of action was responsible for the damages caused to the because the county chose to moot the case by rolling over and wetting themselves like a puppy in front of the en banc panel.

So, of the county admits (by their actions) that their previous position was violative of the Nordyke's rights the court cannot determine which cause the county was believed would prevail so the only issue would seem to be if there were real damages and how much they amount to.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 9:04 PM
No mooting that I can see, the 9th circuit decided the case on the merits, without ruling (and without the county conceding) that anyone's rights had been violated. The question is how can you get damages when all of your claims have been tossed out? I'm sure there must be some super-secret theory that only experienced federal practitioners versed in 1983 fee motions know about.:rolleyes:

dantodd
06-01-2012, 9:06 PM
Commas are important. As written the "events" that the county now claims Gun Shows fall under are only "Theateical Events." The current interpretation is NOT a reasonable interpretation of the law as the court claims. They dodged the issue plain and simple.

dantodd
06-01-2012, 9:11 PM
No mooting that I can see, the 9th circuit decided the case on the merits, without ruling (and without the county conceding) that anyone's rights had been violated. The question is how can you get damages when all of your claims have been tossed out? I'm sure there must be some super-secret theory that only experienced federal practitioners versed in 1983 fee motions know about.:rolleyes:

I are not a lawyer so I don't know anything about that. However; the majority decided that the current interpretation is novel as of the last 3 judge circuit panel. This opens up the counties previous interpretation as potentially being violative of the Nordykes' rights. (Why else would the county change their interpretation?)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 9:16 PM
As written the "events" that the county now claims Gun Shows fall under are only "Theateical Events."

The district court (http://hoffmang.com/firearms/Nordyke-v-King/Nordyke-v-King-Summary_Judgement_Order-2007-04-17.pdf) didn't look at it that way.

darkwater
06-01-2012, 9:17 PM
The NRA-ILA release indicates the Nordykes aren't done yet:

"In fact, showing what fighters they are, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion the Nordykes are submitting gun show plans to Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties to force those jurisdictions to allow gun shows on their fairgrounds. Those counties adopted essentially the same ordinance as Alameda, and have been interpreting them to prohibit gun shows. Unless those counties adopt Alameda County’s concession and allow gun shows on their fairgrounds, they will face similar lawsuits."

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/after-13-years,-ninth-circuit-nordyke-ruling-allows-gun-shows-on-alameda-county-fairgrounds.aspx

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 9:27 PM
However; the majority decided that the current interpretation is novel as of the last 3 judge circuit panel. This opens up the counties previous interpretation as potentially being violative of the Nordykes' rights. (Why else would the county change their interpretation?)

In the course of deciding the appeal, could the en banc panel have ruled that the plaintiffs rights had been violated up until the county changed its interpretation (or at least sent it back to the district court to rule on that)? I don't know, just throwing the question out there. As it stands there's nothing for the district court to do on the various claims because its orders on the motion to amend and MSJ have been affirmed and there are no longer any live claims in this litigation.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 9:31 PM
The NRA-ILA release indicates the Nordykes aren't done yet:

If they copied the language from the Alameda Ordinance, the other counties are going to have a hard time overcoming Alameda's interpretation of its own ordinance and the 9th circuit's recognition that it is a reasonable one. So either allow guns shows with tethered guns, or amend their ordinance a la Los Angeles County's ordinance, which is also vulnerable.

dantodd
06-01-2012, 9:45 PM
The district court (http://hoffmang.com/firearms/Nordyke-v-King/Nordyke-v-King-Summary_Judgement_Order-2007-04-17.pdf) didn't look at it that way.

Don't know what to say. Without a comma the adjective "theatrical" applies to the nouns on both sides of the conjunction. It's really a classic example of the serial comma. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and maybe the law doesn't follow the same rules of grammar I grew up with.

gatesbox
06-01-2012, 9:49 PM
Hey good to see my cousin Connie listed on the opinion. Do all the 9th circuit judges weigh in?

trashman
06-01-2012, 10:03 PM
A disappointing outcome, but not unexpected, as someone noted to me at the dinner after the orals "nordykes got screwed".

It's obvious to most non-lawyers that Alameda did everything they could to prevent gun shows on country property going back to the drafting of the ordinance, and were successful in doing so. Their in-court reversal (after their prior assertion at previous orals that a gun show might be held without guns present..) regarding tethered guns is embarrassing to behold.

I look forward to the next gunshow on the Alameda county fairgrounds, and I look forward to any fundraising dinners CGF/CGN might have for the Nordykes.

--Neill

Window_Seat
06-01-2012, 10:14 PM
Notice of supplemental authority (http://truckerguns.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/rule-28j-notice-citing-nordyke-v1.pdf) citing this Nordyke decision filed by Chuck Michel in Peruta v. San Diego asking for the stay to be lifted.

Did he not waste any time on that 28(j) notice? ;)

Erik.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 10:22 PM
In the course of deciding the appeal, could the en banc panel have ruled that the plaintiffs rights had been violated up until the county changed its interpretation (or at least sent it back to the district court to rule on that)?

I'm going to answer my own question: yes the en banc panel could have kept a claim for past damages alive. Interesting to consider what it means that the panel did not rule the case moot and also shut down any claim for damages.

eaglemike
06-01-2012, 10:29 PM
The district court (http://hoffmang.com/firearms/Nordyke-v-King/Nordyke-v-King-Summary_Judgement_Order-2007-04-17.pdf) didn't look at it that way.
IIRC the county was the first to use that interpretation, and the court seized upon it. That's doesn't mean it's the best interpretation, or most accurate. It means it's what is used until they decide to "re-interpret." Someday down the road when the political winds are blowing a little differently I would not be surprised at all if the county tried to change the interpretation. Remember the history of this? The exception was put into place specifically to allow the historical re-enactment/games. ETA: and at the time this exception was put into place, the county still held the position "no gun shows on county property." So if the wording was there back then, why did the interpretation change? :)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 10:42 PM
So if the wording was there back then, why did the interpretation change? :)

It changed as early as 2005...I couldn't begin to speculate why.

Maestro Pistolero
06-01-2012, 11:01 PM
It's probably best to just stick fork in and call it done. Try as it might, it was apparently never going to be the best vehicle to settle the broader 2A questions. It's fortunate that the right emerged from this circus relatively unscathed.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-01-2012, 11:14 PM
It's fortunate that the right emerged from this circus relatively unscathed.

Yes, it could have been worse and the first opinion from the 3 judge panel was worse.

wildhawker
06-01-2012, 11:33 PM
Yes, it could have been worse and the first opinion from the 3 judge panel was worse.

Look at me, agreeing with Fabio.

Richards, and its slightly less rounded-out step-sister Peruta, present excellent vehicles to address the 2A scrutiny question, bear being a textual element of the Constitution.

We can now work from the textual scope out to the corollaries, downhill.

-Brandon

1BigPea
06-02-2012, 12:24 AM
So bummer, the Incorporation of the RKBA in CA doesn't exist...legally?

Liberty1
06-02-2012, 1:23 AM
So bummer, the Incorporation of the RKBA in CA doesn't exist...legally?

It still exists via SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald. What that protects is not yet firmly decided in the 9th or any other circuit. We are awaiting decisions regarding 'bearing arms' to free us here in the authoritarian states.

killmime1234
06-02-2012, 5:44 AM
So how does this affect the cases that have been stayed pending nordyke? I.e. does this bring Scocca v smith any closer to a resolution or is it still set to have no more forward movement until at least the end of August?

dantodd
06-02-2012, 5:50 AM
So how does this affect the cases that have been stayed pending nordyke? I.e. does this bring Scocca v smith any closer to a resolution or is it still set to have no more forward movement until at least the end of August?

You'll see the Cases restarting wherever they left off. Whatever briefs were upcoming will get a new due date etc. the resolution of Nordyke essentially avoided any 2A question so the stayed cases will be little impacted, if at all, by the outcome.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-02-2012, 7:26 AM
The NRA-ILA release indicates the Nordykes aren't done yet:

"In fact, showing what fighters they are, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion the Nordykes are submitting gun show plans to Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties to force those jurisdictions to allow gun shows on their fairgrounds. Those counties adopted essentially the same ordinance as Alameda, and have been interpreting them to prohibit gun shows. Unless those counties adopt Alameda County’s concession and allow gun shows on their fairgrounds, they will face similar lawsuits."

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/after-13-years,-ninth-circuit-nordyke-ruling-allows-gun-shows-on-alameda-county-fairgrounds.aspx


Given that the Nordykes have shown that there's just no give in them, those counties should fold their tents right now.


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
06-02-2012, 8:34 AM
"As gun shows may now be held on county property with only the restrictions described in the majority opinion, see majority op. at 6168, I agree with the majority that Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim cannot succeed."[emphasis mine]

6168:
Moreover, the County affirmatively asserts that Plaintiffs, when conducting a gun show, may offer firearms for sale with the requirement that, when a “firearm is not in the actual possession of the authorized participant,” the firearm must be “secured to prevent unauthorized use.” Id. The County represents that a sturdy cable attaching the fire- arm to a fixture, such as a table, would suffice—much as cell phones, cameras, and other attractive items routinely are dis- played for sale. The County further represents that buyers may physically inspect properly secured firearms.
[1] We hold the County to its interpretation of the ordi- nance, and its reading is a reasonable one.

There is not a word about an ammo restriction "described in the majority opinion".

[2] Should the County add new requirements or enforce the ordinance unequally, or should additional facts come to light, Plaintiffs or others similarly situated may, of course, bring a new Second Amendment challenge to the relevant laws or practices

jorgyusa
06-02-2012, 9:02 AM
Congratulations to Don and Sallie on a hard fought win. I really appreciate their persistence and will definitely be attending the first gun show in Alameda County.

The other good news is that our other 2A cases should now be able to move forward and we got no bad ruling on the 2A. So the courts will have to depend on Heller, McDonald, Ezel etc. to make their findings and not be confused with some nonsense out of this circuit. Hooray!!!!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-02-2012, 9:16 AM
If the ammo ban is quoted in the majority opinion, how is that not in the majority opinion? The ammo ban is all over the place in the record...in the 1999 correspondence, in the joint statement of undisputed facts, in the declarations supporting the county's MSJ, in the MSJ order, in the plaintiffs' 2010 supplemental briefing (see especially pages 9-10 where commerce in ammunition is directly argued), in the panel opinions, in the motion to supplement the record, etc. It's not a new requirement and it's not a fact that hasn't yet come to light and the en banc panel unanimously rejected the 2A challenge to the ordinance including the ammo ban.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-02-2012, 9:26 AM
The other good news is that...we got no bad ruling on the 2A.

I think it depends on how you look at it. It's circuit precedent upholding a gun law regulating commerce in firearms and ammunition, including a total ammunition ban, that does not require any scrutiny analysis.

sighere
06-02-2012, 9:30 AM
I think now that the case is decided, Richards, Yolo and the others will continue on and get remanded back down to the district level. Remember they were decided on the basis that open carry provided ample opportunity for the plaintiffs to exercise their 2A rights and therefore not a substantial burden. Now that OC'ing is illegal, these cases will be pushed back to square one. Forget 2 weeks.....2 years!

Gray Peterson
06-02-2012, 9:33 AM
I think now that the case is decided, Richards, Yolo and the others will continue on and get remanded back down to the district level. Remember they were decided on the basis that open carry provided ample opportunity for the plaintiffs to exercise their 2A rights and therefore not a substantial burden. Now that OC'ing is illegal, these cases will be pushed back to square one. Forget 2 weeks.....2 years!

No.

Maestro Pistolero
06-02-2012, 9:36 AM
I think it depends on how you look at it. It's circuit precedent upholding a gun law regulating commerce in firearms and ammunition, including a total ammunition ban, that does not require any scrutiny analysis.
If you are correct that they intended to allow an ammo ban without scrutiny analysis, then the Nordykes ought to appeal the decision to SCOTUS, who explicitly required such an analysis.

It really seems like the case, after all this time, got the bum's rush. After 12 years, two en banc panels, and multiple core 2A cases held up, it deserved more care than this. It's really an embarrassment that they never even dealt with the crucial issue of ammunition at orals. It was not even addressed.

sighere
06-02-2012, 9:46 AM
No.

NO, as in: you don't agree with me, or No as in: "that sucks"?

Gray Peterson
06-02-2012, 9:50 AM
Everyone should read the decision called McDonald II in the 7th circuit.

Maestro Pistolero
06-02-2012, 9:59 AM
Everyone should read the decision called McDonald II in the 7th circuit.

Gray, do you have a link handy for that?

GM4spd
06-02-2012, 10:05 AM
If you are correct that they intended to allow an ammo ban without scrutiny analysis, then the Nordykes ought to appeal the decision to SCOTUS

This isn't going to happen. Pete

Gray Peterson
06-02-2012, 10:24 AM
NO, as in: you don't agree with me, or No as in: "that sucks"?

The former.

I can't speak for CGF here, or for the plaintiffs, or the lawyers. A few things I know from being a plaintiff for another civil case.

First, the court of appeals reviews for errors of law by the district court. This is called de novo review.

For correcting errors in facts, there is a "clearly erroneous" standard of review. That's a very difficult standard.

Courts of appeal are able look at new law & make determinations. They won't reverse without giving instruction to the lower courts how to proceed with the new paradigm.

eaglemike
06-02-2012, 11:01 AM
It changed as early as 2005...I couldn't begin to speculate why.
IIRC it might have been 2006 - but it was not in writing. The text of the ordinance did not change - but the county's interpretation did!! The exemption had been noted in writing long before this.

If the ordinance isn't clear enough that a ban either exists or doesn't, with the same wording, how can this law stand? This reminds me of the famous "it's really up to the district attorney's of the 58 counties."
Stupid, stupid, stupid.......

kcbrown
06-02-2012, 11:04 AM
IIRC it might have been 2006 - but it was not in writing. The text of the ordinance did not change - but the county's interpretation did!! The exemption had been noted in writing long before this.

If the ordinance isn't clear enough that a ban either exists or doesn't, with the same wording, how can this law stand? This reminds me of the famous "it's really up to the district attorney's of the 58 counties."
Stupid, stupid, stupid.......

No, not stupid. Malicious.

Paladin
06-02-2012, 11:09 AM
Wow, this is ~6 months before I thought the 9th would release its opinion. I had figured SCOTUS would decide re taking a Carry Case next fall before we'd hear from the 9th.

This means there can be some progress made on Scocca, Richards, and/or Peruta before SCOTUS' decision re taking a Carry Case. And if SCOTUS wimps out again year, we might get a decision -- for better or worse -- from the 9th re. Carry before fall 2013, when SCOTUS would have another chance to take a Carry Case.

Richards, and its slightly less rounded-out step-sister Peruta, present excellent vehicles to address the 2A scrutiny question, bear being a textual element of the Constitution.

We can now work from the textual scope out to the corollaries, downhill.

-BrandonI sure hope you are correct. In CA, LEOs are armed, BGs are armed, but non-LEO GGs are unarmed. So guess who the BGs are attacking??? :mad:

Brandon/Gene/Gray (others, please skip the lame "two weeks" postings), care to hazard a guess how long until we win Shall Issue for CA and/or the 9th Circuit?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-02-2012, 11:17 AM
IIRC it might have been 2006 - but it was not in writing.

Yes, the county's "current" interpretation was in writing as early as 2006.

sighere
06-02-2012, 11:18 AM
The former.

I can't speak for CGF here, or for the plaintiffs, or the lawyers. A few things I know from being a plaintiff for another civil case.

First, the court of appeals reviews for errors of law by the district court. This is called de novo review.

For correcting errors in facts, there is a "clearly erroneous" standard of review. That's a very difficult standard.

Courts of appeal are able look at new law & make determinations. They won't reverse without giving instruction to the lower courts how to proceed with the new paradigm.

So, either way, it gets bumped down to the lower court. Since in their decision in Nordyke (9th cir) they specifically stated that they are avoiding the standard of review question the lower court will be free to fantasize a decision as close or as far away from the direction given in Heller/McDonald as they feel. 2 years...ok, maybe 1.....

sighere
06-02-2012, 11:20 AM
Yes, the county's "current" interpretation was in writing as early as 2006.

Which is exactly why they all stood there during the hearing and looked at the ground when the Chief Justice asked, and I paraphrase, "what the hell are we doing here" in response to the fact that both the county and Nordyke are ok with the "tethering" provision. If it was in writing as far back as 2006, attorney fees will be a lot harder to negotiate.

trashman
06-02-2012, 11:32 AM
No, not stupid. Malicious.

Yep - applies to both examples in the previous post.

--Neill

eaglemike
06-02-2012, 11:37 AM
Yes, the county's "current" interpretation was in writing as early as 2006.
Could you please post a link to that? I could not find it. Thanks!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-02-2012, 11:54 AM
Could you please post a link to that? I could not find it. Thanks!

It was one of the documents posted here (http://blog.dklawoffice.com/nordyke-v-king-en-banc/excerpt-of-record/dcdn_080/) (i.e. the county's motion for summary judgment and supporting declarations) but I'm getting a streaming error message now. In the motion the county expressly interpreted the ordinance as allowing gun shows as "events" if the requirements of the ordinance were met, i.e., secured when not in immediate possession of authorized participants.

Gray Peterson
06-02-2012, 11:55 AM
Brandon/Gene/Gray (others, please skip the lame "two weeks" postings), care to hazard a guess how long until we win Shall Issue for CA and/or the 9th Circuit?

Assuming a win at the 9th after a September hearing, or the 9th summarily reversing in the next 2 months, my best guess is January.

kcbrown
06-02-2012, 5:04 PM
Assuming a win at the 9th after a September hearing, or the 9th summarily reversing in the next 2 months, my best guess is January.

And if we don't get a win at the 9th (one way or the other, either directly or through summary reversal)?

Also, how likely is it that we'll get such a win at the 9th that is to our liking (i.e., one that we will not feel compelled to appeal)?

wildhawker
06-02-2012, 6:55 PM
Speaking personally, I'm growing rather tired of the probabilities and timelines lines of inquiry.

We'll get what we get in the timeframe we get it.

Until we do, however, the fight is on. So stop talking so much and fight more.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J003095/Patton.jpg

-Brandon

ALSystems
06-02-2012, 7:14 PM
The Peruda and Richards carry cases will finally proceed. But remember this is called the Ninth Circus Court for a reason.

I'm going to guess the Court will use this Nordyke decision somehow as a precedent case. One bizarre interpretation will be:

'Nordyke concealed carry' :rolleyes: ;)
Concealed carry will only be permitted if and only if your carry gun is still tethered to the table you bought it from in an Alemeda County gunshow. This will be considered no undue burden and therefore no 2nd Amendment claim.

hoffmang
06-02-2012, 7:21 PM
About 5 carry cases are ahead of Peruta and Richards. As such, I expect we'll see a cert grant in one of those before we see a decision in either and that will hold them. However, we're facing an about 40% chance that the cert grant is early enough to get a SCOTUS carry case decided by June 2013.

And Fabio may be accurate, but not correct. There is a tremendous lack of clarity on many issues in this case but what is quite clear is that Alameda will have to allow gun shows. You'll note that four judges invited a rehearing motion if clarity isn't accepted by the County.

-Gene

Saym14
06-02-2012, 7:47 PM
so wheh does the Pomono gun show start up again ?

NoJoke
06-02-2012, 8:23 PM
Speaking personally, I'm growing rather tired of the probabilities and timelines lines of inquiry.

We'll get what we get in the timeframe we get it.

Until we do, however, the fight is on. So stop talking so much and fight more.

-Brandon

Point me in a direction and give me an order Sir! :salute:

wildhawker
06-02-2012, 8:28 PM
Let me know what we can count on you for: www.calgunsfoundation.org/volunteer.

I'll be in touch.

-Brandon

Paladin
06-02-2012, 10:07 PM
Speaking personally, I'm growing rather tired of the probabilities and timelines lines of inquiry.

We'll get what we get in the timeframe we get it.I can understand that, esp when you don't have a firm foundation upon which to base your prediction because of various courts' ever changing time tables.

Nonetheless, try to understand many CGNers have been waiting decades for what we consider to be a basic right of humans, not just Americans, to be finally acknowledged by our courts.

Until we do, however, the fight is on. So stop talking so much and fight more.Um, I make fewer than 10 posts/week nowadays on CGN, probably ~5 or less.

IIRC, we've got all the cases we need to win (or lose) in the fed cts' "pipeline" already.

I'm still passing out my "business card fliers" to a dozen or so different pro-gunnies each week.

This weekend I'll be buying more stuff thru Amazon via the CGF website.

About 5 carry cases are ahead of Peruta and Richards. As such, I expect we'll see a cert grant in one of those before we see a decision in either and that will hold them. However, we're facing an about 40% chance that the cert grant is early enough to get a SCOTUS carry case decided by June 2013.
Thanks, Gene. Looks like it doesn't really help speed things up much, if at all....

I'm just very concerned about Obama winning reelection and changing the composition of SCOTUS before our RKBA has been given a solid legal foundation.

Paladin
06-02-2012, 11:14 PM
Assuming a win at the 9th after a September hearing, or the 9th summarily reversing in the next 2 months, my best guess is January.Thanks for your reply, Gray.

Since I usually talk to a few "newbies" (gunnies who aren't actively keeping in touch w/what's going on) each week about CGN/CGF and what we hope to achieve re Shall Issue, I guess I'll tell them we should win within 2 years (July 2014), and hopefully within 1 year.

Too many newbies I talk with don't have any idea of what's been going on in the fed cts (Heller, McDonald), and so have no hope of ever LTCing in CA (I meet w/folks living in the SF Bay Area). Until we win a major case with real world impact (versus laying foundation for other cases), words of encouragement are all we have to keep going. As Patton once wrote, a lot of his job is telling a commander that he is not licked and can win his fight.

wildhawker
06-02-2012, 11:37 PM
Um, I make fewer than 10 posts/week nowadays on CGN, probably ~5 or less.

Unless you're feeling self-conscious, I wasn't speaking to you directly.

How close to the front lines can you be if you keep asking if we're there yet?

-Brandon

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-02-2012, 11:41 PM
You'll note that four judges invited a rehearing motion if clarity isn't accepted by the County.

"[I]f clarity isn't accepted by the County" = "if we have misinterpreted the County's representations". Right, good point! The decision is just one big misinterpretation of the county's representations lol. By the way, any examples of an en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing under Rule 35?

Now how are the plaintiffs going to get damages again when all of their claims have been tossed out?

hoffmang
06-02-2012, 11:56 PM
"[I]f clarity isn't accepted by the County" = "if we have misinterpreted the County's representations". Right, good point! The decision is just one big misinterpretation of the county's representations lol. By the way, any examples of an en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing under Rule 35?

Now how are the plaintiffs going to get damages again when all of their claims have been tossed out?

Yep. That's why they wasted a footnote inviting rehearing. Nothing to see in the 4 judge concurrence. Not at all.

I mean FGG knows better than 4 judges of CA-9.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 12:08 AM
Why don't you answer questions any more? lol. How does the decision misinterpret the county's representations? What precedent is there for an en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing? Has that ever happened in the history of federal appellate practice? I'm sure a majority of the 9th circuit judges will be really eager to order en banc rehearing of this en banc rehearing, especially if the plaintiffs are not clear on stuff like, you know, did the en banc panel really mean to uphold the ordinance including the ammo ban?

Oh yeah, how are plaintifffs going to get damages if there are no live claims?

hoffmang
06-03-2012, 12:11 AM
Why don't you answer questions any more? lol. How does the decision misinterpret the county's representations? What precedent is there for an en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing? Has that ever happened in the history of federal appellate practice? I'm sure a majority of the 9th circuit judges will be really eager to order en banc rehearing of this en banc rehearing, especially if the plaintiffs are not clear on stuff like, you know, did the en banc panel really mean to uphold the ordinance including the ammo ban?

Oh yeah, how are plaintifffs going to get damages if there are no live claims?

So FGG - here is my question for you. Can you disclaim all pecuniary interests in gun rights and will you admit or deny that you have a relationship with CDM?

Are you even smart enough to realize that CGF's only involvement in Nordyke was support and an Amicus - kind of like NRA?

You first on the questions since you're hiding behind anonymity and either have a very large stake JM or no stake at all. Which is it?

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
06-03-2012, 12:21 AM
And, of course, if we have misinterpreted the County’s representations, either party may file a petition for rehearing.
Why would the plaintiffs want to do that? And what if the plaintiffs believe they have been misinterpreted?

The en banc decision seems really hasty. Is there any indication they were even considering the ammo ban when they proclaimed the 2A claim DOA? What reasoning did they use to decide that an ammo ban at a gun show falls outside of 2A protection?

It seems they believed they were handed a way to finally put this thing out of it's misery and they took it.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 12:25 AM
Oh. my. god. Where are you getting this looney tunes stuff from? lol. Where can I find the rule that anonymous internet posters have to answer questions first?

kcbrown
06-03-2012, 1:32 AM
Assuming a win at the 9th after a September hearing, or the 9th summarily reversing in the next 2 months, my best guess is January.

I will fall out of my chair in surprise if we get a real win in the 9th on carry's first trip up that doesn't have some sort of poison pill embedded in it.

But I remain hopeful, nonetheless, that such a thing will happen.


You have to love how hope and expectation can be so very different...

GarandFan
06-03-2012, 6:11 AM
First ... thanks to CalGuns for involvement in myriad right to arms cases.

Second ... from where I live in Kentucky, this whole issue with Alameda county seems completely asinine, unnecessary, and incredible.

Third ... what is the backstory regarding the county's capitulation? Originally, they banned firearms (hence shows) on county property. Now, YEARS later they capitulate, and allow guns long as reasonably secured. This of course largely mooted the 2A aspects of the case.

What I want to know is why? Why would the county capitulate on their primary issue? What motivated them to capitulate? Did they not want their case to set pro-2A precedent? This seems unlikely. Did they want an "out" for paying fees and damages? This seems more likely. Other reasons?

taperxz
06-03-2012, 6:48 AM
First ... thanks to CalGuns for involvement in myriad right to arms cases.

Second ... from where I live in Kentucky, this whole issue with Alameda county seems completely asinine, unnecessary, and incredible.

Third ... what is the backstory regarding the county's capitulation? Originally, they banned firearms (hence shows) on county property. Now, YEARS later they capitulate, and allow guns long as reasonably secured. This of course largely mooted the 2A aspects of the case.

What I want to know is why? Why would the county capitulate on their primary issue? What motivated them to capitulate? Did they not want their case to set pro-2A precedent? This seems unlikely. Did they want an "out" for paying fees and damages? This seems more likely. Other reasons?

On a case like this, you really need to use google and do some research on all the back stories of this case. It did take 12 years to get to this point.

GarandFan
06-03-2012, 7:05 AM
On a case like this, you really need to use google and do some research on all the back stories of this case. It did take 12 years to get to this point.

I've been following this case off and on for a few years. I am not talking the old backstories ... I am asking about why the county capitulated their prohibition of guns on county property. Recall this came out at the en banc oral argument (ie. very recently).

taperxz
06-03-2012, 7:22 AM
I've been following this case off and on for a few years. I am not talking the old backstories ... I am asking about why the county capitulated their prohibition of guns on county property. Recall this came out at the en banc oral argument (ie. very recently).

Again you need to back story and try to come to your own conclusion.

It's really the million dollar question. No one knows for sure.

taperxz
06-03-2012, 7:25 AM
FWIW, some are of the opinion that they capitulated in 2006 and some feel this was a surprise at the hearing this year.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 7:39 AM
I've been following this case off and on for a few years. I am not talking the old backstories ... I am asking about why the county capitulated their prohibition of guns on county property. Recall this came out at the en banc oral argument (ie. very recently).

It came out as early as 2006 in the county's motion for summary judgment and the county has been "capitulating" consistently ever since (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8299625&postcount=830). It was the plaintiffs who continued to argue for 6 more years that the ordinance was a "no guns, no exceptions" gun ban as applied to the plaintiffs' gun show, which was obviously a stronger position for them to take in terms of the claims they were alleging or trying to allege...just look at what happened when the en banc panel realized what the county had really been arguing. The plaintiffs got some traction with its "no guns, no exceptions" argument, especially in front of the 3 judge panel that heard the appeal twice before but nevertheless ruled against the plaintiffs (and failed to recognize the county's "secured guns are o.k." position). The en banc majority however realized that this was not some sudden change that happened for the first time at the March '12 en banc hearing:

In its initial and supplemental briefing before the three judge panel, and again during oral argument before the en banc court, counsel for Alameda County gave the County’s current, official interpretation of its ordinance.

The initial briefing before the three judge panel was January '08, pre-Heller, pre-McDonald. The concurring judge thinks it was some bolt out of the blue, but he was one of the panel judges who didn't pick up on it years ago. But yeah the spin that the county suddenly "blinked" and reversed course at the en banc argument has some traction, even though the paper trail and audio transcripts from the prior hearings say otherwise.

NoJoke
06-03-2012, 7:45 AM
I'm going to go look up what an "en banc hearing" is, seems pivotal.

I've never really had a chance to hang out with the lawyer types....you guys are kinda intense! :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc

Maestro Pistolero
06-03-2012, 10:18 AM
The en banc majority however realized that this was not some sudden change that happened for the first time at the March '12 en banc hearing:They absolutely did NOT realize that. In none of the several opinions was this understood to be a previous positition for the county.

See my post here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8681553&postcount=39).


The County now avers that a gun show is an event within the meaning of the exception . . . . We hold the county to it's interpretation of the ordinance, . . .

Twelve years into this appeal, the County now represents that its ordinance presents no barrier to conducting gun shows. Contrary to its previous assertions, the County now concedes . . .etc, etc,

The County's sweeping concession - made at oral argument before the en banc court - change the game and make this a far different case from the one argued before the three judge panel.

In light of the breadth of the County's concessions at oral argument, I am satisfied that the ordinance, as applied to Plaintiff's gun shows and as now interpreted by the County, survives this [undue burden] standard

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 10:31 AM
In its initial and supplemental briefing before the three judge panel, and again during oral argument before the en banc court, counsel for Alameda County gave the County’s current, official interpretation of its ordinance.

I suppose it depends on what "again" means lol.

Maestro Pistolero
06-03-2012, 10:51 AM
In its initial and supplemental briefing before the three judge panel, and again during oral argument before the en banc court, counsel for Alameda County gave the County’s current, official interpretation du jour of its ordinance.Fixed it.

dantodd
06-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Is an attendee who pays to enter a gun show a "participant?"
Is a gun with a zip tie through its action "secured" against unauthorized use?

The possession of a firearm by an authorized participant in a motion picture, television, video, dance or theat- rical production or event, when the participant lawfully uses the firearm as part of that production or event, provided that when such firearm is not in the actual possession of the autho- rized participant, it is secured to prevent unauthorized use.

Maestro Pistolero
06-03-2012, 11:13 AM
Is an attendee who pays to enter a gun show a "participant?" No. They have clearly delineated attendees from participants.
Is a gun with a zip tie through its action "secured" against unauthorized use?No. Secured now legally means tethered, as in with a cable to a fixed object such as a table. That's the county's interpretation and the one that the court is "holding them to".

hoffmang
06-03-2012, 1:29 PM
Oh. my. god. Where are you getting this looney tunes stuff from? lol. Where can I find the rule that anonymous internet posters have to answer questions first?

You're anonymous which means you have something to hide. What is it?

Something tells me that it colors the way you wish to present your opinions. I just like to make sure everyone else reading this remembers that.

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 3:44 PM
Everybody gets that there must be some nefarious agenda if an anonymous poster asks simple questions. So keeping that mind, any examples of an en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing? Not a trick question...you can do it now...just say "yes"...or "no." Lol.

dfletcher
06-03-2012, 3:44 PM
Should the County add new requirements or enforce
the ordinance unequally, or should additional facts come to
light, Plaintiffs or others similarly situated may, of course,
bring a new Second Amendment challenge to the relevant
laws or practices. But in the present case, they cannot succeed,
no matter what form of scrutiny applies to Second
Amendment claims.

This sounds like a loss to me, unless I'm reading it wrong and still don't have a good understanding of this thing.


Erik.

I took this to mean that if Alameda County takes a newly creative, obstructionist approach that the Nordykes or anyone else can come back for relief. Sort of an advisory shot across the bow designed to discourage should the county entertain such thoughts.

dfletcher
06-03-2012, 3:57 PM
You're anonymous which means you have something to hide. What is it?

Something tells me that it colors the way you wish to present your opinions. I just like to make sure everyone else reading this remembers that.

-Gene

I think most people understand the meaning of a non-denial denial.

dantodd
06-03-2012, 4:07 PM
Oh. my. god. Where are you getting this looney tunes stuff from? lol. Where can I find the rule that anonymous internet posters have to answer questions first?

Is calling it "Looney Tunes" a denial of Gene's assertion?

dantodd
06-03-2012, 4:11 PM
Everybody gets that there must be some nefarious agenda if an anonymous poster asks simple questions. So keeping that mind, any examples of an en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing? Not a trick question...you can do it now...just say "yes"...or "no." Lol.

Not at all. But when someone is clearly a skilled and intelligent attorney who could be contributing directly to our cause but chooses to be anonymous and not officially join the fight one must wonder why, whether it is nefarious agenda or some other reason.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 4:12 PM
Is calling it "Looney Tunes" a denial of Gene's assertion?

I looked for the "anonymous posters have to answer questions first before their own questions are answered" rule in the internet rule book, but I couldn't find it. So I'll wait to answer those questions until mine are answered.;)

Maestro Pistolero
06-03-2012, 5:28 PM
Jeez, enough with personal stuff. Plenty to argue about that isn't OT. I don't care who Fabio is, and if I knew, I wouldn't say. What's the point of having a forum with an anonymous user-name feature, if its in such bad form to use it? Isn't it simply the means for folks to speak freely who couldn't otherwise post here?

sighere
06-03-2012, 5:34 PM
Seems to be a lot of confusion about when the county "capitulated" and was ok with "tethered" gun shows. I guess we'll see how far into it they will agree to pay attorney fees. If I were county counsel, I would not agree to a dime after any "capitulation" language appeared in the pleadings/filings. Some seem to say that is 2006. It is unclear that the language that the 9th cir. justices used in saying that "now" the county has relented means that they relented in 2006, and only now it's being accepted by the Nordykes or????

Either way, as I've asserted for a long time, this is not really a 2A case in terms of RKBA. Since a gun show is a commercial undertaking, the regulation thereof becomes more of a "time, manner and place" restriction than it does a flat out denial of fundamental rights. Richards, Peruta, Birdt and its progeny are more on point and should be the vehicle that moves up to the 9th cir and to SCOTUS if need be.

Paladin
06-03-2012, 5:43 PM
Unless you're feeling self-conscious, I wasn't speaking to you directly.Since it was in the same post re. you being tired of being asked re. timelines AND since I was the only one (that I saw) who asked how it affected the timeline AND since there was nothing to indicate it was directed to anyone else, assuming you were directing the entire post to me was a reasonable inference.

How close to the front lines can you be if you keep asking if we're there yet?

-BrandonWhen did I ever claim to be "close to the front lines"? :rolleyes:

In the future I'll direct any timeline inquiries to specifically to Gene or Gray.

Gene & Gray, don't worry, there won't be a deluge of inquiries. As far as I can tell, the only inquiry would be after -- assuming we win -- SCOTUS publishes a Carry Case opinion (most likely late June 2013 or '14), asking how long until Alameda Co. and other stronghold anti counties fold.

Maestro Pistolero
06-03-2012, 5:51 PM
Nordyke was potentially a 2A case when the county was banning guns at a place they were traditionally sold. IMO, it still ought to still be a 2A case for the same reason if the county enforces the ammo ban.

dantodd
06-03-2012, 5:55 PM
I looked for the "anonymous posters have to answer questions first before their own questions are answered" rule in the internet rule book, but I couldn't find it. So I'll wait to answer those questions until mine are answered.;)

I have never avoided answering any question that you have posted, though I am not schooled in law and don't have viable answers to many of the very good answer that you are asking.

So, exactly what question are you requesting Gene answer in order for you to answer his question as to your identity?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 6:14 PM
All my questions are here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8690733&postcount=128). Wouldn't you agree these might promote discussion about whether the plaintiffs have a chance at getting fees and whether there is any likelihood whatsoever that the 9th circuit would order an en banc rehearing of the Nordyke en banc rehearing? They seem pretty obvious but for some reason hoffmang won't answer them. His questions are so goofy and have no bearing on the discussion other than to avoid answering anything, but I'll go ahead and answer them anyway just to get them off the table: Yes, deny, yes lol, not sure what "a very large stake JM is" so I'm going with "no stake" on that one.

taperxz
06-03-2012, 6:42 PM
So a rehearing is possible? Or did I take it out of order. Just asking.. I think it's clear I'm not a lawyer LOL

GOEX FFF
06-03-2012, 6:56 PM
You're anonymous which means you have something to hide. What is it?

Something tells me that it colors the way you wish to present your opinions. I just like to make sure everyone else reading this remembers that.

-Gene

^^^ +1

I've come to that conclusion many moons ago......

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/super-mario-3d-land/thumb/b/b7/250px-RockyWrench.png/228px-250px-RockyWrench.png

HowardW56
06-03-2012, 7:24 PM
You're anonymous which means you have something to hide. What is it?

Something tells me that it colors the way you wish to present your opinions. I just like to make sure everyone else reading this remembers that.

-Gene

^^^ +1

I've come to that conclusion many moons ago......

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/mediawiki/apis.ign.com/super-mario-3d-land/thumb/b/b7/250px-RockyWrench.png/228px-250px-RockyWrench.png


DITTO!

Librarian
06-03-2012, 8:19 PM
Since the forum policy is to allow members to use 'handles' or pseudonyms, present company included, criticism of posts on that basis is inappropriate.

Kindly cease, desist, and knock it off.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 9:30 PM
So a rehearing is possible?

No possibility whatsoever. The case is a joke now, especially with the hilarious bickering in the post-hearing declarations about passive aggressive emails, the county attorney calling the plaintiffs' attorney from his car on the cell phone and the plaintiffs' attorney getting pissy and hanging up on him:

The second item that the Plaintiff/Appellants would like this Court to consider is an email that was sent to the County’s outside litigation counsel on September 22, 2010 which requested that they retract the false statements of fact in Docket Entry 167. (They did so in Docket Entry 168.)

The last paragraph of the letter from Plaintiff/Appellants’ counsel states: “With respect to gun shows qualifying for an exception to the ordinance, we should begin discussing the terms of a stipulation to that effect. I’ll let you start.

A true and correct copy of the entire email is set forth in the attachment to this motion. Just like the letters sent to County Counsel in 1999 attempting to open a dialogue for interpretation of the ordinance, the County’s outside litigation counsel never responded to this communication by the Plaintiffs/Appellants.

On September 22, 2010, I received and read the email sent by Mr. Kilmer, a copy of which is attached to appellants' motion to supplement the record. I was alarmed by the accusation that I had misrepresented the record with respect to whether appellants were eligible to conduct a gun show within the Ordinance's exception. I remember telephoning Mr. Kilmer from my cellular telephone in the car that same afternoon (which I confirmed today by reviewing my timesheet for that day). During the call, I reminded Mr. Kilmer that the County has consistently taken the position throughout the litigation that gun shows are eligible to operate under the Ordinance's existing exception, and that appellants are free to submit a plan to the Fair Association explaining how they would comply even though they previously refused to do so. I explained that there was no need for a new, additional exception only for gun shows, as Mr. Kilmer was suggesting. Mr. Kilmer vehemently disagreed and accused the County of changing its position. He then told me he was disappointed in me and he hung up.

I honestly did not remember the September 22, 2010 phone conversation recounted in Mr. Pierce’s declaration until reading it refreshed my recollection. To the extent the Mr. Pierce considers his statements during that call – that no stipulation is required because the County had reinterpreted its ordinance – I suppose it is fair that Mr Pierce considers that his call was a response to my email. To the extent that the County still refused to put their money where their lawyer’s mouth was (i.e., open an earnest dialogue about a stipulation about how gun shows might qualify for the Ordinance’s exception), I still consider Mr. Pierce’s phone call non-responsive to the email.

Could this be any more embarrassing? "I sent an email to the county attorney but he never responded." "Oh yeah, I forgot about that phone call, but it wasn't really a response." :facepalm: The audience here is a 9th circuit en banc panel for christ's sake, who a few days earlier was told "today is the first time I've ever heard this!" (In case anyone missed it, the plaintiffs' attorney is admitting that the county was taking this position before the March en banc hearing...he just forgot about it. Oops!) Is this sounding like it's a still a case presenting questions of exceptional importance for which the 9th circuit is going to order an unprecedented en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing? I don't think so, lol.

taperxz
06-03-2012, 10:00 PM
OK FGG, you posted some relevant dirt.

However in a previous post here even you admittedly stated this went different than even you thought. SO, where is the wild card in all this?

Enlighten me with possibilities with what you know.

Not prying but, how can YOU be so sure?

Maestro Pistolero
06-03-2012, 10:03 PM
It's good to finally have this boondoggle over with. We have bigger fish to fry now that this is off the burner.

dantodd
06-03-2012, 10:13 PM
Since the forum policy is to allow members to use 'handles' or pseudonyms, present company included, criticism of posts on that basis is inappropriate.

Kindly cease, desist, and knock it off.

I will, of course cease any such criticism as this is not an environment in which one has the privilege of free speech. I will, however, point out that on this forum one may also believe .22 to be a superior HD round. I doubt you would have any problem with posts based on this being criticized. It is also a forum where people are free to have any of an assortment of avatars but I have never seen people silenced for dogging someone about their choice in avatar. No one is asking that Fabio be silenced because he clings to his anonymity. Some people just choose not to engage him because of it. I feel it is wrong to chastise and silence such statements.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 10:15 PM
However in a previous post here even you admittedly stated this went different than even you thought.

My prediction about what would happen was off because the en banc panel disliked the case even more than I thought. The decision does not misinterpret the county's representations so it's not even within the terms of the concurring judge's "invitation" to file a motion for rehearing, let alone the Rule 35 criteria for an en banc rehearing. There will be no rehearing to decide whether gun show attendees are "authorized participants" (that is an interpretive question which answers itself it you read the text of the ordinance and think about it a little), or whether it's ok to sell ammo at the gun show. This was a decisive shut down of all claims.

wildhawker
06-03-2012, 10:18 PM
Fabio, that's not what Chuck Michel's presser says.

So who should I believe - you or Chuck?

-Brandon

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 10:21 PM
I'm sure your capable of making your own determination lol. You guys couldn't be farther off the mark with your conspiracy theories haha.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-03-2012, 10:27 PM
[W]inning pro-gun litigation in California requires exceedingly precise efforts.

:facepalm:

taperxz
06-03-2012, 10:35 PM
I'm sure your capable of making your own determination lol. You guys couldn't be farther off the mark with your conspiracy theories haha.

Your a tough nut to crack. Why so much sarcasm and so little support. Just asking.

Librarian
06-03-2012, 11:10 PM
I will, of course cease any such criticism as this is not an environment in which one has the privilege of free speech. I will, however, point out that on this forum one may also believe .22 to be a superior HD round. I doubt you would have any problem with posts based on this being criticized. It is also a forum where people are free to have any of an assortment of avatars but I have never seen people silenced for dogging someone about their choice in avatar. No one is asking that Fabio be silenced because he clings to his anonymity. Some people just choose not to engage him because of it. I feel it is wrong to chastise and silence such statements.

People are free to make errors in content.

Mods have people change their user names and avatars with some regularity, when they violate what forum rules apply (some of what people have wanted for names is hilarious).

Some posts in this thread have concentrated on the use of a handle rather than the content of the posts made by that/those member(s).

Meplat
06-06-2012, 2:04 PM
Could this be any more embarrassing? "I sent an email to the county attorney but he never responded." "Oh yeah, I forgot about that phone call, but it wasn't really a response." :facepalm: The audience here is a 9th circuit en banc panel for christ's sake, who a few days earlier was told "today is the first time I've ever heard this!" (In case anyone missed it, the plaintiffs' attorney is admitting that the county was taking this position before the March en banc hearing...he just forgot about it. Oops!) Is this sounding like it's a still a case presenting questions of exceptional importance for which the 9th circuit is going to order an unprecedented en banc rehearing of an en banc rehearing? I don't think so, lol.


That phone call was most definitely not a response. In matters of such moment a phone call is never an adequate response until followed up in writing.

Bhobbs
06-11-2012, 9:12 AM
Will this ruling have any impact on the cases that were stayed?

sighere
06-11-2012, 9:22 AM
I doubt it. In the decision, they explicitly stated that the 2A question is left for another day.

Bhobbs
06-11-2012, 9:27 AM
I doubt it. In the decision, they explicitly stated that the 2A question is left for another day.

So those cases were stayed for no reason at all, basically? When will they start moving forward again?

HowardW56
06-11-2012, 9:32 AM
So those cases were stayed for no reason at all, basically? When will they start moving forward again?

I seem to recall that one or two may already have dates set for status conference, and there are status reports sue on others 10 days after Nordyke...

They should all start moving again, at the speed of Federal litigation....

sighere
06-11-2012, 9:59 AM
So those cases were stayed for no reason at all, basically? When will they start moving forward again?

That's how I see it. I personally think Nordyke was a "time/manner/place" restriction on 2A. Just like TMP restrictions on other fundamental rights, they are not given the level of scrutiny that would be given to cases that infringe on the exercise of the right.

In Nordyke, the county was disallowing gun shows on county land, thus TMP restriction. I think they Nordykes and their attorneys tried to make it a "carry/bear arms" case, but it turned out in the end not to be that.

It's unfortunate that several cases were stayed pending this for 2 reasons:
1. The issues are different, and thus should not have been stayed.
2. It wasted a lot of time in advancing the other cases through the system.

Maestro Pistolero
06-13-2012, 9:44 AM
I wasn't aware that the en banc panel (eta:decision) constituted a dismissal.

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=d6d7b952-e703-4790-8b06-dc6d9688f5e7

dantodd
06-13-2012, 11:02 AM
I wasn't aware that the en banc panel constituted a dismissal.

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=d6d7b952-e703-4790-8b06-dc6d9688f5e7

Yep. No 2A claim because of the county's current interpretation of the ordinance. However the county was directed that it must maintain their current interpretation of the law or the case can be refiled. So they avoid the 2A question but do not preclude the possibility that the previous interpretation may have violated the rights of the Nordykes and they may be able to claim real damages.

Crom
06-13-2012, 11:35 AM
I wasn't aware that the en banc panel constituted a dismissal.

http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=d6d7b952-e703-4790-8b06-dc6d9688f5e7

It's water under the bridge. I don't think the blog is technically accurate there, I don't think it matters either--and who can blaim them given the intense procedural history of the case. It was actually a denial for leave to amend to add the 2A claim. It happened in Nordyke IV when the case was remanded to trial court.


On remand, the Nordykes moved for leave to amend the complaint to add claims under the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Ninth Amendment.[5] The district court allowed the addition of all claims except for the Second Amendment claim, which the district court deemed futile because Nordyke III had already held that a Second Amendment claim was precluded by binding circuit precedent. After two motions to dismiss, only the First Amendment and equal protection claims survived. The district court then granted summary judgment to the County on those remaining claims. The Nordykes timely appealed


[Footnote 12] Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend should be given freely, but need not be granted when the proposed amendment is futile. See Universal Mortgage Co. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 799 F.2d 458, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). A proposed amended complaint is futile if it would be immediately "subject to dismissal." Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1298 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, the "proper test to be applied when determining the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment is identical to the one used when considering the sufficiency of a pleading challenged under Rule 12(b)(6)." Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating whether the district court should have granted the Nordykes' motion for leave to amend, therefore, we look only to facts pled in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Wherryj
06-13-2012, 11:44 AM
Years of effort to get the county to cave. Thanks for sticking with it Nordykes. Hope you make money at your shows. Schedule them now!! Hold Alameda's feet to the fire. In fact, maybe we should make it a CalGuns event and show up en masse.

I'm in.

Maestro Pistolero
06-13-2012, 12:37 PM
Doesn't the disposition of the case, whether it be a dismissal or denial for leave to amend have bearing on the determination of fees?

Crom
06-13-2012, 2:27 PM
I don't think anybody can predict the next turn of events here. But I bet $1.00 that Nordyke will go back to trial court to sort out the fees.

Hey, check out Don's comments below from his June 7th, 2012 (http://www.xx3.us/d/Nordyke-6-12-2012.pdf) filing in Nordyke.


Furthermore, as Chief Judge Kozinki remarked at oral argument, attorney’s fees and costs (not to mention damages for plaintiffs’ lost profits after 12 years of no guns shows and apparently unnecessary litigation) remain an unresolved issue. Also left unresolved is a determination of the prevailing party status, given that the case was resolved only after the County’s concessions. Since FRAP 38 sanctions are unavailable to appellants, and FRCP 11 sanctions are only available for misconduct in the district court, Plaintiff/Appellants may be limited to filing a new lawsuit or seeking an award under 28 USCA §§ 1912, 1927 or the Court’s inherent authority to control abusive litigation conduct. See generally: Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2133 (1991)

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-15-2012, 4:41 PM
Denied, denied, denied, looks like the en banc panel won't be giving the plaintiffs any extra time to file that rehearing request even with all those unresolved issues. It was nice of them to give the invitation though. Not one of the judges was interested in giving instructions to the trial court to sanction the county for frivolous appeals and vexatious litigation either lol. And the clerk wasn't too impressed with the plaintiffs' bill of costs, which isn't any surprise seeing as the plaintiffs lost the appeal and the parties are in exactly the same place they were when the MSJ was granted 6 years ago: all claims tossed out and plaintiffs can have gun shows if they meet the terms of the ordinance exception. All is not lost, though, I'm sure the new district court judge will be eager to have a full blown hearing on sanctions and damages!

curtisfong
06-15-2012, 9:39 PM
So when are you going to step up and litigate something worthwhile?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-15-2012, 9:54 PM
I'll leave that to the expert federal appellate practitioners and their exceedingly precise litigation strategies.

curtisfong
06-15-2012, 10:02 PM
Is this how you operate in court? What a worthless, empty, vacuous, response.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-15-2012, 10:09 PM
It's fun to remind the silent lurkers that you're not a very good lawyer.

Would you want a "not a very good lawyer" to step up and litigate something worthwile? lol.

It's fun to go back and look at old posts. Like this one:

I'm going to enjoy not hearing from you when the Second Amendment argument prevails in Nordyke.

Now when exactly is that going to happen?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-15-2012, 10:34 PM
Wait a minute, wait a minute...I have a "relationship" with a competing law firm that is litigating 2A cases, so would that count? lol.

CaliforniaLiberal
06-16-2012, 2:22 AM
So when are you going to step up and litigate something worthwhile?

I'll leave that to the expert federal appellate practitioners and their exceedingly precise litigation strategies.

Is this how you operate in court? What a worthless, empty, vacuous, response.

Would you want a "not a very good lawyer" to step up and litigate something worthwile? lol.

It's just that you've been such an unpleasant a**h*le to us here on the Forum, we were thinking how great it would be for you to go be a professionally unpleasant a**h*le on behalf of 2nd Amendment Rights in some far off court room....

Just a dream I guess.

Gray Peterson
06-16-2012, 2:46 AM
It's just that you've been such an unpleasant a**h*le to us here on the Forum, we were thinking how great it would be for you to go be a professionally unpleasant a**h*le on behalf of 2nd Amendment Rights in some far off court room....

Just a dream I guess.

You're not the only one who was wondering that.

That sounds like a personal grudge and drama to me, rather than a genuine attempt to be helpful.

taperxz
06-16-2012, 7:46 AM
Wait a minute, wait a minute...I have a "relationship" with a competing law firm that is litigating 2A cases, so would that count? lol.

If this is true, that's pretty sad, genuinely sad. This would make you the epitome of an Internet troll. Purposely getting back?.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-16-2012, 7:53 AM
If this is true, that's pretty sad, genuinely sad. This would make you the epitome of an Internet troll. Purposely getting back?.

That's what the CGF leader says and he's never wrong about anything, so it must be true!

rbetts
06-16-2012, 8:05 AM
Trolls keep score with their post count. . . . . . .

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 1,150
iTrader: 0 / 0%

and they have this misconceived notion that people truly care what they have to say and that they are adding "their expertise" to the discussion. . . . .

Best just to ignore them and they ultimately go away

Or better yet how about they contribute to Calguns so that their CRAP is more tolerable. . . . . . .?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-16-2012, 8:13 AM
and they have this misconceived notion that people truly care what they have to say and that they are adding "their expertise" to the discussion. . . . .

Where exactly did I claim to be adding expertise to the discussion? Thanks in advance for pointing me to where I claimed that lol. If you care what I have to say, that's great, if you don't care what I have to say, that's ok too!

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-16-2012, 8:16 AM
How hard is it to stay on topic instead of making personal attacks lol? Isn't this thread about the Nordyke opinion?!

taperxz
06-16-2012, 8:21 AM
That's what the CGF leader says and he's never wrong about anything, so it must be true!

I don't recall anyone predicting this outcome for Nordyke.

I assume your relationship is with CM?

rbetts
06-16-2012, 8:31 AM
How hard is it to stay on topic instead of making personal attacks lol? Isn't this thread about the Nordyke opinion?!

Flies buzzing in my ears get my attention. I'd like to stay on topic but you have contributed to the hijack merely by . . . . .well you know what you are doing and now so do we.

Maestro Pistolero
06-16-2012, 8:31 AM
How hard is it to stay on topic instead of making personal attacks lol? Isn't this thread about the Nordyke opinion?!

Actually no, Fabio. In your last several posts it seems to be about you being right and gloating over the dismissal. It's hard to imagine you actually care when you seem to take so much pleasure in it. It's rather heartless. A spirited debate is one thing, but turning the knife is another.

I don't suspect you care much, but you're really losing me here.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-16-2012, 8:32 AM
I don't recall anyone predicting this outcome for Nordyke.

Well some are predicting fees and damages will be awarded and rehearings will be ordered, and how do those predictions appear to be playing out?

I assume your relationship is with CM?

You know what happens when you assume things lol. I answered all questions about these retarded conspiracy theories directly and truthfully, but if you'd rather believe there is some sinister agenda then I can't help you!

taperxz
06-16-2012, 8:37 AM
Wait a minute, wait a minute...I have a "relationship" with a competing law firm that is litigating 2A cases, so would that count? lol.

I thought you were admitting this. I guess I misread?

taperxz
06-16-2012, 8:40 AM
FGG, this case still goes back to district, fees should be due since at one point AC would not allow gun shows at all. At least half the time of the lawsuit.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-16-2012, 8:46 AM
A spirited debate is one thing, but turning the knife is another.

It would be nice to have a spirited debate wouldn't it? Like one where one side makes points and the other side actually responds to those points. Which one of my questions (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8690733&postcount=128) (which were never answered) was objectionable to you or not relevant to the matters at hand? So forgive me if I'm "gloating" that the latest rulings validate the points I was making that the other side of the debate tried to deflect with crackpot accusations lol.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-16-2012, 8:53 AM
FGG, this case still goes back to district, fees should be due since at one point AC would not allow gun shows at all. At least half the time of the lawsuit.

The county won there too. You need some authority to get fees and none of the authority in the plaintiffs' recent brief appears to be on point, and the authority on the other side (mentioned in the blog I posted to earlier) does appear to be on point.

taperxz
06-16-2012, 8:54 AM
It would be nice to have a spirited debate wouldn't it? Like one where one side makes points and the other side actually responds to those points. Which one of my questions (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8690733&postcount=128) (which were never answered) was objectionable to you or not relevant to the matters at hand? So forgive me if I'm "gloating" that the latest rulings validate the points I was making that the other side of the debate tried to deflect with crackpot accusations lol.

What you're gloating about has nothing to do with (at least no longer) any 2A related stuff.

You're gloating has to do about possible fees paid, and you enjoy that aspect of the case? The nordykes had a good reason to file.

Do you take joy in seeing if plaintiff is out of pocket for a legit lawsuit where they were harmed?

taperxz
06-16-2012, 8:57 AM
At minimum, of your standard of at least for half of the 12 years? There was still a "wrong" done to the plaintif by the government. .

Maestro Pistolero
06-16-2012, 11:17 AM
Which one of my questions (which were never answered) was objectionable to you or not relevant to the matters at hand? None. I think I was pretty clear on what I object to.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-16-2012, 12:36 PM
Do you take joy in seeing if plaintiff is out of pocket for a legit lawsuit where they were harmed?

How much are the plaintiffs out of pocket? I don't know if they are out of pocket or some other person or entity is out of pocket and I don't have any feeling one way or the other about it, you win some, you lose some. What I do find interesting and kind of funny is how spectacularly the strategy in the case failed. It's also funny how often things don't seem to play out how the experts say they will, while maligning me in the process lol. You shouldn't feel sorry for anybody involved, they knew exactly what they were doing. Anyway if my internet persona hurts anybody's feelings they shouldn't take it so seriously lol.

taperxz
06-16-2012, 12:44 PM
How much are the plaintiffs out of pocket? I don't know if they are out of pocket or some other person or entity is out of pocket and I don't have any feeling one way or the other about it, you win some, you lose some. What I do find interesting and kind of funny is how spectacularly the strategy in the case failed. It's also funny how often things don't seem to play out how the experts say they will, while maligning me in the process lol. You shouldn't feel sorry for anybody involved, they knew exactly what they were doing. Anyway if my internet persona hurts anybody's feelings they shouldn't take it so seriously lol.

LOL, I don't take anything personal here. My perceptions of your posts, is that you do take things personal. Like when you were concerned how much DK was respecting your intellect. (legal intellect)

Most of your soothsaying was also wrong prior to (somes discovery) of the change of heart on gun shows in Alameda. It's like you're gloating for personal success but you weren't exactly right either. (case as a whole)

HowardW56
06-16-2012, 6:22 PM
I know this is off topic; I can’t help but wonder how many people have put Fabio on ignore just because he is so obnoxious…

hoffmang
06-16-2012, 11:50 PM
I know this is off topic; I can’t help but wonder how many people have put Fabio on ignore just because he is so obnoxious…

When you aren't accountable you do things you wouldn't do absent semi-anonymity.

-Gene

OleCuss
06-17-2012, 6:10 AM
It really isn't all that hard to look a little prescient on most of these cases at this time.

All you have to do is to say that most of the time in federal district and circuit courts the courts will find a way to rule against the free/proper exercise of our Constitutional RKBA and that most of our requests for cert will be denied.

This is kinda "Duhhhh. . . . . ." stuff.

Much of the time the courts follow the "2 Step".

In the current climate, prognostication doesn't take a whole lot of legal expertise.

Understand, I'm not saying that FGG doesn't have lots of legal expertise (and I'm pretty sure he has a lot more than I), but the broad outcome of the results of most of the RKBA cases we read about really need very little expertise in order to come up with the broad outlines of the probable ruling. And when the Circuit is the 9th?. . .

sighere
06-17-2012, 6:12 AM
And so in light of the previous post, I'll add my pearls of wisdom. What we need best case is a circuit split. I'm sure the 9th will provide the anti RKBA half of it!

curtisfong
06-17-2012, 11:15 AM
Until he actually does something productive, I believe FGG deserves nothing but derision at this point. I used to think he provided something to the discussion, but I've run out of patience with him.

He is certainly in a position to be of use, but refuses to.

That speaks volumes.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-17-2012, 3:10 PM
Derision for participating in an Internet discussion forum? That's fine with me so long as you apply your policy evenly to everyone else who isn't doing anything "productive" lol.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-17-2012, 3:23 PM
When you aren't accountable you do things you wouldn't do absent semi-anonymity.

Like ask simple questions that pertain to the topic of discussion?

So what's your latest tin foil theory?

Scarecrow Repair
06-17-2012, 7:37 PM
I'll leave that to the expert federal appellate practitioners and their exceedingly precise litigation strategies.

Wait a minute, wait a minute...I have a "relationship" with a competing law firm that is litigating 2A cases, so would that count? lol.

That's what the CGF leader says and he's never wrong about anything, so it must be true!

Where exactly did I claim to be adding expertise to the discussion? Thanks in advance for pointing me to where I claimed that lol. If you care what I have to say, that's great, if you don't care what I have to say, that's ok too!

and a lot more of the same, then has the gall to say

How hard is it to stay on topic instead of making personal attacks lol? Isn't this thread about the Nordyke opinion?!

You've just been goosed.

OleCuss
06-17-2012, 8:28 PM
I don't get the derision thing.

I have no problem with his giving his opinion. I just can't give his opinions as much weight as I might if I knew his training and interests in far more detail.

For now, he seems bright and is a consistent downer. I've no big problem with that.

taperxz
06-17-2012, 8:34 PM
I don't get the derision thing.

I have no problem with his giving his opinion. I just can't give his opinions as much weight as I might if I knew his training and interests in far more detail.

For now, he seems bright and is a consistent downer. I've no big problem with that.

Additionally, I don't think Gene or Don K. Need us to defend them against FGG.

Fabio still hasn't shown in this case that he was so right that he can
really gloat about his predictions.

hoffmang
06-17-2012, 8:38 PM
Additionally, I don't think Gene or Don K. Need us to defend them against FGG.

Fabio still hasn't shown in this case that he was so right that he can
really gloat about his predictions.

Giving FGG the 12(b)6 standard he is 0-2 on important things and I'm 1-2.

Bullet buttons are illegal and there will be no gun shows in Alameda!

I'll engage people who are serious enough to put reputation on a line.

-Gene

taperxz
06-17-2012, 8:46 PM
Giving FGG the 12(b)6 standard he is 0-2 on important things and I'm 1-2.

Bullet buttons are illegal and there will be no gun shows in Alameda!

I'll engage people who are serious enough to put reputation on a line.

-Gene

:D. The goal is to win the war. Not nessesarily every battle, even though it would be nice if you could.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
06-18-2012, 5:44 AM
Bullet buttons are illegal and there will be no gun shows in Alameda!

Yep, I made those specific predictions all right!

I'll engage people who are serious enough to put reputation on a line.

That has been your policy since when now? like 2, 3 weeks? lol.

How about unconstitutionally vague assault weapon laws and preempted carry in county parks, are those "important things"? Just want to clarify for future reference!

taperxz
06-18-2012, 7:58 AM
Yep, I made those specific predictions all right!



That has been your policy since when now? like 2, 3 weeks? lol.

How about unconstitutionally vague assault weapon laws and preempted carry in county parks, are those "important things"? Just want to clarify for future reference!

Since your sarcasm is fresh, both are importantant stepping stones to bigger things.

I'm surprised FGG, you seem to be more sarcastic, upset and unprofessional Than I've ever seen you post.

dantodd
06-18-2012, 8:04 AM
Since your sarcasm is fresh, both are importantant stepping stones to bigger things.

I'm surprised FGG, you seem to be more sarcastic, upset and unprofessional Than I've ever seen you post.

I suspect that now that "the right people" are more aware of his allegiances and have chosen to not directly interact with him he is suffering from a loss of self-esteem and it is being reflected in his posts here.

Librarian has said everyone has the right to not be put on the spot about their true identity. Questioning them about their identity is not to be tolerated. That doesn't mean they cannot be ignored or simply not directly interacted with.

OleCuss
06-18-2012, 9:00 AM
Well, if FGG's allegiance is to an "Anti-" group or philosophy, he would likely serve them better if he did not post.

I just don't see any way in which FGG's participation is likely to be a net help to the anti-RKBA cause. I can see how it could be a net harm to the anti-RKBA cause.

The only way I figure he could be helping the antis is by being enough of a downer to decrease support. But I don't see that happening or as likely to occur in the future - without identifying himself or his credentials he just isn't going to be taken sufficiently seriously to make a substantive difference.

curtisfong
06-18-2012, 9:15 AM
Derision for participating in an Internet discussion forum? That's fine with me so long as you apply your policy evenly to everyone else who isn't doing anything "productive" lol.

Unlike many others, you have the self-proclaimed ability to be productive (you're supposedly smart, are a practicing lawyer, and understand firearm law better than the experts).

Until you step up and use those abilities to their potential, yes, you deserve derision.

Why the double standard? Because nobody else claims to be as much as an expert as you.

Those that do, ARE litigating.

taperxz
06-18-2012, 9:37 AM
Unlike many others, you have the self-proclaimed ability to be productive (you're supposedly smart, are a practicing lawyer, and understand firearm law better than the experts).

Until you step up and use those abilities to their potential, yes, you deserve derision.

Why the double standard? Because nobody else claims to be as much as an expert as you.

Those that do, ARE litigating.

Curious?? Why do you think FGG knows firearms laws? My impression is that he is a lawyer who has knowledge of the courts as a whole but not really firearms laws nationwide or even in CA for that matter.

curtisfong
06-18-2012, 9:57 AM
Curious?? Why do you think FGG knows firearms laws? My impression is that he is a lawyer who has knowledge of the courts as a whole but not really firearms laws nationwide or even in CA for that matter.

"Self-proclaimed"

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
09-06-2012, 6:02 PM
AHHHH, IT'S ALIVE!!!!!

Received notice from the Supreme Court: petition for certiorari filed on 08/30/2012. Supreme Court Number 12-275. [8311206] (RR)

lol.:D

OleCuss
09-06-2012, 7:13 PM
Wow!!! I thought it was dead and buried!

Do we have any links to paperwork and such? This is so out of left field for me that I think I'd kind of like to read the petition.

Window_Seat
09-06-2012, 7:20 PM
Wow!!! I thought it was dead and buried!

Do we have any links to paperwork and such? This is so out of left field for me that I think I'd kind of like to read the petition.

Docket page for certiorari petition (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-275.htm)

Erik.

taperxz
09-06-2012, 7:30 PM
Kind of wondering. I thought the 2A value was moot? Perhaps for simple clarity and fees?

CaliforniaLiberal
09-06-2012, 7:33 PM
Kind of wondering. I thought the 2A value was moot? Perhaps for simple clarity and fees?


In need of some analysis here. Thought it was over and done, what's left for the SCOTUS to decide?

OleCuss
09-06-2012, 7:37 PM
Docket page for certiorari petition (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-275.htm)

Erik.

Thank you!

Dummy me, though. I'd thought they would be fleshing out the grounds and reasoning for the petition for certiorari. I didn't realize just how bare-bones the petition really is.

I'm guessing staff goes through the petitions and asks for more only if they think the case looks interesting?

Gray Peterson
09-06-2012, 7:42 PM
In need of some analysis here. Thought it was over and done, what's left for the SCOTUS to decide?

Thank you!

Dummy me, though. I'd thought they would be fleshing out the grounds and reasoning for the petition for certiorari. I didn't realize just how bare-bones the petition really is.

I'm guessing staff goes through the petitions and asks for more only if they think the case looks interesting?

No, there's a petition, SCOTUS doesn't publicly list it, though.

I do not believe it's over the 2A issue. It's likely over prevailing party status and fees, especially if gun shows are supposed to happen at the fairgrounds soon.

Window_Seat
09-06-2012, 7:45 PM
Kind of wondering. I thought the 2A value was moot? Perhaps for simple clarity and fees?

If both of the above, I'm hoping for a lot more than "clarity".

Erik.

wildhawker
09-06-2012, 7:48 PM
It's a petition surrounding the nature of the relief in the CA9 opinion and the liability for fees based on that relief.

-Brandon

Bhobbs
09-06-2012, 7:52 PM
AHHHH, IT'S ALIVE!!!!!



lol.:D

What does that mean exactly?

Window_Seat
09-06-2012, 7:55 PM
What does that mean exactly?

What Brandon said, and probably what Lex Arma will say soon. Meanwhile, this is well worth going and eating a sandwich and taking a nap :cool:

Erik.

hoffmang
09-08-2012, 2:43 PM
The cert petition is only about damages that the Nordykes incurred over the past 12 years and their due process right to be heard on that issue. It's only tangentially related to the 2A since gun shows are now allowed.

-Gene

nicki
09-09-2012, 2:48 PM
The cert petition is only about damages that the Nordykes incurred over the past 12 years and their due process right to be heard on that issue. It's only tangentially related to the 2A since gun shows are now allowed.

-Gene

Seems to me that our side is being "low balled" with regards to fees and if any first/second amendent case demonstrates abuse of government power, this is it.

While the 2nd amendment angles in this case are only as Gene says tangential, the other issues could indirectly advance our gun rights.

Should be interesting to see if the business community steps up because a good ruling on this case could reign in abusive government power at the state and local level.

Don deserves a chance to argue in the Supreme Court although that will mean that we may need to get more notice so that way our crew from the Nordyke hearings can get a chance to book flights to the SCOTUS.;)

Since this isn't directly a gun related case like Heller or MacDonald, seats may be available at the court.

Nicki

Crom
09-10-2012, 11:04 AM
Seems to me that our side is being "low balled" with regards to fees and if any first/second amendent case demonstrates abuse of government power, this is it.
Nicki

Lowballed? Nordykes' were denied prevailing party status by the court. In other words the court said they lost!

hoffmang
09-10-2012, 10:16 PM
Lowballed? Nordykes' were denied prevailing party status by the court. In other words the court said they lost!

They lost, but they got the relief they requested...

-Gene

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
09-11-2012, 7:05 AM
In 2006, the Nordykes had all their claims tossed, no 2A claim allowed, and gun shows with guns secured. In 2012, the Nordykes had all their claims tossed, no 2A claim allowed, and gun shows with guns secured. They liked their 2006 "win" so much that they appealed the "win" and litigated it for 6 more years! The 9th circuit must have been confused about the "relief" it ordered, it had been a few weeks since the opinion was published when they decided that the Nordykes did not prevail.

curtisfong
09-11-2012, 9:13 AM
Good thing your litigation strategy is working so well.

Maestro Pistolero
09-11-2012, 9:30 AM
The pundit routine gets old after awhile. At this point, FGG, since you aren't making pro-active contribution to the effort here, then your obvious talent and ability is squandered. It's beyond cynical at this point, for me. Your time is wasted here. It's a shame.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
09-11-2012, 9:47 AM
:( lol. Pronouncements like "They lost, but they got the relief they requested..." get old after awhile as well but we keep hearing them over and over again!

curtisfong
09-11-2012, 9:53 AM
So why do you keep posting if you know that is the response you will get?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
09-11-2012, 10:28 AM
Because my calguns raison d'etre is and has always been poking fun at those pronouncements? lol.

Californio
09-11-2012, 10:49 AM
Much better ways to Stroke your Ego, it tends to get red and raw that way, give it a rest before it falls off.