PDA

View Full Version : 2A cases in CA not helping?


taperxz
07-31-2012, 9:03 AM
In light of Nordyke, Richards, San Mateo parks, Gorski, Peruta, Scocca and Nichols all failing to get much out of the local courts. Is it simply time to now wait for the Federal Government and SCOTUS to tell CA what we can carry, how we can carry and when we can carry?

Gray Peterson
07-31-2012, 9:04 AM
In light of Nordyke, Richards, San Mateo parks, Gorski, Peruta, Scocca and Nichols all failing to get much out of the local courts. Is it simply time to now wait for the Federal Government and SCOTUS to tell CA what we can carry, how we can carry and when we can carry?

None of these where meant to be resolved in superior court or us district court.

taperxz
07-31-2012, 9:09 AM
None of these where meant to be resolved in superior court or us district court.

I understand that. After reading them though It doesn't seem like there is much of a chance of climbing the ladder successfully. Just my non lawyer hobbyist opinion. We all know about my opinions:p

Mesa Tactical
07-31-2012, 9:11 AM
One thing we did get out of Haynie was the California DoJ, for the first time, admitting on paper that the bullet button is legal.

Mute
07-31-2012, 9:28 AM
I doubt anyone here expected a CA court to yield a pro 2A ruling. We just need to avoid the stupid crap like the Gorskis. Remember, chess not checkers.

curtisfong
07-31-2012, 10:08 AM
FGG would suggest these cases don't set any precedent better than Gorski might have.

ptoguy2002
07-31-2012, 10:11 AM
FGG would suggest these cases don't set any precedent better than Gorski might have.
And all the other pessimists would tell us that it is no use, we are wasting our time, etc. You can't win if you don't step out onto the field.

IVC
07-31-2012, 10:11 AM
I understand that. After reading them though It doesn't seem like there is much of a chance of climbing the ladder successfully. Just my non lawyer hobbyist opinion. We all know about my opinions:p

The idea is not always to "climb the ladder successfully." These cases are going up to the 9th Circuit and have to be addressed by the court (only the Supreme Court has a discretion of which cases to take through selective granting of certs). Once at the 9th Circuit, they will either create a good precedent for us, or a "circuit split" through a negative ruling (another Circuit Court set a different precedent). At that time, the Supreme Court's hand is "forced" in order to resolve the lower court rulings and set the tone.

In reality, the Supreme Court can always reject any case without any explanation and 9th Circuit can play games, but it's good to remember that there are many intangibles that come from this complex approach.

taperxz
07-31-2012, 10:20 AM
The idea is not always to "climb the ladder successfully." These cases are going up to the 9th Circuit and have to be addressed by the court (only the Supreme Court has a discretion of which cases to take through selective granting of certs). Once at the 9th Circuit, they will either create a good precedent for us, or a "circuit split" through a negative ruling (another Circuit Court set a different precedent). At that time, the Supreme Court's hand is "forced" in order to resolve the lower court rulings and set the tone.

In reality, the Supreme Court can always reject any case without any explanation and 9th Circuit can play games, but it's good to remember that there are many intangibles that come from this complex approach.

You'll note I used Nordyke as an example. My concern is the deck being stacked against us LOCALLY. (emphasis added)

I like what i see in Maryland for instance.

SilverTauron
07-31-2012, 10:35 AM
Unfortunately, the localized nature of anti-RKBA political structures means even if the SCOTUS specifically instructed CA to abide by its guidelines,the final response to the SCOTUS from the CA Legislature & Mayoral Leadership would be "f--k you".

We have a real-world example of that in Chicago. That city has lost lawsuit after lawsuit since McDonald regarding their draconian regulations which all but ban guns except in name only for citizens in city limits. The SCOTUS time and again has told the Windy City to get its act together, and every time the city leadership flips them the bird and redraws its laws to be just as restrictive as it was before the lost ruling minus a re-written sentence.

At the end of the day most of Chicago's citizens can't afford the expensive fees to legally own a weapon which means despite the SCOTUS directly instructing Chicago to recognize the RKBA, the end result is still a city disarmed for the exploitation of criminals. Recognition of the RKBA must come from the ground up, since it is very easy to ignore issued guidance from the top down.

curtisfong
07-31-2012, 10:39 AM
And all the other pessimists would tell us that it is no use, we are wasting our time, etc. You can't win if you don't step out onto the field.

I agree.

But allow me to be devils advocate:

CGF:Gorski::FGG:CGF

wildhawker
07-31-2012, 10:52 AM
One thing we did get out of Haynie was the California DoJ, for the first time, admitting on paper that the bullet button is legal.

Indeed. Let's not overlook the strategic implications of e.g. DOJ's filing in Haynie/Richards for California firearms owners and the firearms ecosystem 'in the meantime', not to mention future litigation positioning, as we work current and new cases up to CA9 and SCOTUS.

It seems to me that the OP is too focused on goals (winning soon at district) that really should not be primary in any major conlaw litigation program.

-Brandon

taperxz
07-31-2012, 10:56 AM
No, not focusing on anything. Kinda of looking for assessments of strategy and understanding of direction.

wildhawker
07-31-2012, 11:09 AM
Look up (to CA9 and SCOTUS).

-Brandon

OleCuss
07-31-2012, 11:57 AM
No, not focusing on anything. Kinda of looking for assessments of strategy and understanding of direction.

OK, OK, I know that you know all this already, but for those of us who don't - and as a reminder to myself. . .


The problem is that they really can't tell us precisely what the direction and strategy might be. To do so would be to tell the anti-liberty types what they should be looking out for and give them clues as to how to slow down freedom - or make it more costly.

Sneakiness on the part of CGF is to be encouraged even though I find it frustrating and sometimes discouraging.

I do not know what is planned for Haynie/Richards. That is rather irritating/frustrating.

Could they be planning to appeal the MTD? Could it be that the MTD ruling actually helps with another case? Is it possible that there is some other maneuver which this opens up?

I dunno.

Maybe the case is actually cleaner for the ultimate intended purpose of the case? It could be that the case is actually more focused and is a dagger ready to pierce the AWB due to some quirk about which I know nothing.

I don't know. It's also likely better that I not know.


Anyone remember back when they made the first tried to ban unloaded open carry? Yup, CGF knew early on that the way that it was written that it would mean that people with a Carry License could open carry. They made sure that the few of us who figured that out wouldn't spill the beans. If one or more of us had posted what would happen if the bill passed as written, then the bill would have been amended and (despite what the unloaded open carry folk thought at the time) would have passed.

Instead, at the strategic moment, CGF told the legislature's leadership of what they were about to do to themselves and they simply let the deadline expire without the requisite vote. The author of the bill was fuming at the leadership about being robbed of her victory while the leadership was likely wondering how such a dumb *%#@ could get elected.

We mostly hear about the litigious exploits of CGF. Even then, I suspect we hear of only a very small fraction of what they really do. But it is important to realize that they are also working at the political and PR levels.

Very smart folk. Not always right, but very smart.

They keep saying chess, not checkers. In reality, it's 3-D chess, not checkers.

taperxz
07-31-2012, 12:07 PM
Asking members of CGF is very effective sometimes if you are able to read between the lines. Sometimes I can and sometimes I miss the the point :D

hoffmang
07-31-2012, 12:26 PM
Everyone bags on Nordyke - except they miss that it created a circuit split with McDonald v. Chicago... Then it was able to get out of it's own way.

Both CGF v. San Mateo and Haynie/Richards are parts of twins that you've not met the other case yet. San Mateo has very different likely outcomes in the next court. Haynie has been more useful than most people seem to get. Riddle - why isn't Mrs. Harris trying to ban bullet buttons?

And how is forcing Sacramento County shall issue bad exactly?

-Gene

taperxz
07-31-2012, 12:31 PM
Everyone bags on Nordyke - except they miss that it created a circuit split with McDonald v. Chicago... Then it was able to get out of it's own way.

Both CGF v. San Mateo and Haynie/Richards are parts of twins that you've not met the other case yet. San Mateo has very different likely outcomes in the next court. Haynie has been more useful than most people seem to get. Riddle - why isn't Mrs. Harris trying to ban bullet buttons?

And how is forcing Sacramento County shall issue bad exactly?

-Gene

What I put in bold sounds VERY interesting. Hmmm. Like I said closed mouth catches no flies.:D

wildhawker
07-31-2012, 12:35 PM
They keep saying chess, not checkers. In reality, it's 3-D chess, not checkers.

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/b/b0/Kal-toh,_Riddles.jpg

OleCuss
07-31-2012, 12:49 PM
LOL!!!

Point well taken. But I don't know what to call that.

taperxz
07-31-2012, 1:29 PM
http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/b/b0/Kal-toh,_Riddles.jpg

That's Brandon's brain while reading CGN

edwardm
07-31-2012, 1:46 PM
I've lost all faith in the legal system.

I haven't. And I deal with the legal system on a regular basis. The present state of things reminds me of stalking game trails in pasture land.

Lots of good trail, but every now and then you step in a pile of crap. It comes with the territory - nothing is perfect.

If you'd like to advocate armed insurrection or some other form of rebellion, that's your prerogative -- I suggest you do it elsewhere. Courts are slow, but still function. Judges are still more or less neutral (albeit sometimes misguided) arbiters of law. Juries still operate relatively well. Due Process remains intact.

I can see no logical, ethical or moral reason to proceed other than through the courts (and affiliated legal administrative and legislative channels) at this time. Tactical opportunities abound, most or all of which I'm not privy to.

sully007
07-31-2012, 8:28 PM
And how is forcing Sacramento County shall issue bad exactly?

-Gene

Wish you could do that for every county in my life time.

greasemonkey
07-31-2012, 8:50 PM
None of these where meant to be resolved in superior court or us district court.

It's perpetually frustrating that people don't understand this point, especially someone like the O.P. who's been around here for a few years. Only fools like CN think that laws are going to be instantly overturned that have been entrenched & reinforced since day 1 that California became a State. W

e're looking at substantial progress that's been made in the last handful of years vs. the anti-gun laws established since CA's birth, I'm not sure how people aren't stoked about the direction we're heading.

Gray Peterson
07-31-2012, 8:54 PM
Wish you could do that for every county in my life time.

How old are you, Sully? You don't have to be exact.

taperxz
07-31-2012, 8:55 PM
Asking members of CGF is very effective sometimes if you are able to read between the lines. Sometimes I can and sometimes I miss the the point :D

Everyone bags on Nordyke - except they miss that it created a circuit split with McDonald v. Chicago... Then it was able to get out of it's own way.

Both CGF v. San Mateo and Haynie/Richards are parts of twins that you've not met the other case yet. San Mateo has very different likely outcomes in the next court. Haynie has been more useful than most people seem to get. Riddle - why isn't Mrs. Harris trying to ban bullet buttons?

And how is forcing Sacramento County shall issue bad exactly?

-Gene

My question above is why I asked, Genes interesting statement is what I was looking for:D. Read his statement closely;)

Sometimes I post questions for a reason;)

sully007
08-02-2012, 8:26 AM
How old are you, Sully? You don't have to be exact.

54 years old, started shooting with my dad at 11 years old.

Gray Peterson
08-02-2012, 8:44 AM
54 years old, started shooting with my dad at 11 years old.

Are you in danger of dying in the next 2 years?

Uxi
08-02-2012, 8:45 AM
I haven't. And I deal with the legal system on a regular basis. The present state of things reminds me of stalking game trails in pasture land.

Lots of good trail, but every now and then you step in a pile of crap. It comes with the territory - nothing is perfect.


A few years ago, I concluded the criminal system was as broken as the traffic system, it's not designed for justice it's designed to make it easier to just comply with the revenue generation mechanism, take the plea / pay the ticket, and make it go away since cost/benefit ratio of fighting for innocence just isn't worth it in the long run.

The ones who profit from the civil system are the lawyers. I witnessed a business partnership dissolve and the only ones who seemed to profit from the resulting fiasco were their lawyers. After who knows half a decade and tens of thousands of dollars of lawyer attrition warfare later, they settled, so it's pretty much the same damn thing there, too.


If you'd like to advocate armed insurrection or some other form of rebellion, that's your prerogative -- I suggest you do it elsewhere. Courts are slow, but still function. Judges are still more or less neutral (albeit sometimes misguided) arbiters of law. Juries still operate relatively well. Due Process remains intact.

I can see no logical, ethical or moral reason to proceed other than through the courts (and affiliated legal administrative and legislative channels) at this time. Tactical opportunities abound, most or all of which I'm not privy to.

There are other alternatives. Trial by combat or even ordeal would be better than this system. It's not fast, cheap, or... just. If that ever becomes the predominant opinion, watch out. I haven't completely given up hope yet. Maybe if Barry is defeated, SCOTUS can go 6-3 to originalists and we can pull back from the brink. California has had a decade of leftist dominance in the State legislature. It can't last forever... can it? :eek:
But the inefficiency in the court system is glaring and difficult to see a consensus on fixing it. Not enough dollars, court houses, judges, or jurors to get rid of the odious plea system.

sully007
08-02-2012, 11:09 AM
Are you in danger of dying in the next 2 years?

I'll ask my doctor next time I see him.
So you are saying that CCW will be shall issue in Santa Clara county in the next two years?

taperxz
08-02-2012, 11:49 AM
I'll ask my doctor next time I see him.
So you are saying that CCW will be shall issue in Santa Clara county in the next two years?

I know with a fairly reasonable cause you can get one in San Mateo county.

I would take Gray at his word. OR you can bet him with a steak dinner. :D

Mesa Tactical
08-02-2012, 11:57 AM
I'll ask my doctor next time I see him.

I'm no doctor, but if that's you in your avatar, you don't look any too healthy.

sully007
08-02-2012, 8:19 PM
I know with a fairly reasonable cause you can get one in San Mateo county.

I would take Gray at his word. OR you can bet him with a steak dinner. :D

I don't live in San Mateo county. :-(

I love a good steak dinner, maybe a good bottle of wine also?

wjc
08-02-2012, 8:23 PM
I don't live in San Mateo county. :-(

I love a good steak dinner, maybe a good bottle of wine also?

Don't forget the Chianti...with some fava beans.

:43:

Gray Peterson
08-02-2012, 8:29 PM
I don't live in San Mateo county. :-(

I love a good steak dinner, maybe a good bottle of wine also?

Assuming we have a ruling on carry from SCOTUS by June of 2013, and given the flood of license applications that'll occur, you'll have your license by June 2014.

sully007
08-02-2012, 8:52 PM
Assuming we have a ruling on carry from SCOTUS by June of 2013, and given the flood of license applications that'll occur, you'll have your license by June 2014.

If that's the case I will be buying you a steak dinner.

wildhawker
08-02-2012, 9:02 PM
Can I get in on the steak dinner action?

I do warn you that, personally knowing how much Gray can eat, you might want to make sure there's an Applebee's nearby.

-Brandon

DeanC
08-02-2012, 9:11 PM
Can I get in on the steak dinner action?

I do warn you that, personally knowing how much Gray can eat, you might want to make sure there's an Applebee's nearby.

-Brandon

Brandon,
When I can get one in Marin, your steak dinner will be on me. And it won't be at Applebee's.

Dean

postal
08-02-2012, 9:14 PM
You put a HUGE grin on my face!

I appreciate EVERYTHING you do and everyone else on the rest of the team.

When you're in socal, steak dinner is on me.

Thank you so much for all of your time and effort.

Regards,
Postal!
edit

--------yeah, thats an open invite for Brandon too!---------

sully007
08-02-2012, 9:15 PM
Can I get in on the steak dinner action?

I do warn you that, personally knowing how much Gray can eat, you might want to make sure there's an Applebee's nearby.

-Brandon

Thanks for the heads up! I might have to call my friend with the cattle ranch for a whole cow. :-(

postal
08-02-2012, 9:18 PM
I'm no doctor, but if that's you in your avatar, you don't look any too healthy.

:rofl2::rofl2:

sully007
08-02-2012, 9:21 PM
Assuming we have a ruling on carry from SCOTUS by June of 2013, and given the flood of license applications that'll occur, you'll have your license by June 2014.

Just put it in my iPhone calendar.

sully007
08-02-2012, 9:22 PM
I'm no doctor, but if that's you in your avatar, you don't look any too healthy.

And that's my best picture! ;-)

unusedusername
08-02-2012, 9:31 PM
I know with a fairly reasonable cause you can get one in San Mateo county.



I live in San Mateo county and would be willing to buy a steak dinner for Gray, or heck the whole CGF board if I were able to aquire a permit.

"Fairly reasonable" excludes a good portion of the population.

taperxz
08-02-2012, 9:55 PM
I live in San Mateo county and would be willing to buy a steak dinner for Gray, or heck the whole CGF board if I were able to aquire a permit.

"Fairly reasonable" excludes a good portion of the population.

Not as much as you think. Articulating a well thought GC should do it. IMHO

Simply self defense or I'm afraid of the neighbors dog would be examples of an insufficient GC in San Mateo. That's just MY opinion though. Have you checked the San Mateo thread lately? A few are getting them. And the shooting class last week had 6 new licensees

Gray Peterson
08-02-2012, 10:44 PM
Thanks for the heads up! I might have to call my friend with the cattle ranch for a whole cow. :-(

Nah, that's fine. a $50 steak is good enough. ;)

sully007
08-02-2012, 10:55 PM
Nah, that's fine. a $50 steak is good enough. ;)

Dry creek grill just opened up and they have a nice $50 steak on the menu.

bulgron
08-02-2012, 11:09 PM
Assuming we have a ruling on carry from SCOTUS by June of 2013, and given the flood of license applications that'll occur, you'll have your license by June 2014.

I have a steak dinner bet with Gray on this one. I'm still expecting, unhappily, that I'm going to win.

Two years to shall issue carry licenses in Santa Clara county? No way. Even if a carry case manages to get to SCOTUS in the next year (and that's a BIG if), I expect SCOTUS will waffle just enough to give California something to argue about in court. It'll be just like the 'in the home' B.S. argument that the anti's are making these day: some trivial clause or preposition in some damn footnote or some such will give them a way to argue this for another 5 or 10 years.

I know, I know, I'm being negative. But as slow as the courts are moving, I also think I'm being a realist.

Agent Orange
08-03-2012, 1:17 PM
Lol @ the CGF kool-aid. I have a bridge to sell anyone who thinks Bay Area permits will be shall issue or anything remotely resembling it two years from now.

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 1:25 PM
Lol @ the CGF kool-aid. I have a bridge to sell anyone who thinks Bay Area permits will be shall issue or anything remotely resembling it two years from now.

Really? I guess you think 2A will be found to mean effectively nothing. If true, shouldn't you be moving to a state with a strong RKBA?

-Brandon

voiceofreason
08-03-2012, 2:25 PM
Mid-2013 at the very earliest

More likely 2-5 years after that.

I drink the CGF kool aid personally.

bulgron
08-03-2012, 2:56 PM
Mid-2013 at the very earliest

More likely 2-5 years after that.

I drink the CGF kool aid personally.

Not if Obama wins reelection. All he has to do is replace one of the Heller five and it's all over for at least the next generation.

wazdat
08-03-2012, 3:00 PM
Everyone bags on Nordyke - except they miss that it created a circuit split with McDonald v. Chicago... Then it was able to get out of it's own way.

Both CGF v. San Mateo and Haynie/Richards are parts of twins that you've not met the other case yet. San Mateo has very different likely outcomes in the next court. Haynie has been more useful than most people seem to get. Riddle - why isn't Mrs. Harris trying to ban bullet buttons?

And how is forcing Sacramento County shall issue bad exactly?

-Gene

Assuming we have a ruling on carry from SCOTUS by June of 2013, and given the flood of license applications that'll occur, you'll have your license by June 2014.

You know, just when I start to feel battered gun owner syndrome about to take over you guys give me a ray of sunshine and hope...

Keep it up.

Glock22Fan
08-03-2012, 3:36 PM
Assuming we have a ruling on carry from SCOTUS by June of 2013, and given the flood of license applications that'll occur, you'll have your license by June 2014.

Do you have a case (or cases) in mind that SCOTUS is bound to accept?

We've heard a lot in the past that SCOTUS must review this or that, and they've so far refused them all.

I'd like to think you are right, but I'm not holding my breath at present.

sholling
08-03-2012, 3:54 PM
Really? I guess you think 2A will be found to mean effectively nothing. If true, shouldn't you be moving to a state with a strong RKBA?

-Brandon
Many of us can't afford to or we would have by now. For now I'm hoping you're right that SCOTUS grants cert to a good carry case and that they give us a win but it's hard to hold out too much hope for either after the very disappointing 2011/2012 session. On the other hand while I have little faith in the courts I do have faith in Gene and the Calguns legal team.

wildhawker
08-03-2012, 4:54 PM
What SCOTUS has done to date has been, while disappointing from the perspective of the individual plaintiffs, entirely reasonable and predictable on a strategic basis.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
08-03-2012, 5:51 PM
Do you have a case (or cases) in mind that SCOTUS is bound to accept?

We've heard a lot in the past that SCOTUS must review this or that, and they've so far refused them all.

I'd like to think you are right, but I'm not holding my breath at present.

The SCOTUS cases thus far have all been cases tainted by criminality in some form. The two "outside the home" carry cases that were denied cert by SCOTUS was State v. Williams and United States v. Masciandaro.

If you recall, State v. Williams was the Maryland criminal appeals case that was taken up by Stephen Halbrook and Richard Gardiner (of the NRA). It was denied.

United States v. Masciandaro was the criminal case involving gun possession in national parks. Many of the "brains" behind the RKBA movement believed that if any criminal appeals case would be taken, it would be this one, because it wouldn't disturb a current criminal statute (national parks gun ban was repealed by the Coburn amendment by that point) and that the fine was only $100 to Sean (the defendant).

Interestingly, SCOTUS receives 7000 petitions a year. They only ask for responses from the appellees about 500 times a year. Every single 2A related petition has been asked for responses, which the watchers over at SCOTUSblog among others is usually an indicator of intense interest in the subject.

There have been no civil appeals that have made it to SCOTUS on the issue of "2A-Bear". If any where to make it this term, it would be Moore v. Madigan, Kachalsky v. Cacace, Woollard v. Gallagher, or Peterson v. Martinez.

In terms of timing likelyhoods, it would be:

#1: Moore

Why: Cleanest case (total carry ban), on a preliminary injunction path, decision is expected by 8/8/2013 (due to acceleration by the Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit in denying the state an extension). Oral arguments occurred on this June 8th, 2012. Though the state may appeal the ruling up (and of course, we would appeal a loss), there is the possibility of the Legislature passing a carry licensing law in response to 2A gun rights win at the 7th Circuit, which would essentially moot the case, whether or not the Attorney General wants that to happen.

#2: Peterson

Why: At the terrible risk of being accused of "tooting my own horn", my case has had two oral arguments and is currently overdue for a decision in the 10th Circuit. The Legislature is also not likely to change the law in the middle. It also would be able to answer two other questions:

A) Does government have the ability to choose a method of carry, but must allow a form of it, or is open carry the right and therefor concealed carry is not? The State of Colorado conceded that a CHL allows open carry in Denver.

B) Can non-residents be excluded from a right purely because the state believes their law to be "may-issue" and therefor must "protect itself" from carriers from out of state because they *might* be dangerous (with no individual evidence).

The advantage of a positive answer by SCOTUS (state can choose method, but must allow some form, and non-residents cannot be excluded) is it may instantly fix the refusals of carry licensing in CA, NY, and SC to non-residents.

#3: Kachalsky

Why: Kachalsky's oral arguments are occurring August 22nd in New York City. 2nd circuit is not considered "slow to decision", but they are not as fast as the 4th Circuit. New York State does not allow OC with handguns on the street (only concealed carry is allowed) so just like in Colorado, New York is trying to confuse concealed carry with open carry issue. It'll be ruled on by new years, most likely.

#4: Woollard

Why: Woollard's oral arguments are occurring October 23-26. The 4th Circuit put the oral arguments and case on a massively accelerated schedule. For comparison, Lane v. Holder, the interstate handgun purchase case, is scheduled for that week as well. It's notice of appeal was 7/29/2011. Woollard's was early April. Don't be surprised by a release of an opinion by New Years.

sholling
08-03-2012, 6:45 PM
What SCOTUS has done to date has been, while disappointing from the perspective of the individual plaintiffs, entirely reasonable and predictable on a strategic basis.

-Brandon
I'm not disagreeing with you but I think it's also what frustrates most people about the games played by the courts. There are 10s of millions American not accused of any crime that are being denied their constitutional rights yet the courts have become so detached from the real world that they see such cases as some kind of chess game to be played out over years or even decades. But there is nothing that we can do about the courts and I'm grateful for the efforts of the legal team.

In terms of timing likelyhoods, it would be:

#1: Moore

Why: Cleanest case (total carry ban), on a preliminary injunction path, decision is expected by 8/8/2013 (due to acceleration by the Chief Judge of the 7th Circuit in denying the state an extension). Oral arguments occurred on this June 8th, 2012. Though the state may appeal the ruling up (and of course, we would appeal a loss), there is the possibility of the Legislature passing a carry licensing law in response to 2A gun rights win at the 7th Circuit, which would essentially moot the case, whether or not the Attorney General wants that to happen.

#2: Peterson

Why: At the terrible risk of being accused of "tooting my own horn", my case has had two oral arguments and is currently overdue for a decision in the 10th Circuit. The Legislature is also not likely to change the law in the middle. It also would be able to answer two other questions:

A) Does government have the ability to choose a method of carry, but must allow a form of it, or is open carry the right and therefor concealed carry is not? The State of Colorado conceded that a CHL allows open carry in Denver.

B) Can non-residents be excluded from a right purely because the state believes their law to be "may-issue" and therefor must "protect itself" from carriers from out of state because they *might* be dangerous (with no individual evidence).

The advantage of a positive answer by SCOTUS (state can choose method, but must allow some form, and non-residents cannot be excluded) is it may instantly fix the refusals of carry licensing in CA, NY, and SC to non-residents.

#3: Kachalsky

Why: Kachalsky's oral arguments are occurring August 22nd in New York City. 2nd circuit is not considered "slow to decision", but they are not as fast as the 4th Circuit. New York State does not allow OC with handguns on the street (only concealed carry is allowed) so just like in Colorado, New York is trying to confuse concealed carry with open carry issue. It'll be ruled on by new years, most likely.

#4: Woollard

Why: Woollard's oral arguments are occurring October 23-26. The 4th Circuit put the oral arguments and case on a massively accelerated schedule. For comparison, Lane v. Holder, the interstate handgun purchase case, is scheduled for that week as well. It's notice of appeal was 7/29/2011. Woollard's was early April. Don't be surprised by a release of an opinion by New Years.
My ignorance is showing again but based on the timing of the above cases it would seem to this layman that at least two if not all four might come too late for consideration during the 2012-2013 term. Do you really see the Supreme Court adding a carry case to their calendar after the 1st of the year or is 2013-2014 more likely?

Gray Peterson
08-03-2012, 9:50 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you but I think it's also what frustrates most people about the games played by the courts. There are 10s of millions American not accused of any crime that are being denied their constitutional rights yet the courts have become so detached from the real world that they see such cases as some kind of chess game to be played out over years or even decades. But there is nothing that we can do about the courts and I'm grateful for the efforts of the legal team.

We must move forward. Remember, Heller effectively fixed handgun possession in home for half a million. McDonald fixed it for 4 million people (Chicagoland area), plus California not sliding into total handgun bans itself. When we get carry, it'll effect 100 million people in highly urbanized areas of NYC, NJ, CA, MD, DC, MA, and IL.

As long as carry is banned in these areas for the normal person, there will always be a grave danger the gains we made in the 41 other states could be lost as demographics kick in. Heller came at the nick of time.

My ignorance is showing again but based on the timing of the above cases it would seem to this layman that at least two if not all four might come too late for consideration during the 2012-2013 term. Do you really see the Supreme Court adding a carry case to their calendar after the 1st of the year or is 2013-2014 more likely?

Moore and Peterson are extremely high likelyhood of 2012-2013 SCOTUS term hearing and decision. Kachalsky and Woollard are *possible* 2012-2013 SCOTUS term and decision.

sholling
08-04-2012, 12:03 AM
We must move forward.
I agree, it's the only direction we can go.

Moore and Peterson are extremely high likelyhood of 2012-2013 SCOTUS term hearing and decision. Kachalsky and Woollard are *possible* 2012-2013 SCOTUS term and decision.
Thank you for clearing that up.