PDA

View Full Version : The Three Judge Panel in Richards v. Prieto is set


Window_Seat
11-24-2012, 7:10 PM
So here are the three Judges in the Richards v. Prieto case:


O'Scannlain (Ronald Reagan)
Thomas (Bill Clinton)
Callahan (George W. Bush)


If there's a dupe, please lock. Otherwise, I'm not sure what to make of that other than who they were picked by, and the fact that Judge O’Scannlain wrote the original Nordyke opinion.

I also posted this to the Lunch thread.

Erik.

Ubermcoupe
11-24-2012, 7:25 PM
LTC issuance/compliance in Yolo Co for those just tuning in.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto

I gather from the nominating presidents the political leanings of the three but can any of our legal-beagles chime in about the current status of these justices?
Should one maintain a “cautiously-optomistic” attitude?
:o

press1280
11-25-2012, 3:11 AM
Not quite a dupe since I only posted this in the Baker(Hawaii) thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=470102&page=6

Callahan's opinion in a recent case against Glock, said that Glock can't be held responsible for illegal acts of someone using a Glock.

All in all I think we got a pretty good draw on the panel considering the makeup of the 9th.

Mesa Tactical
11-25-2012, 6:52 AM
I gather from the nominating presidents the political leanings of the three but can any of our legal-beagles chime in about the current status of these justices?

Should one maintain a “cautiously-optomistic” attitude?

Eric Holder was first appointed judge by Ronald Reagan.

uhlan1
11-25-2012, 11:03 PM
Didn't know that. well, no one's perfect.
Anyone know when the case may be heard?

Window_Seat
11-25-2012, 11:32 PM
Didn't know that. well, no one's perfect.
Anyone know when the case may be heard?

You mean this Richards case?

December 6, 2012, 9:00AM
Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor
James R. Browning Building
95 7th ST.
San Francisco, CA 94103

Erik.

Curley Red
11-26-2012, 6:49 AM
Eric Holder was first appointed judge by Ronald Reagan.

Reagan took away our right to loaded open carry also. Reagan was not that great of a person when it came to gun rights, something a lot of people seem to forget real easily.

Mesa Tactical
11-26-2012, 7:11 AM
Reagan took away our right to loaded open carry also. Reagan was not that great of a person when it came to gun rights, something a lot of people seem to forget real easily.

But he had great hair.

Renaissance Redneck
11-26-2012, 7:42 AM
Reagan took away our right to loaded open carry also. Reagan was not that great of a person when it came to gun rights, something a lot of people seem to forget real easily.

Indeed. Plenty of Republicans (Reagan, Romney) have limited gun rights in their states when they were governors.

Dem/Repub, it doesn't really matter. They're all made from the same cloth.

Big Ben
11-26-2012, 9:19 AM
I did a very brief Google search on these three. Emphasis on "brief," as I haven't looked into any actual cases/decisions by any of the justices.

A couple items of note:


Judge Sidney Thomas was short-listed by Obama for the Supreme Court before ultimately deciding on Kagan.



Judge Connie Callahan, while nominated by George Bush, has received strong support from the Democratic side of the political spectrum, including Dianne Feinstein. A number of Democrats pushed for her as a Supreme Court replacement for O'Conner, as she was viewed as more moderate than other Bush options.



Judge O'Scannlain - Is in favor of splitting the 9th circuit into 2 different courts, and has spoken less than favorably about the court. In 1998, stated to the White Commission "When a court grows too large, it is more likely to resemble a legislative body in which strong-willed individuals are prone to developing policy rather than, to paraphrase Chief Justice Marshall, saying what the law is."


He also said, "Our batting average before the Supreme Court should not, by itself, be an indicator of a dysfunctional court. On the other hand, when the Supreme Court reaches out to take 29 cases in one Term only to reverse 28 of them, perhaps it is telling us something. And, when the Supreme Court takes three of our cases and reverses them, unanimously, without oral argument, on the same day, as it did just a few months ago, I believe it is telling us something.(March 2003)"



If I had to guess, Thomas would be a sure vote to confirm the lower court decision. It's probably less predictable what the other two will do, but I'd be shocked if at least one of them doesn't vote to confirm the lower court decision as well.

But as has been said time and time again, some arguments are designed for higher courts.

Curley Red
11-26-2012, 10:26 AM
But he had great hair.

I liked him as an actor, just not a politician.

Mesa Tactical
11-26-2012, 10:34 AM
I liked him as an actor, just not a politician.

I've seen a couple of his movies. He was underrated as an actor. Certainly better than Charlton Heston (are we allowed to say that here?).

Rossi357
11-26-2012, 12:11 PM
Do you mean "Bedtime for Bonzo"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo

Window_Seat
11-26-2012, 3:20 PM
Judges O'Scannlain and Callahan have said before that the Court needs to adopt a standard of review on the Second Amendment:

"But I cannot agree with the majority’s approach, which fails to explain the standard of scrutiny under which it evaluates the ordinance.² 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 regulation’s burden on Second Amendment rights. See Nordyke, 644 F.3d at 782-88 (explaining that the level of scrutiny applied to gun control regulations depends on the regulation’s burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and to bear arms); cf. Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (developing framework for reviewing gun control regulations with reference to the extent of the regulation’s burden on Second Amendment rights); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (same)."

"²All that is clear from the majority’s approach is that the majority cannot be evaluating the ordinance under strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that it has taken the least restrictive means to serve a compelling government interest. It is an exceptionally difficult standard to satisfy. See Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 214, 219 & n.6 (1984). Here, the parties have not even had an opportunity to build a factual record regarding the County’s new interpretation of its ordinance, so it is impossible to say at this stage that the County could establish that its ordinance would satisfy a least-restrictive-means analysis."

— O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, joined by TALLMAN,
CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, concurring in the
judgment.

"Rather than applying a constitutional standard of review to Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge, see maj. op. at 6168, the majority applies the ever popular “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 Amendment."

—IKUTA, Circuit Judge, with whom CALLAHAN, Circuit
Judge, joins, concurring in the judgment

Also, for those doubting that this court will continue to be par for the course in their standards, see this video that I watched in its entirety:

bHl0szCLHzc

My hope for this case is that the Judges don't rush through it because of the Court's case load.

Erik.

bulgron
11-26-2012, 4:14 PM
Also, for those doubting that this court will continue to be par for the course in their standards ...

This panel will probably do what the 9th circuit panels always do: they'll start with the conclusion that they want to find (in this case, "We don't want ordinary citizens carrying guns because we think ordinary citizens are dangerous and emotionally unstable") and then they'll work backwards to arrive at the arguments they need to make in order to arrive at that conclusion. This is especially true since all the powers that be in the 9th circuit also really, really want to stop ordinary citizens from carrying arms, and the 9th circuit justices are highly influenced by the opinions of the powers that be.

So.

We're going to lose this case in the 9th.

SCOTUS or bust. And it has to be SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to reshape that court, too. Once again, I can't thank enough all the gun owners nationwide who thought voting for Obama, or voting for no one at all, was okay because their gun rights looked secure to them.

Southwest Chuck
11-26-2012, 6:32 PM
A shout-out goes to press1280 who posted this little encouraging tidbit over at MDShooters/post 122 (http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=64111&page=7)

The calendar shows the panel for Baker, Richards, and Peruta:

O'Scannlain (Reagan Nominee)
Thomas (Clinton Nominee)
Callahan (Bush 43 Nominee)

For those that don't know Conseulo Callahan, read this clip from the NRA's website:

Last fall, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the firearm industry that had been previously tossed out by a Los Angeles federal judge before it went to trial. The suit, Ileto v. Glock, seeks to blame Glock and others for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow`s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted but did nothing illegal.

Following last fall`s decision, Glock asked that the full court reconsider the ruling. Last week, the full court voted to allow the suit to proceed. Significantly, eight of the judges dissented. In writing the dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan said, "The potential impact of the panel`s decision is staggering. Any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product." Drawing an obvious conclusion, Judge Callahan went on to say, "Thus, General Motors would be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile."

O'Scannlain is the same from the various Nordyke cases, and supported incorporation of the 2A to help set up a circuit split to get McDonald to SCOTUS.

speedrrracer
11-26-2012, 7:01 PM
That is encouraging. Thanks for the re-post, SW Chuck

The Shadow
11-26-2012, 7:05 PM
Okay, so let's say that this case goes in our favor, what exactly does that mean for our side ?

I seriously doubt it will mean that California instantly becomes a shall issue state.

kcbrown
11-26-2012, 7:31 PM
This panel will probably do what the 9th circuit panels always do: they'll start with the conclusion that they want to find (in this case, "We don't want ordinary citizens carrying guns because we think ordinary citizens are dangerous and emotionally unstable") and then they'll work backwards to arrive at the arguments they need to make in order to arrive at that conclusion. This is especially true since all the powers that be in the 9th circuit also really, really want to stop ordinary citizens from carrying arms, and the 9th circuit justices are highly influenced by the opinions of the powers that be.

So.

We're going to lose this case in the 9th.

SCOTUS or bust. And it has to be SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to reshape that court, too. Once again, I can't thank enough all the gun owners nationwide who thought voting for Obama, or voting for no one at all, was okay because their gun rights looked secure to them.

This.

O'Scannlain wrote the majority opinion in Nordyke III in which they attempted to neuter "strict scrutiny" as applied to the 2nd Amendment (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6348434#post6348434). Looks to me like he is no friend of ours.

We will lose this case in the 9th Circuit. The faster, the better. We only have a very limited window of opportunity in the Supreme Court before it slams shut in our faces.

anthonyca
11-26-2012, 7:33 PM
Okay, so let's say that this case goes in our favor, what exactly does that mean for our side ?

I seriously doubt it will mean that California instantly becomes a shall issue state.

I would like to know also. Gene, Bill and the rest of the right people have been quiet for a while. That has forced me into OT and my IQ is dropping like a rock.:D

kcbrown
11-26-2012, 8:09 PM
Okay, so let's say that this case goes in our favor, what exactly does that mean for our side ?

I seriously doubt it will mean that California instantly becomes a shall issue state.

This is a guess, but here's how I envision it'll go down:


Some counties will go shall-issue immediately. I don't have a clue how many of them will do so, but most of them will be those that are nearly shall-issue already.
We'll have to file additional suits against one or more of the smaller but more reluctant counties to force them to go shall-issue. How hard they fight will depend on their budget, which will determine their ability to fight.
All of the counties that didn't go shall-issue already will refuse to go shall-issue until we win one or more of the lawsuits started in (2).
The anti-gun strongholds (Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Clara, and San Francisco at a minimum, and possibly including Alameda and San Mateo), will staunchly refuse to go shall-issue regardless of where else we win. We will have to sue them individually and win directly.
Once we win in (4), the anti-gun strongholds go shall-issue but will employ other tactics (that I will not mention here) to make the resulting licenses as useless as possible to those who aren't "special". The California legislature, now a Democrat supermajority, will pass laws that will aid those counties in their resistive efforts. We will have to fight all of those things separately, which will take lots of time and lots of money.
Lather, rinse, repeat step (5) until the counties run out of ways to neuter the right. This will take many years, and quite possibly (greater than 50% chance, in my estimation) more than a decade. And, of course, any unappealable loss in any of the above stops us dead in our tracks.


A win in Richards is just the beginning. There will be a lot more needed before we have truly secured the right for the majority of people in California.

sholling
11-26-2012, 8:48 PM
Reagan took away our right to loaded open carry also. Reagan was not that great of a person when it came to gun rights, something a lot of people seem to forget real easily.
Some people forget that Reagan started out a Progressive Democrat and an admitted socialist. And they forget that although he was finally a Republican when he became governor he was still evolving toward conservative positions and never completely outgrew his Progressive Democrat past. They also forget that the majority of Americans supported gun control during the 50s and 60s.

This is a guess, but here's how I envision it'll go down:


Some counties will go shall-issue immediately. I don't have a clue how many of them will do so, but most of them will be those that are nearly shall-issue already.
We'll have to file additional suits against one or more of the smaller but more reluctant counties to force them to go shall-issue. How hard they fight will depend on their budget, which will determine their ability to fight.
All of the counties that didn't go shall-issue already will refuse to go shall-issue until we win one or more of the lawsuits started in (2).
The anti-gun strongholds (Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Clara, and San Francisco at a minimum, and possibly including Alameda and San Mateo), will staunchly refuse to go shall-issue regardless of where else we win. We will have to sue them individually and win directly.
Once we win in (4), the anti-gun strongholds go shall-issue but will employ other tactics (that I will not mention here) to make the resulting licenses as useless as possible to those who aren't "special". The California legislature, now a Democrat supermajority, will pass laws that will aid those counties in their resistive efforts. We will have to fight all of those things separately, which will take lots of time and lots of money.
Lather, rinse, repeat step (5) until the counties run out of ways to neuter the right. This will take many years, and quite possibly (greater than 50% chance, in my estimation) more than a decade. And, of course, any unappealable loss in any of the above stops us dead in our tracks.


A win in Richards is just the beginning. There will be a lot more needed before we have truly secured the right for the majority of people in California.
Based on 2nd Amendment litigation history and the makeup of our mentally unbalanced political masters in Sacramento and the counties I strongly suspect that the 9th Circus will reject carry as a right and we'll have to appeal any decision to SCOTUS. But assuming we do win anything more than an empty victory at the 9th I think your projections are right on the money. A solid win in the 9th would bring shall issue to all but a handful of counties but that handful will fight to the end to keep from issuing or honoring LTCs. And I predict that the fun and games coming out of Chicago where they erect new barriers every time one is knocked down will come to California and 10 years of litigation is probably about right.

M. D. Van Norman
11-27-2012, 8:32 AM
Speaking personally, I just need a decision one way or the other. Thereafter, let the chips fall where they may.

kcbrown
11-27-2012, 8:44 AM
Note that if SCOTUS takes Kachalsky (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=649247), then we should expect to see these California carry cases stayed pending the SCOTUS decision. And if SCOTUS takes another carry case the following term, then the same thing will happen again. Lather, rinse, repeat, until we get a SCOTUS session in which no carry cases make it up to SCOTUS. Once we get a SCOTUS session with no carry cases, we'll finally get a decision on these cases, in which the 9th Circuit will rule against us anyway (i.e., regardless of what SCOTUS says in the decisions for which these cases were stayed). Then, and only then, will we be able to appeal these cases to SCOTUS and get final resolution (and that's assuming we don't get a bunch of en banc action to stall things even further).

moleculo
11-27-2012, 6:30 PM
Is Gura doing oral arguments in this hearing or is it going to be Kilmer?

wildhawker
11-27-2012, 6:32 PM
Alan is arguing for Richards and Baker.

Gray Peterson
11-27-2012, 8:23 PM
What does it have to do with this case? We will lose this case at the 9th and our chance of winning will be at the SCOTUS.

If the gun fight is at the state level, not the federal level, we have lost.

We thought with Kachalsky that Judge Wesley would write a dissent, since he seemed during oral argument to be in agreement with the plaintiff-appellants. Instead, Judge Wesley was the one who wrote the decision. Perhaps he was doing us a favor taking over the writing & writing such a terrible decision as did Judge Easterbrook in the 7th during the McDonald case. We can't exactly ask Judge Wesley that question, as it would be highly inappropriate.

There have been situations where we had a really obvious win. First was the Ezell in it's first appeal, where Judge Sykes & Kanne were excoriating the City of Chicago's lawyer (Feldman), flat out calling their arguments fallacies & red herrings. Even the judge who concurred with the judgement (Rovner) but made her own decision on the matter told the City of Chicago's lawyer that they were going to have major problems.

The 9th Circuit, Judge O'Scannlain specifically, wrote a decision incorporating 2A using due process incorporation, but still ruled against the Nordykes.

There's simply no way to inside baseball the situation until the oral arguments, and even then it's a crapshoot.

sholling
11-27-2012, 10:05 PM
Where i stand? Sooo, what proof do you have that any conservative judge will leave his job during the next 4 years?

Reversing Heller would not be as easy as you seem to think. The courts don't just flip flop like politicians do. Worst case is Heller gets bogged down. Thats only if one of the Heller 5 leave or die.
Fact: judges aren't any more immune from a debilitating stroke or fatal heart attack than the rest of us so based on the ages of the Heller 5 (Roberts 57, Scalia 76, Kennedy 76, Thomas 64, and Alito 62) and the average life expectancy for a white male of 76 years (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/life_expectancy.html) and the fact that only 49% (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_09.pdf) white males make it to age 80 there is a 50:50 chance that we will lose one or more of the Heller 5 over the next 4 years. That's just the statistics.

As for ease of reversing Heller and ruling that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right I've already quoted the Progressive justices's repudiation of Heller and any individual right to RKBA in the McDonald dissent. All those 4 and a 5th Progressive to be named later have to do is apply that reasoning in a future case and any constitutional right to RKBA is gone. They've already told us in the McDonald dissent how they will rule once they have a majority.

kcbrown
11-27-2012, 11:23 PM
No conservative judge will leave during this presidency. They are not going to give up all they have worked for. They have all basically said this. It would take a death to lose a Heller 5.


No, it doesn't take a death, just a condition sufficiently debilitating that it would prevent the justice in question from carrying out his duties.


Fact: judges aren't any more immune from a debilitating stroke or fatal heart attack than the rest of us so based on the ages of the Heller 5 (Roberts 57, Scalia 76, Kennedy 76, Thomas 64, and Alito 62) and the average life expectancy for a white male of 76 years (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/life_expectancy.html) and the fact that only 49% (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_09.pdf) white males make it to age 80 there is a 50:50 chance that we will lose one or more of the Heller 5 over the next 4 years. That's just the statistics.


Yes, though one might conclude from your statement here that the 50% figure is due to the 49% figure alone. It's not.

Based on the statistics (in particular, the proper use of the "probability of dying between ages x to x+1" column in the relevant life tables -- that of black males for Thomas, white males for the rest -- found in http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_09.pdf), the chances of each member of the Heller 5 dying within the next 4 years are as follows:


Roberts (57): 4%
Scalia (76): 19%
Kennedy (76): 19%
Thomas (64): 11%
Alito (62): 6%



Taken together, that yields a 47% chance of one of them dying within the next 4 years.

The yearly probabilities that we'll lose at least one of the Heller 5 to death are:


2013: 13%, cumulative 13%
2014: 14%, cumulative 25%
2015: 15%, cumulative 37%
2016: 17%, cumulative 47%



Gotta show my work on the above: 181721


Now, that's death we're talking about in the above. The odds of a debilitating condition are not factored into it, but will, I'd wager, significantly increase the odds. It's why I believe the odds we'll lose one of the Heller 5 in the next 3 years remains at the 75% I estimated a couple of years ago (http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4866523&postcount=147).




As for ease of reversing Heller and ruling that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right I've already quoted the Progressive justices's repudiation of Heller and any individual right to RKBA in the McDonald dissent. All those 4 and a 5th Progressive to be named later have to do is apply that reasoning in a future case and any constitutional right to RKBA is gone. They've already told us in the McDonald dissent how they will rule once they have a majority.

Precisely.

Gray Peterson
11-28-2012, 12:03 AM
I don't understand why we're even discussing worries about the Heller 5 being replaced at this point. There is absolutely nothing we can do about the situation. We have to proceed forward with our cases as quickly as possible. That is the extent of what we can do.

kcbrown
11-28-2012, 12:38 AM
I don't understand why we're even discussing worries about the Heller 5 being replaced at this point. There is absolutely nothing we can do about the situation. We have to proceed forward with our cases as quickly as possible. That is the extent of what we can do.

Yes. The point is to emphasize the "need for speed". Every possible thing we can do to speed things along is what we should be doing. I get the (possibly false) impression we thought we had more time than this. "Chess" usually involves taking your time to set up your pieces in the right places and to react to the opposition's moves in such a way as to close off as many effective avenues of attack on their part as possible. While there may be a clock governing how long you can think about your moves, there's no clock on the execution.

That's not the case here anymore. Now, suddenly, time is very much against us -- it's another avenue of attack the opposition can wield against us that probably didn't matter before. Now it suddenly matters a great deal.

This has big strategic implications. It means we may need to move before we otherwise would, and possibly before we otherwise should. It means we will almost certainly have to take risks that would otherwise seem imprudent.

Because I'm not privy to the actual strategy, I can't say how much of the above is actually applicable, but if we're not already full speed ahead in every respect, then we'd better get that way, and quick.

taperxz
11-28-2012, 5:55 PM
Its back!!! Happy E? Now to the discussion at hand.

Gray Peterson
11-28-2012, 5:59 PM
Yes. The point is to emphasize the "need for speed". Every possible thing we can do to speed things along is what we should be doing. I get the (possibly false) impression we thought we had more time than this. "Chess" usually involves taking your time to set up your pieces in the right places and to react to the opposition's moves in such a way as to close off as many effective avenues of attack on their part as possible. While there may be a clock governing how long you can think about your moves, there's no clock on the execution.

That's not the case here anymore. Now, suddenly, time is very much against us -- it's another avenue of attack the opposition can wield against us that probably didn't matter before. Now it suddenly matters a great deal.

This has big strategic implications. It means we may need to move before we otherwise would, and possibly before we otherwise should. It means we will almost certainly have to take risks that would otherwise seem imprudent.

Because I'm not privy to the actual strategy, I can't say how much of the above is actually applicable, but if we're not already full speed ahead in every respect, then we'd better get that way, and quick.

You would be incorrect if the folks who deal with the legal stuff, at least on the SAF/CGF side, thought we had more time. This is why there were numerous carry cases filed in every possible circuit. Not every court can stop like what happened to the Palmer case.

Meplat
11-28-2012, 6:09 PM
Based on 2nd Amendment litigation history and the makeup of our mentally unbalanced political masters in Sacramento and the counties I strongly suspect that the 9th Circus will reject carry as a right and we'll have to appeal any decision to SCOTUS. But assuming we do win anything more than an empty victory at the 9th I think your projections are right on the money. A solid win in the 9th would bring shall issue to all but a handful of counties but that handful will fight to the end to keep from issuing or honoring LTCs. And I predict that the fun and games coming out of Chicago where they erect new barriers every time one is knocked down will come to California and 10 years of litigation is probably about right.



I think 10 years is wildly optimistic. Why should they ever quit trying?

Window_Seat
11-28-2012, 6:19 PM
This thread was deleted (temporarily), cleaned up and resurrected to reflect its relevance. Is it possible to keep things that way here? What Taperxz said above (and I will be happy when the partisan bickering ends).

Thanks.

NOW...

Judge Callahan sat on the Bench in CTIA the Wireless Association v. City & county of S.F., which involves a First Amendment claim in which there is "forced speech".

Could the heightened cause requirement be considered "forced speech" if this court rules in CTIA the Wireless that requiring waring labels on products that are protected by the First Amendment is a violation? This case also sounds like Anderson v. Hermosa Beach, does it not?

**EDIT**

Is it normal for a Counsel to say before a Court that 50 amicus briefs are not anything to rely on? It happens somewhere in the argument of the below case. (Edit again): I believe that the amicus briefs they talk about are in favor of the Government.

5bywwgxN6Ik

Erik.

kcbrown
11-28-2012, 6:31 PM
Not every court can stop like what happened to the Palmer case.

Really?

Why not?

What makes those courts any different from the Palmer court?

Yes, I know that certain circuits have certain rules governing the amount of time allowed before issuing an opinion and such. Such rules are toothless. No judge has ever lost his job over violating such rules, right?

wildhawker
11-28-2012, 6:47 PM
I'm looking into the near future and see kcbrown's ToE really coming together... :P

-Brandon

hoffmang
11-28-2012, 7:13 PM
Alan is arguing for Richards and Baker.
Alan will only be arguing for Richards/SAF/CGF.
You would be incorrect if the folks who deal with the legal stuff, at least on the SAF/CGF side, thought we had more time. This is why there were numerous carry cases filed in every possible circuit. Not every court can stop like what happened to the Palmer case.
Time is of the essence. The average age of retirement or death of a SCOTUS justice is quite high. That said, in regards to this argument, we've always known that we'd have to have SCOTUS be the court of first impression. What we'd hoped is that we'd have had a dissent in Kachalsky.

-Gene

wildhawker
11-28-2012, 7:15 PM
Alan will only be arguing for Richards/SAF/CGF.

Interesting, new (to me) development).

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
11-28-2012, 7:19 PM
Really?

Why not?

What makes those courts any different from the Palmer court?

Yes, I know that certain circuits have certain rules governing the amount of time allowed before issuing an opinion and such. Such rules are toothless. No judge has ever lost his job over violating such rules, right?

The only way a judge loses his job is by resignation or impeachment. What can happen is that the Chief Judge may assign himself to the panel and replace the writer of the panel who's refusing to write the opinion. There's numerous internal circuit operating procedures that have been done for exactly this situation. Certain district courts, including the Central District of California, have strict time limitations to make rulings.

kcbrown
11-28-2012, 7:33 PM
The only way a judge loses his job is by resignation or impeachment. What can happen is that the Chief Judge may assign himself to the panel and replace the writer of the panel who's refusing to write the opinion. There's numerous internal circuit operating procedures that have been done for exactly this situation. Certain district courts, including the Central District of California, have strict time limitations to make rulings.

And if the Chief Judge happens to be against our position and thus implicitly approves of the delaying tactics, or at the very least doesn't care about such tactics enough to take action?

Again, how exactly does this make these courts any different from the one hearing Palmer? Note that in Palmer, the judge hearing the case has already been replaced once, and yet it continues to experience interminable delays. This, despite the fact that it's Justice Roberts (on the Supreme Court itself, and one of the Heller 5) that's overseeing the process.

1JimMarch
11-28-2012, 9:34 PM
We're missing something major here.

This panel cannot approve California's shall-issue system without also addressing cases where carry is completely banned - because Hawaii is in the mix and as a practical matter they're in exactly the same situation as Illinois.

What I mean is, the Kachalsky panel had the option of saying that may-issue satisfied a basic "carry right". It's horsecrap of course but they went there.

This panel can't go there in lockstep with Kachalsky.

They not only have Hawaii to contend with, there's also a few California counties that are zero-issue by local policy too.

Where Hawaii is concerned, they only have two choices: support some kind of "carry right" OR try and write "bear arms" completely out of the 2nd.

I think this will influence the California-related decision.

If the California state defendant wins (based on Kachalsky-type "logic") but Hawaii loses ("hey, there has to be SOME carry right!") then it would have an immediate effect on myself (living in AZ full-time since 2008) and Gray (based in WA state since forever). We have no carry rights in California whatsoever - we're barred from CCW access. If this panel were to support SOME kind of carry right for Hawaii Gray and I would immediately win - the total ban on our carry in Cali would become unsupportable.

Gray Peterson
11-28-2012, 10:36 PM
Jim,

Hawaii is a may-issue statute. Practical & actual are two completely different things.

kcbrown
11-28-2012, 11:27 PM
We're missing something major here.

This panel cannot approve California's shall-issue system without also addressing cases where carry is completely banned - because Hawaii is in the mix and as a practical matter they're in exactly the same situation as Illinois.

What I mean is, the Kachalsky panel had the option of saying that may-issue satisfied a basic "carry right". It's horsecrap of course but they went there.

This panel can't go there in lockstep with Kachalsky.

They not only have Hawaii to contend with, there's also a few California counties that are zero-issue by local policy too.

Where Hawaii is concerned, they only have two choices: support some kind of "carry right" OR try and write "bear arms" completely out of the 2nd.


Even though Gray is right and these states are essentially the same in law, you should nevertheless not underestimate the 9th Circuit's ability to craft language which claims to support some kind of carry "right" while in actuality writing "bear arms" entirely out of the 2nd Amendment (at least in the public context).

Funtimes
11-29-2012, 12:15 AM
Jim,

Hawaii is a may-issue statute. Practical & actual are two completely different things.

Yeah but we have admissions that no permits have ever been issued. We also differ in that there is not a disagreement on the policy, but the fact that no policy exists.

Gray Peterson
11-29-2012, 12:43 AM
Yeah but we have admissions that no permits have ever been issued. We also differ in that there is not a disagreement on the policy, but the fact that no policy exists.

It doesn't matter. There will be no split between Baker and Richards because the statute clearly gives the chief the authority to issue the licenses. That makes it not similar to DC & IL, and this panel, given it's makeup, will see that it's a California-style may-issue statute.

Funtimes
11-29-2012, 12:56 AM
It doesn't matter. There will be no split between Baker and Richards because the statute clearly gives the chief the authority to issue the licenses. That makes it not similar to DC & IL, and this panel, given it's makeup, will see that it's a California-style may-issue statute.

I'm referring to the differences in the NY case. Apparently, since they had a 'policy', they didn't buy the prior restraint argument. I also don't disagree that we will all rise or sink together. One screw - one crew as we would say on a submarine.

Window_Seat
11-29-2012, 10:08 AM
On Monday, Alan Gura filed a 28(j) Letter discussing the decision in Hightower and how that court “[did] not reach the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment as to carrying firearms outside the vicinity of the home without any reference to protection of the home.” (Citing Slip Op. at 22 n.8.1) (Gura, 2012).

Yesterday, the Counsel in Peruta submitted a 28(j) Letter discussing Kachalsky, (2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24363 (2nd Cir. 11/27/12) affirmed).

Today, the Court issued an order advising the parties that they should be prepared to explain the significance of the State of CA not showing up at the appeal. 28 USC § 2403 and Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1 tells me (and please correct me otherwise) that this is the Court's way of pinging the AGs office in the event of an en banc order, is it not?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
11-29-2012, 10:35 AM
Dupe

Gray Peterson
11-29-2012, 10:37 AM
If you look at the Baker docket, you'll see this being discussed:

http://1.USA.gov/QPPgmz

NoJoke
11-29-2012, 1:37 PM
On Monday, Alan Gura filed a 28(j) Letter discussing the decision in Hightower and how that court “[did] not reach the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment as to carrying firearms outside the vicinity of the home without any reference to protection of the home.” (Citing Slip Op. at 22 n.8.1) (Gura, 2012).

Yesterday, the Counsel in Peruta submitted a 28(j) Letter discussing Kachalsky, (2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24363 (2nd Cir. 11/27/12) affirmed).

Today, the Court issued an order advising the parties that they should be prepared to explain the significance of the State of CA not showing up at the appeal. 28 USC § 2403 and Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1 tells me (and please correct me otherwise) that this is the Court's way of pinging the AGs office in the event of an en banc order, is it not?

Erik.

Like:
One does not need to be an expert in American history
to understand the fault inherent in a gun-permitting system that would allow
a licensing body carte blanche authority to decide who is worthy of carrying
a concealed weapon. The constitutional right to bear arms would be
illusory...

wolfwood
11-30-2012, 9:44 AM
I'm referring to the differences in the NY case. Apparently, since they had a 'policy', they didn't buy the prior restraint argument. I also don't disagree that we will all rise or sink together. One screw - one crew as we would say on a submarine.

this is what Funtimes is referring to. I could not join in due to ethical reasons before.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114988449/Response-to-Notice-of-Supplmental-Authority-New-York-2