PDA

View Full Version : Oral Arguments happening now in SF - Question on Parties involved


mikestesting
12-06-2012, 11:01 AM
I'm following the twitter feed for Calguns. I'm new to this, so please be nice.

Who are the following?

Callahan
Clement
O'Scainain
Thomas
San Diego (I assume 'San Diego' is SD County defending their policy)

CaliB&R
12-06-2012, 11:06 AM
I'm following the twitter feed for Calguns. I'm new to this, so please be nice.

Who are the following?


Callahan - Judge
Clement - Counsel for Peruta
O'Scainlain - Judge
Thomas - Judge
San Diego - San Diego counsel

mikestesting
12-06-2012, 11:08 AM
Thanks.

Barbarossa
12-06-2012, 11:28 AM
Did Twitter Break? (@33 mins old)

Coded-Dude
12-06-2012, 11:40 AM
I believe arguments are over, but could be wrong(maybe all their phones died - lol) I have gotten a few tweets in the last couple of minutes from other sources. The last ones about the case were these:

Gene Hoffman: @CalgunsFdn Panel pushes on the point that victims with permits can better defend themselves.

Calguns Foundation: O'Scainlain, but criminals aren't being issued permits?!

phrogg111
12-06-2012, 11:52 AM
Question: "Aren't criminals being issued permits?"
Answer: "No, sir. Convicted criminals are not being issued permits, and calling people criminals before they are convicted of a crime is just making up names for them."

1BigPea
12-06-2012, 11:56 AM
Question: "Aren't criminals being issued permits?"
Answer: "No, sir. Convicted criminals are not being issued permits, and calling people criminals before they are convicted of a crime is just making up names for them."

Wow. Just wow.

kaligaran
12-06-2012, 12:35 PM
I don't use twitter, is there an alternate way to get this information or a log posted somewhere with this info compiled?

And who asked this question?
"Aren't criminals being issued permits?"

Rock6.3
12-06-2012, 12:37 PM
I don't use twitter, is there an alternate way to get this information or a log posted somewhere with this info compiled?

And who asked this question?
"Aren't criminals being issued permits?"

Twitter is now silent as all of those present onsite are now lifting a glass to celebrate the performance of our side.

We now must await the after meal report.

Coded-Dude
12-06-2012, 12:45 PM
You don't have to be a twitter user to see the tweets: https://twitter.com/CalgunsFdn

The first tweet about the case was 5 hours ago(And their first tweet of the day)...scroll down until you find it and the read the whole thing(bottom to top).

1BigPea
12-06-2012, 1:30 PM
Thanks for the link https://twitter.com/CalgunsFdn I just read it all. Gura is a frigging Rock Star!

kaligaran
12-06-2012, 1:39 PM
I assume there wasn't audio recorded or streamed?

The suspense is killing me...

non sequitur
12-06-2012, 1:41 PM
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/index_video.php

You must type "12/06/2012" in the Hearing Date box and click on search.

kaligaran
12-06-2012, 1:46 PM
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/index_video.php

You must type "12/06/2012" in the Hearing Date box and click on search.

Thank you so much!

Ubermcoupe
12-06-2012, 1:50 PM
Twitter “post limited” the feed? anyone else see this? I guess there are too many posts coming in?

Nick Justice
12-06-2012, 2:08 PM
Praying for a favorable decision. But look at how much resistence gun rights have met simce Heller and McDonald. Courts are scared to death of "expanding" the right. They don't want to be the first.
Judges hate making decisions without another case precedent. They hate it. I know several. They cannot stand "breaking new ground". And this is how they see it.

Casual_Shooter
12-06-2012, 2:09 PM
Listening now... thanks for the link.

speedrrracer
12-06-2012, 2:31 PM
Listening to the audio. Many thanks to non_sequitur.

Early impression: Clement (the first lawyer speaking at length, it appears) does not do a good job framing his points when he speaks. He has all the necessary knowledge to win this case, but isn't putting the points forth in his verbiage in anything close to an optimal way. He recovered well in his extra time for rebuttal, or whatever. Maybe that's his strong suit.

2nd lawyer (Chapin?) is an effective spreader of FUD. The female judge seems to pwn him from time to time.

The 2nd lawyer is totally throwing the State law under the bus. He has all but said the State law is unconstitutional, and in fact dodged a direct question asking exactly that. That should be usable as evidence: An actor for the government claims the government's law is unconstitutional in a friggin court of law. But I'm sure it's not, and it's just accepted that he's trying to muddy the waters and whatever he actually says holds no weight.

The first speaker (man, Holcomb?) in the Hawaii case needs to be removed. Unworthy. He was totally beeyotched by the woman who seemed to have a stuffy nose. Proof to me that 2A legislation is often in the wrong hands. A painful beat-down for our side.

In the 3rd audio file, Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here. Or maybe he wasn't bringing his A game? Maybe speaking isn't his strong suit? His opponent did the best job of any of the three, as least as long as you accept without questioning what he presents as facts...

In sum, it's really depressing to hear how the 2nd Amendment is treated. Phrases like, "There must be some way, some how, however restricted and limited by the State, to exercise the right..." from our side(!) make me believe the Framers are spinning in their grave at what we have become...

Barbarossa
12-06-2012, 2:32 PM
Thanks listening in as well

rivraton
12-06-2012, 2:50 PM
Audio linK:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/06/10-56971.wma

kaligaran
12-06-2012, 3:00 PM
Just finished listening.

I know these things are always long and drawn out. Is there an estimate on the timeframe for a decision or is that too unknown to even guess?

mrrsquared79
12-06-2012, 3:50 PM
Are there three different and separate audio streams(cases)? I thought they all are under one stream?

Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/06/10-56971.wma

Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/06/12-16258.wma

Adam Richards, et al. v. Ed Prieto, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2012/12/06/11-16255.wma

Is this correct?????:confused:

Coded-Dude
12-06-2012, 3:56 PM
yes three separate audio files

mrrsquared79
12-06-2012, 3:59 PM
yes three separate audio files

Thanks!

mikestesting
12-06-2012, 4:04 PM
I just finished listening to Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego. I'm not a lawyer or an expert on law, but I think San Diego got their ***** handed to them :)

Drivedabizness
12-06-2012, 4:08 PM
They must be having one helluva lunch

Meplat
12-06-2012, 4:16 PM
Twitter is now silent as all of those present onsite are now lifting a glass to celebrate the performance of our side.

We now must await the after meal report.



I think you mean the after hangover report!:43:

mrrsquared79
12-06-2012, 4:18 PM
I just finished listening to Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego. I'm not a lawyer or an expert on law, but I think San Diego got their ***** handed to them :)

:iagree:

Starting audio for HI case now.

mrrsquared79
12-06-2012, 4:20 PM
LOVE the end where our side says the Heller/McDonald cases can not be ignored!!

:owned:

sighere
12-06-2012, 4:35 PM
2 weeks!

mrrsquared79
12-06-2012, 4:38 PM
2 weeks!

Was this what you were looking for: :twoweeks:

curtisfong
12-06-2012, 4:42 PM
Two weeks until kcbrown is proven right, and the judges completely ignore logic and the law.

Onwards and upwards to SCOTUS.

safewaysecurity
12-06-2012, 4:52 PM
Just listened to all 3. The Baker attorney sounded like he just ripped a big one off of the bong before he spoke. Gura and Clement did great jobs as usual. The lawyer for Yolo was just saying so much untrue crap I couldn't keep track. I hope CA7and 10 release their decisions already. Those cases are long overdue.

mag360
12-06-2012, 5:03 PM
when defendant counsel says things like "it is perfectly legal to carry in many places, your own property, or business for instance" or basically lying "you have to unload your gun in the restaurant" (in reference to some type of unloaded open carry??)

How come Gura isn't asking, but how do they arrive their safely? How do they respond to a threat on the road if the gun is locked up or in the trunk.

The silliness is in the details of these California laws.

wash
12-06-2012, 5:03 PM
I'm bad at judging these things but the council for San Diego seemed to be not very good at oral arguments, the council for Yolo seemed more able but his argument was weak and the council for Hawaii kept talking about things unrelated to the case hoping that she could convince the panel that guns are bad so unconstitutional laws are ok.

Clement was ok, Gura did fine and the Hawaii lawyer on our side was a little overwhelmed but still far better than his opponent.

To me it sounds like Richards is a slam dunk and the judgement might create the relief that Peruta seeks and the Hawaii case is a question mark but I'm hopeful.

Any way that is my take on the proceedings.

The lunch was great too, they raffled off Gene's car. Mitch won but he gave it back.

mag360
12-06-2012, 5:17 PM
why is there some Gorski case from 2004 in Sacramento causing a problem for peruta? I guess I hope that it doesn't screw anything up.

sfpcservice
12-06-2012, 5:22 PM
Stand by for En Banc and a trip to SCOTUS.

mag360
12-06-2012, 5:46 PM
i really like paul clement closing argument. essentially "why are we even here, heller already defined bear, lets respect that and move on".

tankarian
12-06-2012, 6:26 PM
Two weeks until kcbrown is proven right, and the judges completely ignore logic and the law.

Onwards and upwards to SCOTUS.
Agreed.

Window_Seat
12-06-2012, 6:40 PM
At the risk of getting laughed at, I think that Gura & Clement both slam dunked it today, and I couldn't ask for a better team on our side...

I think the Counties and the State of HI choked.

Erik.

bulgron
12-06-2012, 6:54 PM
It doesn't really matter what happened at oral arguments. They are largely meaningless theater. What matters is the arguments in the briefs, and the logic the panel can find in there to arrive at the conclusion that they want to arrive at. Namely: guns are bad, and no way are we going to be the ones to open the door for all you crazies to be legally carrying in public.

I predict a loss, which is good because we then have a straight shot at SCOTUS instead of getting all caught up in an en banc review.

sighere
12-06-2012, 7:10 PM
Well, we need at least one win for a circuit split. So far we're losing at all Circuits. SCOTUS could choose not to take up certiorari on something that has no split. Add to that that B.O. has 4 more years to spin SCOTUS in the leftist direction and you have Heller/McDonald as the high water mark very much in danger.

bulgron
12-06-2012, 7:19 PM
Well, we need at least one win for a circuit split. So far we're losing at all Circuits. SCOTUS could choose not to take up certiorari on something that has no split. Add to that that B.O. has 4 more years to spin SCOTUS in the leftist direction and you have Heller/McDonald as the high water mark very much in danger.

A circuit split isn't an absolute requirement before SCOTUS will review. It's just the best way to guarantee a review.

MattyB
12-06-2012, 7:20 PM
In regards to the San Diego case, I have a feeling all that will come from it is that Sheriffs will be required to explain WHY they are denying a CCW permit. I haven't listened to the other arguments but it seems counsel for SD was trying to blame the State law, protect his Sheriff and at the same time say that because guns are bad there is no reason to argue the constitutionality of the State law and by proxy what the Sheriff is doing.

Like I said, I dont think anything other than a reason for denial will come from this case.

speedrrracer
12-06-2012, 7:45 PM
It doesn't really matter what happened at oral arguments. They are largely meaningless theater. What matters is the arguments in the briefs,...

I hope so, because the orals seemed really...unprofessional. I expected much more polished presentations, at least from Clement and Gura. I came away assuming they must not matter too much, glad to have some confirmation.

I predict a loss

Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.

MattyB
12-06-2012, 8:23 PM
Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.

Using ObamaCare as a comparison, there were some questions asked that almost made it seem like a lock it would be overturned. Since then, I give no credence to questions asked and definitely none to the 9th Circus.

Callahan is our only potential friend being a Wilson/Bush appointee, but Kennedy was suppose to be a conservative friend as well....

sighere
12-06-2012, 8:33 PM
Don't let the questions fool you. It's the 9th circuit. I can't imagine they will not rule in any way but left, left, left.....

live2suck
12-06-2012, 9:16 PM
Peruta
Mr. Clement seemed to be on the ball, especially, considering the limited scope of their argument.

Was it just me, or did Mr. Chapin representing San Diego state that the statute was an unconstitutional burden, and the sheriff offered relief from that burden? :rofl: It seemed that he was dodging all questions, and really had no counter argument to Mr. Clement. Towards the tail end his arguments became a purely emotional appeal.

Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

Baker
Mr. Holcomb - not reassuring in any sense of the word. :(

Ms. Van Aken - orals were just as disorganized Mr. Holcomb. Guns are scary - only those with a badge should carry them.


In summary, I would love to read the defenses' briefs, none of them seemed like they had prepared anything at all. It doesn't seem like there's any way we can lose either Peruta or Richards. Therefore, echoing everyone else, I predict a loss across the board.

Now that we've listened to all of that, let's wait for the ruling, and kcbrown to be correct. The real world does not tolerate optimism!

Where's my sammich? I need to prepare for me nap.

taperxz
12-06-2012, 9:43 PM
Don't let the questions fool you. It's the 9th circuit. I can't imagine they will not rule in any way but left, left, left.....

You could be right. However i bet a little bird from Scotus left a message telling the Ninth to try to get this one right so we can put an end to this mystery of carry;)

MOA1
12-06-2012, 9:54 PM
In the HI case. Does it make sense to only issue gun carry rights to police that actively pursue people that may lead to a deadly confrontation with guns being involved?

How can that be better than issuing carry permits to people who do not pursue people, only citizens that are pursued by criminals will use their gun and only when left no other choice but grave bodily harm or death imminent?

Obviously I'm going down the wrong path, if they disarmed the police the argument would be a moot point and that's not what we are after.

JMO:
SD = win
CA = could go either way.
HI = back to the drawing board. It reminded me of when I fought a speeding ticket in court. If I would of defined the "why" I was not guilty I would of had a chance. It seems the case is more about getting one person his permit and not about overturning the policy of may issue w/just cause. No disrespect intended toward Mr. Holcomb. I wasn't there.

wildhawker
12-07-2012, 2:19 AM
In the 3rd audio file, Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here. Or maybe he wasn't bringing his A game? Maybe speaking isn't his strong suit? His opponent did the best job of any of the three, as least as long as you accept without questioning what he presents as facts...

I'd respectfully disagree. Gura did more than a fine job of arguing the case and Yolo's attorney literally made up law as he went. If Yolo was the strongest of the three opposition counsel, then...

In sum, it's really depressing to hear how the 2nd Amendment is treated. Phrases like, "There must be some way, some how, however restricted and limited by the State, to exercise the right..." from our side(!) make me believe the Framers are spinning in their grave at what we have become...

You're taking the opposition's bait of getting into the weeds. The bottom line is that either the Second Amendment applies outside the home or it doesn't. If it does, then we win and another case(s) will determine the sort of regulations that are permissible.

-Brandon

MOA1
12-07-2012, 2:49 AM
I'm such a noob to all of this I'm honored just to be a fly on the wall.

Thanks for not splattin me on the wall. ;)

sighere
12-07-2012, 7:01 AM
I would say the only thing that Gura missed (and he only missed slightly) is that when UOC was dicussed vs LCC, he didn't stress the point enough that an unloaded firearm is not a firearm, it's dead weight and that any form of unladed carry is not carry of anything but an expensive throwing weapon. Opposition set him up perfectly for it with his weak dictation of new and existing laws, but Alan didn't pick it up in his final few minutes. Other than that, I agree with the many here that say he did a stellar job!

MrBrent
12-07-2012, 7:02 AM
[QUOTE=live2suck;9867314]Peruta


Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

I was thinking the same thing. The way he was describing it, if you can legally have the gun (LOC at your private property and drive to the gun range) at the starting point and the ending point of your drive you could carry in your car. It made my head spin. Don't try this at home BTW LOL

sighere
12-07-2012, 8:44 AM
Not only that, but toward the end of his diatribe he said that the "new" penal code would require locked, unloaded, not in glovebox when transporting in a car, intimating that the existing penal code does not. This is another part where Gura should have driven home the point that "transporting" firearms is not the same as "bearing" them. Opportunity missed. I think a carjacking scenario would have been appropriate...."please goood criminal sir, do you mind waiting until I unlock my firearm, load it, and then we can carry on with your crime????" All in all the point that unloaded and locked is completely worthless was not explored enough. Prieto's counsel presented all of the legal methods of transporting arms as evidence of not substantially violating the 2A right, when in fact anything other than loaded and readily at hand is in fact a substantial curtailment of the right. Gura should have jumped all over that.

[QUOTE=live2suck;9867314]Peruta


Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

I was thinking the same thing. The way he was describing it, if you can legally have the gun (LOC at your private property and drive to the gun range) at the starting point and the ending point of your drive you could carry in your car. It made my head spin. Don't try this at home BTW LOL

jar
12-07-2012, 9:37 AM
In sum, it's really depressing to hear how the 2nd Amendment is treated. Phrases like, "There must be some way, some how, however restricted and limited by the State, to exercise the right..." from our side(!) make me believe the Framers are spinning in their grave at what we have become...

That statement doesn't mean what you think it means. Arguing in court isn't like political speeches. The speaker isn't saying that the state greatly limiting and restricting the right is good or correct. He's making the point that even if we give the state the maximum benefit of the doubt and assume that the state is allowed to restrict and limit the right, their conduct *STILL* fails to pass Constitutional muster.

Jason_2111
12-07-2012, 10:12 AM
You're taking the opposition's bait of getting into the weeds. The bottom line is that either the Second Amendment applies outside the home or it doesn't.



^^^ This.

It was so hard to not stand up during the oppositions argument and shout out "So, my life is worth LESS if I'm outside of my home??!?!?".

I bit my lip pretty hard.

wash
12-07-2012, 11:46 AM
I have to somewhat agree with Bulgron at the top of the page, orals are a very small part of the appeal process, the briefs are where the real case is made so an appellate lawyer who is horrible in court can still win.

What watching the orals does do is let us see the issues involved in a slightly more clear way because a 20 page brief may only have one paragraph on the key legal theory that determines the case (with the rest being setup material).

speedrrracer
12-07-2012, 12:50 PM
In the 3rd audio file, Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here. Or maybe he wasn't bringing his A game? Maybe speaking isn't his strong suit? His opponent did the best job of any of the three, as least as long as you accept without questioning what he presents as facts...


I'd respectfully disagree. Gura did more than a fine job of arguing the case and Yolo's attorney literally made up law as he went. If Yolo was the strongest of the three opposition counsel, then...

I appreciate your disagreement very much. I want badly to be wrong! Keep in mind I'm speaking as a person who has absolutely zero idea about all this legal stuff, so it's really surface commentary -- how he came across as a speaker, since his facts are obviously spot on.

Among other things, I was really shocked to hear him say, "Y'know.." three times. Not going to earn a spot on the debate team with that, right?

He brings in results, and that's what matters. I just assumed such a person would be a public speaker out of The Devil and Daniel Webster or something.

Agreed on the Yolo thing, I caught a couple things that made me scratch my head, did some CGN wiki-reading, and was, "..this guy is spewing bull****!"

Why don't the judges call him out on that stuff? Are you allowed to just puke out whatever lies you want during orals without repercussions?


The bottom line is that either the Second Amendment applies outside the home or it doesn't. If it does, then we win and another case(s) will determine the sort of regulations that are permissible.

-Brandon

On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?

If so, did you witness any of that during these orals?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 4:19 PM
After Yolo's counsel was up, we started taking bets on how soon it will be before the Ninth starts mandatory drug testing. Honestly, some of us were wondering if maybe there was a mistake and he was arguing the wrong case.

The good news is that, according to Yolo's attorney, you can now carry a gun into a bar. It just has to be unloaded.

Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).

curtisfong
12-07-2012, 5:28 PM
On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?


We know how they lean. They don't give a damn about the briefs, or orals. They want this case dead. That's how this circuit rolls.

The judges will carefully cherry pick from each to support the ruling they wanted to give from the start, in the hopes that it is good enough to have SCOTUS deny certiorari.

Scarecrow Repair
12-07-2012, 5:48 PM
Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here.

I didn't think anyone claimed Gura was a master orator, spellbinding and riveting. What they claim is that he's a master litigator, knows how to cut to the chase, knows his case inside and out, and probably knows his opponent's case better than the opponent.

taperxz
12-07-2012, 6:08 PM
Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).

The way i heard it he talked about private property and permission to carry but when he referenced the bars he said no such thing. At least that was my recollection of what i was hearing,

After listening to it twice i still came up with a WTF? So i replayed it again and well i could find no correlation to the private land and the bar comment. Funny thing though is that an LTC holder is generally not allowed to carry loaded in a place that primarily serves alcohol. Usually sheriffs rules.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
12-07-2012, 8:00 PM
After listening to it twice i still came up with a WTF? So i replayed it again and well i could find no correlation to the private land and the bar comment.

The correlation is made very explicitly beginning at 26:00. At 26:35 he says "(a) it has to be unloaded, (b) you have to have permission of the owner or the tenant as the case may be."

Ryan_D
12-07-2012, 8:32 PM
San Diego's attorney was attempting to do some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. The sheriff doesn't burden the right, the statute does, but the statute pertaining to concealed carry is not unconstitutional? LOL

Hawaii's plaintiff's attorney seemed very discombobulated. He didn't seem to be very prepared to argue his case, which is suprising considering he had just heard 2 other attorneys argue more effectively on the broader issue. The "good news" is that his request before the court was only for a preliminary injunction against the law Hawaii was trying to implement, rather than challenging a sheriff's policy or the statute itself.

Here's a picture of the Baker attorney:

SlippyOU
12-07-2012, 9:30 PM
I would say the only thing that Gura missed (and he only missed slightly) is that when UOC was dicussed vs LCC, he didn't stress the point enough that an unloaded firearm is not a firearm, it's dead weight and that any form of unladed carry is not carry of anything but an expensive throwing weapon. Opposition set him up perfectly for it with his weak dictation of new and existing laws, but Alan didn't pick it up in his final few minutes. Other than that, I agree with the many here that say he did a stellar job!

I completely agree - I thought that was a meatball pitched that Gura just took looking. <--- Man, I love mixing baseball analogies to guns! What a great country! :D

wash
12-08-2012, 12:07 AM
On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?

If so, did you witness any of that during these orals?

At SCOTUS, it was pretty clear who was going to vote no incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago, the "Heller 5" were less easy to read which makes me think that they were actually impartial and ruling on the merits of the case.

To me that means if the judges ask stupid questions and seem to enjoy listening to the anti-gun lawyer talk about how bad guns are, they are going to vote against us. If they ask questions about the law, scrutiny and historical meaning of the second amendment, I get optimistic but at the reversible 9'th, I never know what to think.

The orals seemed to go well but the briefs are what counts and I've read briefs that sound like a slam dunk wind up losing so I don't know what to think there either.

curtisfong
12-08-2012, 12:14 AM
Again: They. Don't. Care.

They'll pick what they want out of the briefs to support the conclusion they already wanted to come to from the start.

Until SCOTUS says otherwise, the 9th can do whatever it wants to.

Ryan_D
12-08-2012, 12:23 AM
I must admit I did find myself feeling a touch optimistic overall at how the panel asked questions. They seemed to question the defendants more frequently and ask questions that in reality should have been easy to answer, but because the answer was detrimental to defendant's position, required a longer discussion. Unfortunately, it IS the 9th Circus, so that optimism didn't last long. The Panel seemed less focused on the nature of the challenge necessarily, and more focused on what level of scrutiny counsels thought they should apply.

wash
12-08-2012, 12:27 AM
That depends on the judges involved.

We got incorporation in Nordyke, that was the ninth circuit.

It was taken back and stayed pending McDonald v. Chicago enbanc which was a clear case of an anti-gun judge messing with a correct ruling and hiding behind an enbanc vote but that's different than a pannel who didn't seem like a bunch of antis handing down an unconstitutional decision.

And once again, not all judges in the 9'th are anti-gun.

They might not care but it didn't seem that way to me.

Ryan_D
12-08-2012, 12:35 AM
I do like that the Panel seemed willing to at least consider that A.) a right to self-defense was part of the core right to KABA and B.) that a right might claim a higher priority than a state's interest in a particular situation.

Not to throw stones, but I also understand the CGF people being displeased with parties' decision in the San Diego case to not challenge the statute as well, from a strategy standpoint. IMHO it would have made S.D. counsel's job immensely more difficult to do both.

jdberger
12-08-2012, 1:11 AM
Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).

As I didn't have the luxury of listening to the audio multiple times and I was already a little punch drunk from the astonishing realization that he came to court completely unprepared (initially some of us were wondering if he was arguing the wrong case) it's entirely possible that I may have misstated what he said (though not what I heard).

You should come to Oral Arguments some time, Fabio. The rest of the Michel team managed to make it. ;)

wash
12-08-2012, 1:16 AM
Where was that cute lawyer with the nice legs?

I didn't see her there.

Wait a second, is she Fabio?


Damn, I never though I would want to throw Fabio a bone.

voiceofreason
12-08-2012, 5:15 AM
I didn't think anyone claimed Gura was a master orator, spellbinding and riveting. What they claim is that he's a master litigator, knows how to cut to the chase, knows his case inside and out, and probably knows his opponent's case better than the opponent.

Agreed. Gura definitely shows up prepared, with a well thought out argument that he works hard to keep on track.

IIRC (which I often don't), Gura has mentioned before that we are best served in litigation in his opinion by narrowing the scope of what we're asking for and tailoring the argument such a fashion that we are focused on one or at most two specific arguments/concepts, which make it more difficult for the court to rule against.

(my analysis of the above, NOT from A. Gura)
By throwing in everything and the kitchen sink, we allow the court to pick and choose what it wishes, essentially providing the court with room to maneuver in ruling against our interests.

SilverBulletZ06
12-08-2012, 6:32 AM
I hope so, because the orals seemed really...unprofessional. I expected much more polished presentations, at least from Clement and Gura. I came away assuming they must not matter too much, glad to have some confirmation.



Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.

I don't put anything past the courts at this point. The orals in Kachalsky were very positive, and look at that abortion of a ruling that was passed down. I'm fairly confident that the more questions asked about the law the more the judges are just looking for holes to thread through or punt to the SCOTUS.

wash
12-08-2012, 7:24 AM
In regards to Alan Gura's speaking skills, he did not seem as polished as McDonald v. Chicago but I am sure he prepared and rehearsed like crazy for that one.

For Richards he was certainly well prepared on the legal matter but probably didn't rehearse as much.

Ford8N
12-08-2012, 7:29 AM
Again: They. Don't. Care.

They'll pick what they want out of the briefs to support the conclusion they already wanted to come to from the start.

Until SCOTUS says otherwise, the 9th can do whatever it wants to.

I agree. Just like the rulers of this state. The US Constitution is just paper for wiping in the rest room.....and nothings going to change that for decades if at all.

Funtimes
12-08-2012, 7:54 AM
San Diego's attorney was attempting to do some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. The sheriff doesn't burden the right, the statute does, but the statute pertaining to concealed carry is not unconstitutional? LOL

Hawaii's plaintiff's attorney seemed very discombobulated. He didn't seem to be very prepared to argue his case, which is suprising considering he had just heard 2 other attorneys argue more effectively on the broader issue. The "good news" is that his request before the court was only for a preliminary injunction against the law Hawaii was trying to implement, rather than challenging a sheriff's policy or the statute itself.

Here's a picture of the Baker attorney:

We already have a law in place, and that is what the PI is for. We were well ready to argue the case. Trying to compare my attorney to Gura or Clement would be a disservice as both are at the pinnacle of experience for 2a matters.

We were able to answer the courts questions, and more importantly help elicit some very good questions from the panel.

I love the arm chair quarterbacks who don't have too much of an idea what is going on, but are dead set on bashing not only my friend, but my counsel. I'll take opinions of the people we talked to there and others like esqappellate.

wolfwood
12-08-2012, 8:01 AM
We already have a law in place, and that is what the PI is for. We were well ready to argue the case. Trying to compare my attorney to Gura or Clement would be a disservice as both are at the pinnacle of experience for 2a matters.

We were able to answer the courts questions, and more importantly help elicit some very good questions from the panel.

I love the arm chair quarterbacks who don't have too much of an idea what is going on, but are dead set on bashing not only my friend, but my counsel. I'll take opinions of the people we talked to there and others like esqappellate.

I'd suggest ignoring a person that apparently does not know the law we are challenging has been implemented for quite sometime know.

jorgyusa
12-08-2012, 8:55 AM
Gura did exactly what he needed to do for this case. The ramblings, lies, and missteps of all 3 defense attorneys should not serve them well. If the court remains rational and fair and not with a sinister agenda, then we should win.

Being present at the hearings was quite an experience and hearing Gura and Clement was soul lifting. I am hopeful that we will win, if not at the Circuit then at the SCOTUS. We have the best on our side and they have the worst.

Thanks to Calguns for the great luncheon afterwards.

Maestro Pistolero
12-08-2012, 9:34 AM
Again: They. Don't. Care.

They'll pick what they want out of the briefs to support the conclusion they already wanted to come to from the start.

Until SCOTUS says otherwise, the 9th can do whatever it wants to.

If we lose this then this is little more a kangaroo court where the facts don't matter, the law doesn't matter, logic is out the window and it really doesn't matter how inept or wrong the state's attorneys are or how unarguable their case is. What is most disturbing to me in that scenario is the elaborate sham that is acted out at great expense and effort, only to back in to a pre-destined conclusion.

I so sincerely hope I am wrong about all of that.

wash
12-08-2012, 10:12 AM
I think you should reserve judgement until you can read a decision.

It's entirely possible that we could lose outside of a kangaroo court. Our lawyers are good but I doubt any of them would claim to be perfect. If there is a problem with their case, we could lose. I hope that no mistakes have been made but I don't think anyone can declare that with certainty without waiting for the actual decision.

Rossi357
12-08-2012, 10:19 AM
One attorney stated that my .380 with 2 mags is now a weapon of mass destruction. I am looking up to see it the drone is flying around.

Paladin
12-08-2012, 6:41 PM
We already have a law in place, and that is what the PI is for. We were well ready to argue the case. ...I think RyanD was mistaken. I finally got to listen to all 3 audios, and, IIRC, the joke re your attorney shooting himself in the foot (near the end of his argument), was because the Con law re. a RKBA in public had not been established before he filed the PI. At least that is the way I took it.

IMHO, you either lose the PI now (quick decision), and get to go to trial, or they delay your decision until after they've decided Peruta and Richards. (Assuming the Fed Rules allow that.) Whether you get the PI then or not depends upon their holding/s there.

My *guess* is from what I heard (haven't read the briefs), is that Peruta and Richards will prevail over their sheriffs' policies. CA (and HI) gets "virtual Shall Issue." :party:

Richards may even win against the state statute. (Ironically, a win against the policies may make it less likely to prove that a GC requirement per se is unCon, esp if they go w/"substantial burden" test after holding SD = GC.) :popcorn:

Baker wins PI if it can wait until after Richards & Peruta. If not, he gets his day in court and eventually wins after those are decided.... :79:

Funtimes
12-08-2012, 7:30 PM
Baker wins PI if it can wait until after Richards & Peruta. If not, he gets his day in court and eventually wins after those are decided.... :79:

Yeah if they decide that the plain reading of Heller was not so "plain" and that it didn't constitute reversible error, then we go to district court and likely file a MSJ citing Richard / Peruta if it was so decided.

I was happy with the questions that we got from the panel, especially against our opposing counsel. It didn't 'sound' like they were buying that every place, as soon as you step outside the home, could be abolished through intermediate scrutiny.

hoffmang
12-08-2012, 9:05 PM
You should come to Oral Arguments some time, Fabio. The rest of the Michel team managed to make it. ;)

Heh.

-Gene

voiceofreason
12-08-2012, 9:46 PM
My *guess* is from what I heard (haven't read the briefs), is that Peruta and Richards will prevail over their sheriffs' policies. CA (and HI) gets "virtual Shall Issue."

Richards may even win against the state statute. (Ironically, a win against the policies may make it less likely to prove that a GC requirement per se is unCon, esp if they go w/"substantial burden" test after holding SD = GC.)


1. Where have you heard this/who have you heard it from?

2. Where can we get a copy of the filings?

wolfwood
12-09-2012, 1:48 AM
The joke regarding shooting ourselves in the foot was in regards to Rick (I am paraphrasing of course) admitting that we had planned to be heard after Richards and even filed a unopposed motion to stay our case pending the Richards decision which was denied. The shot yourself in the foot was essentially a well if you did not want to go on the same day as Alan Gura and Paul Clement you shot yourself in the foot by filing the PI not a statement regarding the merits of the appeal.

I'd like to thank everyone for their hospitality. I was not sure how warm of a reaction the random guys from the Hawaii case would receive. I spoke to a lot of people so please don't consider this a all encompassing list, I had very pleasant conversations with Gray Peterson, Erik Royce and while briefer as I did not want to hog his time Alan Gura. Mr. Gura's amicable and humble demeanor was a stark contrast to another attorney's behavior that day (not towards me so not my story to tell) I also caught up with the named plaintiff in Richards who I have not seen in person since college. While I have read negative comments posted regarding our arguments, many of them have been directed towards the City attorney as towards my partner which leads me to believe the posters are not familiar with the case and believe it is just a Hawaii clone of the California cases. It is not and we have a plan which will allow us to fully vindicate our client's rights without interfering with Mr. Gura's great work. Anyway, I had a great time both at my first 9th circuit appearance and at lunch. From were I stand believe we accomplished everything we needed to achieve our ultimate goal

nicki
12-09-2012, 3:43 AM
Even though I arrived 20 minutes early, all the seats were gone so I had to watch the hearing on a video feed :(

However those chairs in the conference room were more comfortable than the benches in the court room.;)

The video feed not only showed the judges, but the attorneys as well in the lower left hand corner.

Most human communication is non verbal, you won't see it on an audio although you may detect things in how people speak.

Two of our lawyers, Clement and Gura were not only well spoken, but they had good body language to go with it.

Holcomb was out of his league and in all honesty he was humble. The big key was he came off as sincere. This is a biggie IMHO in that he wasn't trying to BS the court.

Now, the attorneys from the other side all looked very uncomfortable, like they were defending indefensible positions.

Where Clement and Gura came of as confident, the other side's attorney's came off as desperate.

The court actually asked questions about Sacramento county.

We have several vacated rulings from the 9th on second amendment cases, but what we do know is the following:

1. They have focused that they won't strike down laws that don't unduly burden the right of self defense. Our current carry laws don't burden the right of self defense, they eliminate it.

2. We may get a favorable ruling, however if that happens, I would expect another secret judge to push for an en-banc hearing even if no one appeals like what happened in Nordyke.

However, if that happens again, I think a certain Chief Justice may be pretty pissed.

What I thought was interesting is how Hawaii was grilled about how process servers don't have good cause for a gun permit. Hawaii's attorney was arguing about all the empirical evidence about why public carry of guns is bad.

Holcumb isn't like all of us who live and breath guns because many of us would have torn her to shreds in our 5 minute rebuttal.

Many of us know the lying points of the other side and some of us are really good at shredding them in easy to understand jugular sound bites.

Unfortunately most people don't develop those skills unless they are passionate about something.

Someone like Gene for instance would have torn the Hawaii attorneys statements to shreds so badly that she probably would have had an emotional breakdown and totally lose it in court.

Nicki

press1280
12-09-2012, 4:42 AM
2. We may get a favorable ruling, however if that happens, I would expect another secret judge to push for an en-banc hearing even if no one appeals like what happened in Nordyke.

Worried about this too. Isn't it just 1 judge needed to call for a vote? Then you'd need what, over half the 9th circuit to vote to re-hear the case? I would also expect the other sides(state/county defendants) to try for en banc before appealing to SCOTUS.

hoffmang
12-09-2012, 1:04 PM
2. We may get a favorable ruling, however if that happens, I would expect another secret judge to push for an en-banc hearing even if no one appeals like what happened in Nordyke.

Worried about this too. Isn't it just 1 judge needed to call for a vote? Then you'd need what, over half the 9th circuit to vote to re-hear the case? I would also expect the other sides(state/county defendants) to try for en banc before appealing to SCOTUS.

As annoying as this might be in the short term, it would actually significantly increase the cert worthiness of carry for SCOTUS. Recall that the Nordyke incorporation win helped make certain the cert grant for McDonald.

-Gene

randian
12-09-2012, 1:29 PM
Then you'd need what, over half the 9th circuit to vote to re-hear the case?

I don't see the problem. Over half the 9th hates guns. If the current panel dares to step out of line by issuing us a favorable ruling, the en banc hearing will put them in their place.

I would also expect the other sides(state/county defendants) to try for en banc before appealing to SCOTUS.
Maybe, but I doubt they'd appeal a CA9 loss to SCOTUS. Isn't that sort of thing what got us Ezell?

hoffmang
12-13-2012, 11:50 AM
28j supplemental authority filings were made in Richards and Peruta regarding Moore.

Richards http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/28j-Richards-Moore-2012-12-13.pdf

Peruta http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/28j-Peruta-Moore-2012-12-11.pdf

-Gene

Purple K
12-13-2012, 1:04 PM
How likely is it that Mehl v Blanas will be taken seriously enough to derail the progress in Richards and Peruta?

wildhawker
12-13-2012, 1:51 PM
How likely is it that Mehl v Blanas will be taken seriously enough to derail the progress in Richards and Peruta?

Impossible to predict. O'Scannlain suggested that it would need to resolved internally and the Mehl panel seemed to wonder what controversy was really presented in the case, begging the question of if the Mehl #2A claim is mooted by Sacramento going "shall-issue" with respect to self-defense as good cause or should be remanded for a finding of fact on the equal protection claim.

-Brandon

Kukuforguns
12-13-2012, 4:13 PM
How likely is it that Mehl v Blanas will be taken seriously enough to derail the progress in Richards and Peruta?In order for Mehl to derail Richards/Peruta, essentially two things need to happen: (1) the court issues an opinion affirming the lower court's various orders against Mehl; and (2) the court's opinion is based on the conclusion that there is no right to bear arms in public. Courts normally try to base their opinions on the least controversial grounds possible. In other words, if settled law provides an avenue for resolving an appeal, the court will usually base its decision upon settled law. In the civil rights context, skillful lawyers attempting to change the law craft the appeal to raise very limited issues - thereby forcing the court of appeal to address the unresolved issue(s). This is, in my opinion, one of Gura et al.'s greatest strengths.

I haven't spent a lot of time reviewing the Mehl case, but based upon the general FUBAR nature of what I have seen, there are likely a number of ways for the court to rule against Mehl without reaching the critical issue of the right to carry in public. For example, the Mehl case was not narrowly crafted, but instead implicated a number of issues.

If the Mehl panel issues an opinion affirming the lower court orders on a basis other than the meaning of the Second Amendment, then the Richards/Peruta panel will have free rein to consider whether there is a right to carry a loaded weapon in public. This is, in my opinion, the most likely outcome.

hoffmang
12-13-2012, 7:28 PM
If the Mehl panel issues an opinion affirming the lower court orders on a basis other than the meaning of the Second Amendment, then the Richards/Peruta panel will have free rein to consider whether there is a right to carry a loaded weapon in public. This is, in my opinion, the most likely outcome.

But BLEEP it sucks to have to hope...

-Gene

Purple K
12-13-2012, 8:17 PM
In order for Mehl to derail Richards/Peruta, essentially two things need to happen: (1) the court issues an opinion affirming the lower court's various orders against Mehl; and (2) the court's opinion is based on the conclusion that there is no right to bear arms in public. Courts normally try to base their opinions on the least controversial grounds possible. In other words, if settled law provides an avenue for resolving an appeal, the court will usually base its decision upon settled law. In the civil rights context, skillful lawyers attempting to change the law craft the appeal to raise very limited issues - thereby forcing the court of appeal to address the unresolved issue(s). This is, in my opinion, one of Gura et al.'s greatest strengths.

I haven't spent a lot of time reviewing the Mehl case, but based upon the general FUBAR nature of what I have seen, there are likely a number of ways for the court to rule against Mehl without reaching the critical issue of the right to carry in public. For example, the Mehl case was not narrowly crafted, but instead implicated a number of issues.

If the Mehl panel issues an opinion affirming the lower court orders on a basis other than the meaning of the Second Amendment, then the Richards/Peruta panel will have free rein to consider whether there is a right to carry a loaded weapon in public. This is, in my opinion, the most likely outcome.

That's pretty close to what I suspected... But then I started doubting myself.

Mrbroom
12-13-2012, 8:46 PM
Just by chance we get a favorable decision out of Richards/Pureta, would this effectivlily kill Charels Nichols case? I would love to see his case crash and burn... And then be charged with openly carrying a firearm in a city park (as he did in Veterans Park in Redondo Beach).

hoffmang
12-13-2012, 8:49 PM
Just by chance we get a favorable decision out of Richards/Pureta, would this effectivlily kill Charels Nichols case? I would love to see his case crash and burn... And then be charged with openly carrying a firearm in a city park (as he did in Veterans Park in Redondo Beach).

His cases would die on alternate grounds since he could just get an LTC.

-Gene

Baja Daze
12-13-2012, 11:12 PM
28j supplemental authority filings were made in Richards and Peruta regarding Moore.

Richards http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/28j-Richards-Moore-2012-12-13.pdf

Peruta http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/28j-Peruta-Moore-2012-12-11.pdf

-Gene
Gene my thinking is that there should also be supplemental authority filings made in the Peterson case regarding Moore? The circumstances in Gray's case result in him not being able to bear arms in Denver so Moore should be relevant.

Ryan_D
12-19-2012, 11:12 PM
Alright,so I came across a bit tacky in my critique of the Hawaii case...my apologies, just giving a somewhat exaggerated and satirical opinion based on what I heard (but admittedly did not see).

That being said, It's my understanding that before a case can get to the 9th Circuit, it must first climb the proverbial judicial ladder, correct? What I took from the arguments is that plaintiff had been asking for a preliminary injunction from the start against implementing the policy. Said policy may be in affect now, but was not at the time of the original action, correct? If I am wrong, please do step in and correct me. Essentially arguments were all similar issues, but challenging 3 different aspects regarding those issues: 1 challenging implementation of policy (Hawaii), 1 challenging only the Sheriff's discretion (San Diego), and 1 challenging both sheriff's unbridled discretion as well as the state statute (Richards). Just making sure I understand the essence of each case.

hoffmang
12-20-2012, 12:40 AM
Gene my thinking is that there should also be supplemental authority filings made in the Peterson case regarding Moore? The circumstances in Gray's case result in him not being able to bear arms in Denver so Moore should be relevant.

There have been but I have not had a moment to post them. I will soon.

-Gene

PackingHeatInSDCA
12-21-2012, 11:48 AM
Anyone know if a written transcript is available? thanks much

wolfwood
12-21-2012, 12:29 PM
Alright,so I came across a bit tacky in my critique of the Hawaii case...my apologies, just giving a somewhat exaggerated and satirical opinion based on what I heard (but admittedly did not see).

That being said, It's my understanding that before a case can get to the 9th Circuit, it must first climb the proverbial judicial ladder, correct? What I took from the arguments is that plaintiff had been asking for a preliminary injunction from the start against implementing the policy. Said policy may be in affect now, but was not at the time of the original action, correct? If I am wrong, please do step in and correct me. Essentially arguments were all similar issues, but challenging 3 different aspects regarding those issues: 1 challenging implementation of policy (Hawaii), 1 challenging only the Sheriff's discretion (San Diego), and 1 challenging both sheriff's unbridled discretion as well as the state statute (Richards). Just making sure I understand the essence of each case.

No brotha, Hawaii is da kine challenge on the ban on taser, batons, lack of procedural due process, then no shame to da CCW requirement. Then there is some other stuff. Its like you are on the North Short and were at 25 feet and then you are standing. You have to run to the wave or get smashed by the water. Tis' be island law; only way; no want to fight just ride. That the prior restraint and facial challenge as to the aforementioned.


Seriously, its a different fact pattern. However, a PI is essentially a request to restrain a policy or law during the proceedings. There is a different standard on appeal vs. a case like Richards. Moreover the law is much different. Hawaii does not issue. Cali does. I recapped all the pleadings. If you want read the stuff you'll see.

Gray Peterson
12-21-2012, 12:35 PM
I've been thinking of getting one. I just have to decide which caliber(s) to get. I was thinking 357 Maximum would be fun.

It was posted in my appellate thread.

chainsaw
12-21-2012, 2:57 PM
...
Eh bra, mahalo for talking pidgin. Makes an old kamaaina like me feel all warm inside; we need that in a cold state like California.

Shaka, bra.

Funtimes
12-21-2012, 3:25 PM
Alright,so I came across a bit tacky in my critique of the Hawaii case...my apologies, just giving a somewhat exaggerated and satirical opinion based on what I heard (but admittedly did not see).

That being said, It's my understanding that before a case can get to the 9th Circuit, it must first climb the proverbial judicial ladder, correct? What I took from the arguments is that plaintiff had been asking for a preliminary injunction from the start against implementing the policy. Said policy may be in affect now, but was not at the time of the original action, correct? If I am wrong, please do step in and correct me. Essentially arguments were all similar issues, but challenging 3 different aspects regarding those issues: 1 challenging implementation of policy (Hawaii), 1 challenging only the Sheriff's discretion (San Diego), and 1 challenging both sheriff's unbridled discretion as well as the state statute (Richards). Just making sure I understand the essence of each case.

Some minor differences: Hawaii is a *never* issue, may issue state. At least not to individual who are not licensed guards. No permit, period, has ever been given to a regular civilian individual for anything.

Hawaii has an "exceptional case" vice a "good and substantial reason"

Hawaii has no policies, where Peruta has a policy (which they say is a bad pol icy).

Hawaii has no method of review (some states you go to a smaller state court for the Chief's decision to be looked at).

We also have this sticky situation in that guns are only allowed to be transported to six places - period. (gun show, range, police dept, place of formal training, place of repair). They can only be kept at your residence, business, or sojourn. What this means is that you can't stop in between those six places and the RBS, for any reason - at all.

Ryan_D
12-27-2012, 12:56 AM
FFS I wish they would hurry up and issue a favorable damn ruling already...

robear
01-23-2013, 2:38 AM
any ETA on the ruling?

any updates?
Shall issue in 2 weeks?

hoffmang
01-23-2013, 5:33 PM
A normal schedule would mean we wouldn't hear a ruling on this until at least around tax time. With the fact that there are some inter-panel issues, it may take a bit longer than usual.

-Gene

mkasda
05-24-2013, 1:01 AM
Any ETA on the ruling ?
What's the typical "season" for the ninth?

nicki
05-24-2013, 1:44 AM
The 9th will wait to see if Illonis actually appeals the "Moore" decision to the SCOTUS and the clock is ticking.:43:

I think Madigan asked for a 30 day extension, so that will be a factor because if the SCOTUS agrees to cert, the 9th will stall issuing their ruling.

If Illonis doesn't appeal at all or is denied cert, then the issue will be what will the SCOTUS do with the Woolard case out of Maryland.

Bottom line, I don't expect a ruling till July 2014.

Nicki

press1280
05-24-2013, 5:17 AM
The 9th will wait to see if Illonis actually appeals the "Moore" decision to the SCOTUS and the clock is ticking.:43:

I think Madigan asked for a 30 day extension, so that will be a factor because if the SCOTUS agrees to cert, the 9th will stall issuing their ruling.

If Illonis doesn't appeal at all or is denied cert, then the issue will be what will the SCOTUS do with the Woolard case out of Maryland.

Bottom line, I don't expect a ruling till July 2014.

Nicki

The folks in IL are saying there will be a carry bill, no ifs ands or buts, taking Moore off the table. Then Woollard is in the drivers seat but nothing will happen until the "Big Conference" of late September. I hope Peruta and the NJ cases are decided by then(and we have a true split).

hardlyworking
05-24-2013, 6:18 AM
^^^ This.

It was so hard to not stand up during the oppositions argument and shout out "So, my life is worth LESS if I'm outside of my home??!?!?".

I bit my lip pretty hard.

Question on this right here:

If you are implying that you were present at oral arguments in the gallery, why NOT stand up and shout out?

Lawyers pull **** like that ALL THE TIME wrt saying things they know that they can't get away with in a jury trial just to plant the seeds of doubt only to have them "stricken from the record". Hell they don't even wait until the jury is decided, they start right the hell away in jury selection!

So, why not stand up in the gallery and shout something like that? Worst that happens is the Deputy escorts you out of the courtroom? Or can you be fined for disturbing the court?

I'm not singling you out, I genuinely want to know, what will really happen if somebody yells from the gallery?

dave_cg
05-24-2013, 9:35 AM
Question on this right here:
I'm not singling you out, I genuinely want to know, what will really happen if somebody yells from the gallery?

You get a 1:1 meeting with the bailiff very, very quickly. And you are ejected.

Kukuforguns
05-24-2013, 11:00 AM
Question on this right here:

If you are implying that you were present at oral arguments in the gallery, why NOT stand up and shout out?

Lawyers pull **** like that ALL THE TIME wrt saying things they know that they can't get away with in a jury trial just to plant the seeds of doubt only to have them "stricken from the record". Hell they don't even wait until the jury is decided, they start right the hell away in jury selection!

So, why not stand up in the gallery and shout something like that? Worst that happens is the Deputy escorts you out of the courtroom? Or can you be fined for disturbing the court?

I'm not singling you out, I genuinely want to know, what will really happen if somebody yells from the gallery?

Nothing good. Really, it would not help. The oral arguments are not made to a jury. Oral arguments are made to three appellate justicies who have reviewed the written briefs. They are not going to be persuaded by some spectator shouting pithy comments. So, if shouting out will not advance your cause, why do it?

The spectator who held his tongue did the right thing.

hardlyworking
05-24-2013, 12:50 PM
Thanks for replies. I guess that's why Lawyers dropping little "stricken" bombs on juries works as a tactic because juries are by definition not professionals, and lack the skills to block out stuff they are supposed to "disregard".

An appellate judge is just going to bang the gavel and say "Bailiff - shut that fool up!"

Question answered

NoJoke
05-24-2013, 6:58 PM
Question on this right here:

If you are implying that you were present at oral arguments in the gallery, why NOT stand up and shout out?


So, why not stand up in the gallery and shout something like that? Worst that happens is the Deputy escorts you out of the courtroom? Or can you be fined for disturbing the court?

I'm not singling you out, I genuinely want to know, what will really happen if somebody yells from the gallery?

I was there and IMO 2 of the judges were practically saying what you are saying a few times.

disintelligentsia
05-24-2013, 7:32 PM
The folks in IL are saying there will be a carry bill, no ifs ands or buts, taking Moore off the table. Then Woollard is in the drivers seat but nothing will happen until the "Big Conference" of late September. I hope Peruta and the NJ cases are decided by then(and we have a true split).

Michael Madigan is in the driver's seat on the proposed carry bill and will shape it so the outcome favors his daughter's expected run for the Governorship. Self-defense rights and gun politics mean little if he can shape a future where he and his daughter have a 1-2 combo where both the executive branch and legislative branch are effectively controlled by one family.

See Madigan's maneuvering at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-gun-control-0524-20130524,0,3277888.story

sholling
05-24-2013, 8:48 PM
I have to agree with Nicki, I think the 9th Circus is going to stall as long as they can in hopes that SCOTUS sets a direction before they have to make a decision.

sbrad39
05-24-2013, 11:07 PM
As a layman I found that interesting, also as a layman, it appeared that the gov'ts case was pretty weak or their representation was weak....thanks for posting the audio....

Maestro Pistolero
05-25-2013, 8:18 AM
How concerned should we be about a bait and switch? What if the Senate gets a hold of this bill and guts all of the important stuff out of it while taking a ride on the momentum to avoid going over the cliff?