PDA

View Full Version : hutchens stayed


flyonwall
11-12-2013, 2:02 PM
Docket Text:
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) The central issues of this case are the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public and the standard of review for Second Amendment challenges. There are currently several pending cases in the Ninth Circuit concerning these very issues. Accordingly, submission of this case is vacated and proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the following cases:
United States v. Chovan, No.*11-50107*(submitted 2/15/12);
Peruta v. County of San Diego, No.*10-56971 12/6/12);
Richards v. Prieto, No.*11-16255*(submitted 12/6/12); and
Baker v. Kealoha, No.*12-16258*(submitted 12/6/12).

The panel retains jurisdiction over this petition for review. (submitted [8858927] (SM)

flyonwall
11-12-2013, 2:19 PM
It would appear they are preparing a comprehensive opinion about outside the home and will then deal with discretion case by case.

press1280
11-12-2013, 2:38 PM
Chovan has been hanging out for a long time. From listening to orals for a few minutes it sounds like a prohibited person/misdemeanor case, not an outside the home case.

flyonwall
11-12-2013, 2:44 PM
There is a facial challenge to a broad federal statute. Listening now too. Gov just acknowledged may be a violation but want intermediate not strict. Case could be part of global scrutiny issue.

voiceofreason
11-12-2013, 3:58 PM
In English for us that are not as legal savvy?

flyonwall
11-12-2013, 4:03 PM
Means they all had a meeting and kozinski said we are getting a big fat comprehensive opinion this year.

wolfwood
11-12-2013, 5:03 PM
Any idea when?

flyonwall
11-12-2013, 5:06 PM
This year.

fizux
11-12-2013, 5:16 PM
This year.
Is that a SWAG, or are there additional facts that led you to that conclusion?

sholling
11-12-2013, 5:19 PM
Any idea when?
It depends on how long it takes them to dress up rational basis as intermediate scrutiny and how long it takes for them to use that as a tool to write a comprehensive rejection of any right to bear arms outside the home. My SWAG is that the 9th Circus are feeling their oats now after a string of right to bear cert rejections by SCOTUS and that they are finally almost ready to slap us down hard.

flyonwall
11-12-2013, 5:24 PM
A little of both. This panel was ready to decide, then Nichols got stayed and now this stay. Now add chovan and the delay in setting orals on the rest of the cases combined with a one year average time for opinion. Finally a little of kozinskis anger at nordyke. This order says the first four are being clustered for a decision and because a pi requires a prompt decision, this panel thinks that decision is coming soon and will solve the problem for them.

flyonwall
11-12-2013, 5:28 PM
And they will rule strongly in our favor- not swag- but in a general way affirming that the right exists outside the home and that presumptive bans violate 2a.
I wonder if they issued an order in Jackson or if that will just sit because not pi?

Paladin
11-12-2013, 6:01 PM
And they will rule strongly in our favor- not swag- but in a general way affirming that the right exists outside the home and that presumptive bans violate 2a.
How Feinstein and Boxer will look: :shock: :shock:

:D

John Galt
11-12-2013, 6:22 PM
What is "swag"?

Librarian
11-12-2013, 6:39 PM
What is "swag"?

s w a g -- silly wild-a** guess.

fizux
11-12-2013, 6:39 PM
What is "swag"?
Scientific Wild-@$$ Guess.

sholling
11-12-2013, 6:42 PM
What is "swag"?
Scientific Wild Azz Guess. It's a step up from a simple WAG (Wild Azz Guess) because it's a guess based on history or experience.

nicki
11-13-2013, 5:29 AM
The opposing counsel at the oral hearings were seriously outgunned by Alan Gura and Paul Clement. The other side's attorney's basically sabotaged their own case, so on that angle, we have some hope.

Chief Justice Kozinski was pretty pissed at the Nordyke en banc hearing when Alameda effectively caved at the en banc hearing.

It was obvious that Alameda didn't want Don Kilmer to have a chance to get to the US Supreme court, so the way to block Don was to throw the case.

The 9th circuit could do something off the wall, like repeal laws against open carry and leave the CCW laws in tact.

This is what happened in Ohio in 2003 btw.

Nicki

wolfwood
11-13-2013, 7:39 AM
And they will rule strongly in our favor- not swag- but in a general way affirming that the right exists outside the home and that presumptive bans violate 2a.
I wonder if they issued an order in Jackson or if that will just sit because not pi?

Jackson is a PI appeal despite being filed 3.5 years into litigation. Its a different legal question so I don't see a reason to stay it. Every case in the nation says we win in Baker so I'm feeling pretty good about this.

fizux
11-13-2013, 8:10 AM
Jackson is a PI appeal despite being filed 3.5 years into litigation. Its a different legal question so I don't see a reason to stay it. Every case in the nation says we win in Baker so I'm feeling pretty good about this.
Baker is also a PI denial, and asks to essentially eliminate an entire chapter of firearms statutes. As much as I agree with Baker's counsel, his oral argument was not exceptionally prepared. If the panel wants to do so, they can send Baker back for procedural reasons, they can ask for a rebrief clarifying the 1-2 specific statutes that might need to go in light of Moore v. Madigan, they could send it back and instruct Hawaii to redraft the statute(s) in a manner not inconsistent with the accompanying opinion(s) in Richards & Peruta, or they vote for the infamous Russian politician, NoneOv TheAbov.

It is possible (but unlikely) that Richards/Peruta can resolve Jackson. I don't think it can happen by merely establishing a level of scrutiny, because as you can see from the discussion in the Peņa thread, any level of scrutiny has enough wiggle room for totalitarians to rationalize their way into a justification.

Resolving Jackson is possible if the panel finds that RKBA prohibits requiring locked storage in public, and the opinion is sufficiently broad so as to preclude a hypothetical statute requiring locked storage while taking a nap in your car. Currently, LUCC is the only option available to Californians in public, and the issue in Jackson is requiring locked storage of loaded handguns in the home unless they are holstered (plus some ammo stuff).

fizux
11-13-2013, 9:46 AM
Thanks, OP. I've RECAPped the docket (http://ia601808.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.ca9.12-57049/gov.uscourts.ca9.12-57049.docket.html) update (should be available in 24 hrs.) and updated my McKay case status thread.

wolfwood
11-13-2013, 1:26 PM
Baker is also a PI denial, and asks to essentially eliminate an entire chapter of firearms statutes. As much as I agree with Baker's counsel, his oral argument was not exceptionally prepared. If the panel wants to do so, they can send Baker back for procedural reasons, they can ask for a rebrief clarifying the 1-2 specific statutes that might need to go in light of Moore v. Madigan, they could send it back and instruct Hawaii to redraft the statute(s) in a manner not inconsistent with the accompanying opinion(s) in Richards & Peruta, or they vote for the infamous Russian politician, NoneOv TheAbov.

It is possible (but unlikely) that Richards/Peruta can resolve Jackson. I don't think it can happen by merely establishing a level of scrutiny, because as you can see from the discussion in the Peņa thread, any level of scrutiny has enough wiggle room for totalitarians to rationalize their way into a justification.

Resolving Jackson is possible if the panel finds that RKBA prohibits requiring locked storage in public, and the opinion is sufficiently broad so as to preclude a hypothetical statute requiring locked storage while taking a nap in your car. Currently, LUCC is the only option available to Californians in public, and the issue in Jackson is requiring locked storage of loaded handguns in the home unless they are holstered (plus some ammo stuff).

Thanks for agreeing with me (I was not the one arguing though that was Rick). A PI appeal is decided on whether or not the lower Court applied a erroneous legal standard. The Court did so by stating the Second Amendment does not confer a right outside the home. Every case in the nation decided at the Circuit Court level has stated in fact there is a right outside the home or at least assumed there is one. Hawaii's carry law can not survive intermediate scrutiny which is the standard being used by the Court as to issues outside the home. That is because HRS 134-9 acts as a complete ban due to the State of Hawaii having never issued a permit and they have no guidelines as to how a permit could be issued. As to the carry law, it will be enjoined for the pendancy of the litigation and the Ninth Circuit will then remand the case back to the lower Court so that we can finish up the case. There are literally no procedural grounds upon which they can avoid ruling on the case. Out of the three cases heard oddly enough Baker is the only case which that can be said for. However I don't see any reason that they would not issue a ruling on the merits for all three cases.

wolfwood
11-13-2013, 2:06 PM
There is a facial challenge to a broad federal statute. Listening now too. Gov just acknowledged may be a violation but want intermediate not strict. Case could be part of global scrutiny issue.

I read the briefs and the Federal Public Defender actually made both a as applied challenge and a facial challenge to 922(c).

press1280
11-13-2013, 2:54 PM
A little of both. This panel was ready to decide, then Nichols got stayed and now this stay. Now add chovan and the delay in setting orals on the rest of the cases combined with a one year average time for opinion. Finally a little of kozinskis anger at nordyke. This order says the first four are being clustered for a decision and because a pi requires a prompt decision, this panel thinks that decision is coming soon and will solve the problem for them.

How does this get resolved when Chovan was heard by a different panel then the other 3 cases? I thought these cases when there's a "grand opinion" are usually just 1 panel involved.

wolfwood
11-14-2013, 12:12 PM
I think he is thinking that a opinion is going to get released at the same time as the panel that heard our cases. Remember despite being heard be the same panel Baker/Richards/Peruta are three separate cases and each case will receive its own opinion. Whether he is right, I have no idea. It sounds reasonable though.

fizux
11-19-2013, 7:19 AM
@Flyonwall -- good call on imminent release of opinion in Chovan (pretty good 20/20 hindsight reveals Justice Pregerson on both McKay and Chovan panels, while wrapping up his opinion on the latter).

Chovan opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/11/18/11-50107.pdf

Now, hopefully you're right about Richards, Peruta, and Baker.