|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
The Three Judge Panel in Richards v. Prieto is set
So here are the three Judges in the Richards v. Prieto case:
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. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
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?
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou ------- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Not quite a dupe since I only posted this in the Baker(Hawaii) thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...=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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Holder was first appointed judge by Ronald Reagan.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
December 6, 2012, 9:00AM Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor James R. Browning Building 95 7th ST. San Francisco, CA 94103 Erik. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
But he had great hair.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Dem/Repub, it doesn't really matter. They're all made from the same cloth.
__________________
. . |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
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:
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. Last edited by Big Ben; 11-26-2012 at 9:22 AM.. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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?).
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Do you mean "Bedtime for Bonzo"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Judges O'Scannlain and Callahan have said before that the Court needs to adopt a standard of review on the Second Amendment:
Quote:
Quote:
My hope for this case is that the Judges don't rush through it because of the Court's case load. Erik. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A shout-out goes to press1280 who posted this little encouraging tidbit over at MDShooters/post 122
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
O'Scannlain wrote the majority opinion in Nordyke III in which they attempted to neuter "strict scrutiny" as applied to the 2nd Amendment. 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.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 11-26-2012 at 7:34 PM.. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206 Quote:
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 11-26-2012 at 8:53 PM.. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Speaking personally, I just need a decision one way or the other. Thereafter, let the chips fall where they may.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Note that if SCOTUS takes Kachalsky, 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).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 11-27-2012 at 9:36 AM.. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Is Gura doing oral arguments in this hearing or is it going to be Kilmer?
__________________
Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 11-27-2012 at 10:09 PM.. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
Gotta show my work on the above: Attachment 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. Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 11-30-2012 at 2:35 PM.. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think 10 years is wildly optimistic. Why should they ever quit trying?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
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. Erik. Last edited by Window_Seat; 11-28-2012 at 6:35 PM.. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 11-28-2012 at 6:51 PM.. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
I'm looking into the near future and see kcbrown's ToE really coming together... :P
-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Alan will only be arguing for Richards/SAF/CGF.
Quote:
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Interesting, new (to me) development).
-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|