Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:34 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,869
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
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.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-08-2012, 9:12 AM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

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.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-08-2012, 9:19 AM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-08-2012, 5:41 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,115
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
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."

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.)

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....
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-08-2012, 6:30 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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....
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.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:05 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
You should come to Oral Arguments some time, Fabio. The rest of the Michel team managed to make it.
Heh.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:46 PM
voiceofreason's Avatar
voiceofreason voiceofreason is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,781
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:48 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 654
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-09-2012, 2:43 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,118
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default observation

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

Last edited by nicki; 12-09-2012 at 4:28 AM.. Reason: edit
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-09-2012, 3:42 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,712
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:04 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-09-2012, 12:29 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,244
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:50 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

28j supplemental authority filings were made in Richards and Peruta regarding Moore.

Richards http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ric...2012-12-13.pdf

Peruta http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ric...2012-12-11.pdf

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:04 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

How likely is it that Mehl v Blanas will be taken seriously enough to derail the progress in Richards and Peruta?
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-13-2012, 12:51 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
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
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-13-2012, 3:13 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-13-2012, 6:28 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-13-2012, 7:17 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
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.
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-13-2012, 7:46 PM
Mrbroom's Avatar
Mrbroom Mrbroom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 334
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

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).
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-13-2012, 7:49 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrbroom View Post
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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-13-2012, 10:12 PM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
28j supplemental authority filings were made in Richards and Peruta regarding Moore.

Richards http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ric...2012-12-13.pdf

Peruta http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ric...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.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-19-2012, 10:12 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-19-2012, 11:40 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-21-2012, 10:48 AM
PackingHeatInSDCA PackingHeatInSDCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 243
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anyone know if a written transcript is available? thanks much
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-21-2012, 11:29 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 654
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
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.

Last edited by wolfwood; 12-21-2012 at 11:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-21-2012, 11:35 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt-man View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-21-2012, 1:57 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
...
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.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-21-2012, 2:25 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
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.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-26-2012, 11:56 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

FFS I wish they would hurry up and issue a favorable damn ruling already...
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-23-2013, 1:38 AM
robear's Avatar
robear robear is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 154
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

any ETA on the ruling?

any updates?
Shall issue in 2 weeks?
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-23-2013, 4:33 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 05-24-2013, 12:01 AM
mkasda mkasda is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 97
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Any ETA on the ruling ?
What's the typical "season" for the ninth?
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 05-24-2013, 12:44 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,118
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default The 9th will wait.

The 9th will wait to see if Illonis actually appeals the "Moore" decision to the SCOTUS and the clock is ticking.

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
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 05-24-2013, 4:17 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,712
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
The 9th will wait to see if Illonis actually appeals the "Moore" decision to the SCOTUS and the clock is ticking.

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).
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 05-24-2013, 5:18 AM
hardlyworking hardlyworking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 926
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_2111 View Post
^^^ 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?
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 05-24-2013, 8:35 AM
dave_cg dave_cg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlyworking View Post
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.
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. ==
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 05-24-2013, 10:00 AM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlyworking View Post
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.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 05-24-2013, 11:50 AM
hardlyworking hardlyworking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 926
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 05-24-2013, 5:58 PM
NoJoke's Avatar
NoJoke NoJoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlyworking View Post
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.
__________________

NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986

Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 05-24-2013, 6:32 PM
disintelligentsia's Avatar
disintelligentsia disintelligentsia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
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/l...,3277888.story
__________________
"All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife."
Daniel Boone

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
Janet Reno, former US Attorney General, 1993
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:54 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.