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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3081  
Old 04-26-2019, 7:55 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 25
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
This was mentioned in an earlier post


“Grab your tinfoil or tea leaves...


An update on NYSRPA v NYC is set for 5/7 from SCOTUS. Perhaps an update on Pena will follow. “
5/7 is the due date for petitioners' brief that NYC is trying to push back, so we should hear from the court before then. However, their decision on NYC's motion probably won't include the date of the oral arguments.

If the case doesn't get mooted, oral arguments will likely take place in October (with the exact date released at some point before that).
Reply With Quote
  #3082  
Old 04-26-2019, 8:14 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
This was mentioned in an earlier post





“Grab your tinfoil or tea leaves...





An update on NYSRPA v NYC is set for 5/7 from SCOTUS. Perhaps an update on Pena will follow. “
I like your thinking here but I fear it will be just more delay. We might see SCOTUS provide us a new test from the NY case then send Pena back down to the ninth. I have no confidence the ninth will properly apply any test. So once again we will back at SCOTUS. Hopefully, we will get our judges so pissed they will send down an even harsher test.
Reply With Quote
  #3083  
Old 04-27-2019, 12:28 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,032
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
5/7 is the due date for petitioners' brief that NYC is trying to push back, so we should hear from the court before then. However, their decision on NYC's motion probably won't include the date of the oral arguments.

If the case doesn't get mooted, oral arguments will likely take place in October (with the exact date released at some point before that).
Why/how would the case get mooted? Do you see NYC revoking the current law? Or?
Reply With Quote
  #3084  
Old 04-27-2019, 1:24 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,782
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Why/how would the case get mooted? Do you see NYC revoking the current law? Or?
They workin on it.
I am counsel of record for respondents the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, License Division. The Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case on January 22, 2019, and petitioners’ merits brief is currently due on May 7, 2019. I write to advise the Court of a proposed rulemaking. If adopted in accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case. For this reason, I also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final action on the proposed rule.
__________________
learn to code
Reply With Quote
  #3085  
Old 04-27-2019, 2:19 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,646
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
They workin on it.
I am counsel of record for respondents the City of New York and the New York City Police Department, License Division. The Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case on January 22, 2019, and petitioners’ merits brief is currently due on May 7, 2019. I write to advise the Court of a proposed rulemaking. If adopted in accordance with established procedures, the proposed rule would render this case moot before the parties complete the merits briefing in this case. For this reason, I also write to request that the Court stay the current briefing schedule pending final action on the proposed rule.
This is call running scared because we thought Hillary was going to pick supreme Court justices.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #3086  
Old 04-28-2019, 3:45 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,057
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Based on when cert was granted, it should be one of the first cases heard during the next term, which starts in October.

Last year, oral arguments for October were announced in July.
July 9th 2018, when they did that, was the 2nd Monday in July. This year that will be July 8th. https://www.scotusblog.com/events/2019-07/

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 04-28-2019 at 3:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3087  
Old 04-29-2019, 5:40 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,057
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

More nothing in re. Pena....

Order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_f2q3.pdf

Last edited by Paladin; 04-29-2019 at 5:50 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3088  
Old 04-29-2019, 5:57 AM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 925
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

the denial today in NY State Rifle & Pistol V. NY gives me hope in why peña is all quite right now.
Reply With Quote
  #3089  
Old 04-29-2019, 6:56 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,086
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalRT View Post
the denial today in NY State Rifle & Pistol V. NY gives me hope in why peña is all quite right now.
What denial?
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #3090  
Old 04-29-2019, 7:11 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,116
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
What denial?
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...&postcount=517

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
SCOTUS denies NYC motion to delay briefings!

Order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...19zor_f2q3.pdf
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3091  
Old 04-29-2019, 7:11 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,782
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
What denial?
NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of respondents to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is denied.
If I'm reading that correctly, NY requested that everything be put on hold until it can remove the law and moot the case. Supreme Court denied that motion. That's good, it means that NY's last minute plans to say, "hey guys, we were just joking, let's forget the whole thing" isn't going to work.
__________________
learn to code
Reply With Quote
  #3092  
Old 04-29-2019, 7:30 AM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 925
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. The motion of respondents to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is denied.
If I'm reading that correctly, NY requested that everything be put on hold until it can remove the law and moot the case. Supreme Court denied that motion. That's good, it means that NY's last minute plans to say, "hey guys, we were just joking, let's forget the whole thing" isn't going to work.
I agree, it comes across as good for us. I take it as SCOTUS is working on a 2A ruling, and holding others till it is published. I could easily be wrong, and even if right the ruling could not be one we want. But I feel optimistic.
Reply With Quote
  #3093  
Old 04-29-2019, 12:36 PM
Smedkcuf Smedkcuf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Orange County
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalRT View Post
I agree, it comes across as good for us. I take it as SCOTUS is working on a 2A ruling, and holding others till it is published. I could easily be wrong, and even if right the ruling could not be one we want. But I feel optimistic.
Do they have any constraints that their ruling has to relate to that case in some way? If so I don't see how the roster case has much to do with that case
Reply With Quote
  #3094  
Old 04-29-2019, 1:44 PM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 925
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

If scotus says use strict scrutiny for 2A cases, as some people are thinking they might, then it will. They could send the roster case back to the 9th telling them to use strict scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #3095  
Old 04-29-2019, 2:20 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,238
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm sure the 9th could find that the roster passes strict scrutiny.
"We squinted real hard - looks good to us"
Reply With Quote
  #3096  
Old 04-29-2019, 2:32 PM
3B830 3B830 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smedkcuf View Post
Do they have any constraints that their ruling has to relate to that case in some way? If so I don't see how the roster case has much to do with that case
SCOTUS only answers the unique “question” of the present case which then becomes “binding precident” for lower courts to follow. How SCOTUS came to answer that question is called “dicta” and although should be taken as persuasive reasoning is not always followed by lower courts deciding cases with different “questions”.

Yes, the roster seems more related to Heller’s catagorical pistol ban than NY’s carry restrictions.

What the NY case will answer however is “does the 2A apply outside the home” and that will affect all the other 2A cases in the pipeline.

Last edited by 3B830; 04-29-2019 at 2:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3097  
Old 04-29-2019, 2:33 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
I'm sure the 9th could find that the roster passes strict scrutiny.
"We squinted real hard - looks good to us"
True but it should be an easy appeal. Even it is isn't many other courts will do the right thing which will yield many circuit splits and so again we win on appeal. At some point, the ninth will need to accept we are in a post-Heller, McDonald world. Or they will just be irrelevant as every case they decide wrongly is overturned.


Remember before all the assault weapon bans most all these groups were banning hand guns. Then heller shut that down. Now assault weapons and carry/storage restrictions. So they can be forced into retreat but they don't go quietly or easily.
Reply With Quote
  #3098  
Old 04-29-2019, 7:07 PM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,819
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Cant the court create something like a common use test and make the lower courts apply it with strict scrutiny in relevant 2A cases? Since they obviously dont seem to take Heller seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #3099  
Old 04-29-2019, 9:28 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 947
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
Cant the court create something like a common use test and make the lower courts apply it with strict scrutiny in relevant 2A cases? Since they obviously dont seem to take Heller seriously.
SCOTUS, really, can’t make the lower courts do anything; they can just overrule them if they feel it is prudent to do so.

Ultimately “common use” and “strict scrutiny” are subjective and, therefore, in the purview of a court hostile to a right, meaningless.

Last edited by champu; 04-30-2019 at 11:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3100  
Old 04-29-2019, 11:40 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 177
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

We live in a world where nunchucks are “common use” despite being less common than machineguns (per the Second Circuit) and AR-style rifles are considered M16s.
Reply With Quote
  #3101  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:55 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,872
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Or they will just be irrelevant as every case they decide wrongly is overturned.

9th Circus already has an 80% overturn rate at SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #3102  
Old 04-30-2019, 8:51 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,639
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
9th Circus already has an 80% overturn rate at SCOTUS.
To be fair, all of the circuits have a pretty high overturn rate (and in recent years, the Ninth Circuit ranks 4th-highest).



Of course, this makes logical sense - SCOTUS would be wasting their time if they granted cert to a bunch of cases that they already agreed with the circuit court's opinions on.

It's like saying that 80% of all Toyotas that get towed to a repair shop have a problem that needs to be fixed - while it's a factually correct statement, it's not a very shocking one (why would someone tow a working car to the shop?), and is disingenuous to not also mention that a similar statistic also applies to every other make of car. It's an irrelevant and misleading statistic anyways unless you also include the total number of cars that never needed to be towed to a repair shop.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-30-2019 at 9:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3103  
Old 04-30-2019, 9:12 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
To be fair, all of the circuits have a pretty high overturn rate (and in recent years, the Ninth Circuit ranks 4th-highest).



Of course, this makes logical sense - SCOTUS would be wasting their time if they granted cert to a bunch of cases that they already agreed with the circuit court's opinions on.

It's like saying that 80% of all Toyotas that get towed to a repair shop have a problem that needs to be fixed - while it's a factually correct statement, it's not a very shocking one (why would someone tow a working car to the shop?), and is disingenuous to not also mention that the same also applies to every other make of car. It's an irrelevant and misleading statistic anyways unless you also include the total number of cars that have never had to be towed to a repair shop.
Agreed the stats should be the percentage of cases SCOTUS reviews. But even that is a bit wonky as they may grant a case from one court and then toss the others back down.
Reply With Quote
  #3104  
Old 04-30-2019, 9:13 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
SCOTUS, really, can’t make the lower courts do anything; they can just overrule them if they feel it is prudent to do so.

Ultimately “common use” and “strict scrutiny” are subjective and therefore, in the preview of a court hostile to a right, meaningless.
Common use is as objective as can be done here. One could postulate that, say, handguns of caliber, capacity, and construction commonly issued to peace officers in a community are presumptively in common use and not unusual and dangerous. Though that would also lead to selective fire rifles being available. Which is a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #3105  
Old 04-30-2019, 9:56 AM
lostinsd82's Avatar
lostinsd82 lostinsd82 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Somewhere in SD
Posts: 287
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

honestly the roster essentially says that it's OK for certain groups of people (LEO, DMV employees (lol), selected other carve outs) to have "unsafe" handguns but the rest of us can't acquire them through normal channels - save buying them at inflated prices from the "chosen few" such a thing should never survive a normal legal review, not in this country - we all know this.

Imagine - if you tried to take away these "modern handguns in common use" from the community that has never been limited in acquiring them - the outrage....
__________________
--
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason

San Diego, CA.

Member: NRA, CRPA, SD County Gun Owners
Reply With Quote
  #3106  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:20 AM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 120
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I think we’re playing a statistics game. Although that chart showing 2007 to present may be correct, the link below shows that in the last couple of years 9th has been leading the pack....per NYT.

So you have to decide if a broad average is more relevant or the recent trend.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...rcuit.amp.html
Reply With Quote
  #3107  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:29 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,639
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
I think we’re playing a statistics game. Although that chart showing 2007 to present may be correct, the link below shows that in the last couple of years 9th has been leading the pack....per NYT.

So you have to decide if a broad average is more relevant or the recent trend.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...rcuit.amp.html
The statistics about this are irrelevant, as I discussed in the 2nd half of my post after the chart:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Of course, this makes logical sense - SCOTUS would be wasting their time if they granted cert to a bunch of cases that they already agreed with the circuit court's opinions on.

It's like saying that 80% of all Toyotas that get towed to a repair shop have a problem that needs to be fixed - while it's a factually correct statement, it's not a very shocking one (why would someone tow a working car to the shop?), and is disingenuous to not also mention that a similar statistic also applies to every other make of car. It's an irrelevant and misleading statistic anyways unless you also include the total number of cars that never needed to be towed to a repair shop.
Reply With Quote
  #3108  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:55 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Selection effect.

Statistics is relevant in a sense that if cert is granted at all then we are highly likely to win.
Reply With Quote
  #3109  
Old 04-30-2019, 10:59 AM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 120
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The statistics about this are irrelevant, as I discussed in the 2nd half of my post after the chart:


Fair enough, but then that logic (when taken all the way) should be that the turnover rate should be equal amongst all the circuits.

Regardless I’m simply trying to point out how numbers can be made to support just about any position.
Reply With Quote
  #3110  
Old 04-30-2019, 12:16 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,639
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
Fair enough, but then that logic (when taken all the way) should be that the turnover rate should be equal amongst all the circuits.

Regardless I’m simply trying to point out how numbers can be made to support just about any position.
An extremely small sample size in the statistical calculation causes a very wide margin of error, meaning it's very unlikely the percentages between circuits will be equal. They only take maybe 10 cases a year from each circuit on average (some more, some less). If SCOTUS took thousands of cases from each circuit, then they'd probably be closer to equal. If you flip a coin 5 times, and in lands on tails 4 times, it's not statistically conclusive that the coin is likely to continue landing on tails 80% of the time - you'd need to flip the coin a lot more times before you can confidently make that call.

If you look at the 2007-Present chart again, the Ninth is 72%, which is not significantly higher than the median of 68.9%.

I do agree, however, that people can use numbers to make just about any point they want to, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I think a more important statistic (and I don't have this one, but maybe someone else does) would be the percentage of 9th circuit liberally-biased rulings that get overturned, versus the overall percentage of all 9th circuit rulings that get overturned. I'd be interested to see if those two numbers are statistically different. I suppose that would take a long time to research, as one would need to read every case and make a determination on whther it has a liberal bias or not.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-30-2019 at 12:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3111  
Old 04-30-2019, 1:31 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,068
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
An extremely small sample size in the statistical calculation causes a very wide margin of error, meaning it's very unlikely the percentages between circuits will be equal. They only take maybe 10 cases a year from each circuit on average (some more, some less). If SCOTUS took thousands of cases from each circuit, then they'd probably be closer to equal. If you flip a coin 5 times, and in lands on tails 4 times, it's not statistically conclusive that the coin is likely to continue landing on tails 80% of the time - you'd need to flip the coin a lot more times before you can confidently make that call.

If you look at the 2007-Present chart again, the Ninth is 72%, which is not significantly higher than the median of 68.9%.

I do agree, however, that people can use numbers to make just about any point they want to, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I think a more important statistic (and I don't have this one, but maybe someone else does) would be the percentage of 9th circuit liberally-biased rulings that get overturned, versus the overall percentage of all 9th circuit rulings that get overturned. I'd be interested to see if those two numbers are statistically different. I suppose that would take a long time to research, as one would need to read every case and make a determination on whther it has a liberal bias or not.
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be interesting in terms of the data collection/selection to divide the judges based on whether they were nominated by a Democrat or a Republican and operate on the admittedly somewhat questionable assumption that when Democrats dominated a decision that it was "Liberal" and when Republicans dominated a decision then it was "Conservative".

Even then the statistics would be a bit problematic IMHO.

But the key so far as I am concerned is that there is a pretty interesting case to be made that the 9th has been heavily biased against my/our belief in the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Beyond that I'm not sure we either need to go or should go.

And even if we were able to come up with some decent sampling criteria and solid agreement regarding the interpretation? It really no longer matters since the make-up of the 9th Circus has changed and will change yet more. The changes will probably be largely in our favor but even that is not certain.

In any case, we are no longer virtually certain to suffer an eventual defeat in the 9th Circuit. Our probabilities are not yet good, but they are better.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.

Last edited by OleCuss; 04-30-2019 at 1:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3112  
Old 04-30-2019, 2:53 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We are still certain to lose enbanc. Panels do not matter.
Reply With Quote
  #3113  
Old 04-30-2019, 3:05 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 120
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I'm wondering if it wouldn't be interesting in terms of the data collection/selection to divide the judges based on whether they were nominated by a Democrat or a Republican and operate on the admittedly somewhat questionable assumption that when Democrats dominated a decision that it was "Liberal" and when Republicans dominated a decision then it was "Conservative".

Even then the statistics would be a bit problematic IMHO.

But the key so far as I am concerned is that there is a pretty interesting case to be made that the 9th has been heavily biased against my/our belief in the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Beyond that I'm not sure we either need to go or should go.

And even if we were able to come up with some decent sampling criteria and solid agreement regarding the interpretation? It really no longer matters since the make-up of the 9th Circus has changed and will change yet more. The changes will probably be largely in our favor but even that is not certain.

In any case, we are no longer virtually certain to suffer an eventual defeat in the 9th Circuit. Our probabilities are not yet good, but they are better.


Agreed on sample size and better methodology for trying to identify patterns. But yeah, given the volume it’s like making an educated guess at best.
Reply With Quote
  #3114  
Old 05-01-2019, 1:58 AM
ivanimal's Avatar
ivanimal ivanimal is offline
Janitors assistant
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: East Bay
Posts: 14,030
iTrader: 186 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Its now 10 years since the complaint was filed.
__________________
"I would kill for a Nobel peace prize." Steven Wright"
Board Member CGSSA Donate now!
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Reply With Quote
  #3115  
Old 05-01-2019, 8:01 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,639
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanimal View Post
Its now 10 years since the complaint was filed.
Reply With Quote
  #3116  
Old 05-01-2019, 8:22 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,872
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanimal View Post
Its now 10 years since the complaint was filed.
Dude, what the holdup? Get off yer duff n get r done!
Reply With Quote
  #3117  
Old 05-01-2019, 11:24 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,350
iTrader: 92 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Dude, what the holdup? Get off yer duff n get r done!
We should have said the guns were undocumented, gay and wanted to get married. It would have been less than a year that progress would have been made.
Reply With Quote
  #3118  
Old 05-01-2019, 4:12 PM
3B830 3B830 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanimal View Post
Its now 10 years since the complaint was filed.
Quick, preserve your standing!

https://www.cryonics.org/ci-landing/human-cryostasis/
Reply With Quote
  #3119  
Old 05-01-2019, 6:13 PM
lostinsd82's Avatar
lostinsd82 lostinsd82 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Somewhere in SD
Posts: 287
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
We should have said the guns were undocumented, gay and wanted to get married. It would have been less than a year that progress would have been made.


Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
--
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason

San Diego, CA.

Member: NRA, CRPA, SD County Gun Owners
Reply With Quote
  #3120  
Old 05-02-2019, 11:07 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Suspense is killing me.
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 9:27 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.