Flanagan v. Harris 2023 Feb 08 Dismissed as moot

[hoystory]

Originally Posted by uscscjohn

True but frustrating. The NY case involves a law that even some liberal Justices should find unconstitutional. A pro second amendment finding won't require any sweeping proclamations that will prove dispositive of the California cases.

A SCOTUS ruling in the NY case doesn't necessarily need a sweeping ruling, but the hope from pro-2A forces is that the court will, at the very least, set out the standard of scrutiny for 2A law as "strict" as opposed to "intermediate."

If they do that, it will force re-adjudication of a ton of cases that have been decided since Heller. Most of them didn't go our way.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

The State already asked for additional briefing. There definitely will be another oral argument in front of the 11 judge pane

Since we want a substantial change in the relevant law (e.g., a central holding of a public RBA), I was just assuming the equivalent things happen with the 3-judge panel in Nichols. If so, then ...

Originally Posted by Paladin

... Flanagan is along side of Nichols....

[hoystory]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Not so fast...

First off, your premise is seriously flawed:

"but the hope from pro-2A forces is that the court will, at the very least, set out the standard of scrutiny for 2A law as "strict" as opposed to "intermediate."

1. One, you are assuming you get to "define" what the pro-2A hope or argument is.

2. You ignore what SCOTUS already said in Heller v. DC, "history, text and traditon."

So for the zilliontrillionbillionthousandthhundrenthumpteenth time . . .

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Read Heller v. DC

I have. I've read it the same way you have.

There's a plethora of district and circuit court judges who haven't. Or if they have, they've done it not truly respecting the ruling, but looking for loopholes, inconsistencies or just made $#!+ up.

Yes, NYSRPA won't revive concealed/open carry lawsuits, those will have to be re-filed and work their way through again. However, it may force the circuit courts to do the right thing--required by Heller--when it comes to magazine capacity bans, California's handgun roster and assault weapons ban.

You point to Heller and say that the result is clear! And it is to you and me.

But judge after judge has been ignoring or twisting (more twisting) "history, text, and tradition" and we get crap like the Rupp and Kolbe decisions.

Yes, these judges should be following Heller. They haven't been. They've been left to their own devices since Heller and MacDonald.

This wait on NYSRPA may extend the next step of all of these cases a year, but it might, if Trump can get more circuit and district judges confirmed, mean that overall it's shorter (or at least not any longer).

There's certainly a non-zero probability that if they set the "strict" standard and Trump keeps packing the 9th Circuit that we could win at the circuit 3-judge panel level. We could have enough judges that they don't go en banc to overturn. Then we don't have to appeal to the SCOTUS. Not having to go through en banc and SCOTUS cuts two years minimum off getting the rights the constitution recognizes.

And if we got lucky with the draw and Judge Benitez (PBUH) got a bunch of these cases at the district court level we could save even more time since a pro-gun Ninth Circuit wouldn't likely put an injunction in place while the case is under review. That's three years saved, minimum.

It is in no way a given that NYSRPA makes the overall wait any longer.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

So for the zilliontrillionbillionthousandthhundrenthumpteenth time . . .

He keeps on saying, "just read Heller", which we all have read. Heller does talk about history, text and tradition, but that's not a judicial test that the courts know how to apply and so they keep coming up with their own things, resulting a circuit split. Mr.Rabbit can't comprehend that different people can read Heller and not see his exact, and not well supported, interpretation of it. I keep on encouraging MrRabbit to go ahead and start open carrying a loaded gun and when he gets arrested for that, tell the judge his favorite line, "just read Heller". I wish he would do that instead of posting it in this forum because that would at least keep him off-line for a while. Alternatively, he should spend a few hundred dollars and get a TRO against enforcement of laws against open carry, which should be very easy because he can write on the TRO form, "just read Heller", and no doubt it will be issued pronto.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

He keeps on saying, "just read Heller",
[...]
Mr.Rabbit can't comprehend that different people can read Heller and not see his exact, and not well supported, interpretation of it.

It's worse than that- he never cites portions of Heller to back his positions up. He never quotes from it. His only instruction is "Read Heller".... ooookay.... He never has anything constructive to add... which is why he's on my ignore list. I got tired of him insisting we need to "read Heller".

Me: "Strangest thing happened... the DMV billed me twice for registration"
Mr.Rabbit: "clearly you haven't read Heller"

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by tenemae

It's worse than that- he never cites portions of Heller to back his positions up. He never quotes from it. His only instruction is "Read Heller".... ooookay.... He never has anything constructive to add... which is why he's on my ignore list. I got tired of him insisting we need to "read Heller".

He's also on my ignore list but sometimes, I admit, I cant help but read some of his posts.

I once got him to cite specific portions of Heller and what he did was he pointed out sources that Heller cited and says that if Heller cites those it means it's true. Which is great except Heller also cites the 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) which states that no "Papist" (derogatory term for Catholic) may bear arms. So... if everything Heller cites is law, I guess SCOTUS wants us to understand that the 2A means Catholics shall not be armed? Weird, considering that Catholics on SCOTUS signed that opinion. Anyway, "just read Heller" tells us that according to Mr.Rabbit! Never got any explanation.

[pacrat]

hoystory said

There's certainly a non-zero probability that if they set the "strict" standard and Trump keeps packing the 9th Circuit that we could win at the circuit 3-judge panel level. We could have enough judges that they don't go en banc to overturn. Then we don't have to appeal to the SCOTUS. Not having to go through en banc and SCOTUS cuts two years minimum off getting the rights the constitution recognizes.

That assumes that anti 2A opponents, will immediately throw up their hands and concede defeat, and "NOT Appeal". Which they assuredly will NOT do.

Fighting various unjust/unconstitutional legislation, costs millions of dollars.

Defending unjust/unconstitutional legislation, is what prosecutors/AGs/ and all of their related employees, get paid millions of dollars to do.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by tenemae

It's worse than that- he never cites portions of Heller to back his positions up. He never quotes from it. His only instruction is "Read Heller".... ooookay.... He never has anything constructive to add... which is why he's on my ignore list. I got tired of him insisting we need to "read Heller".

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

He's also on my ignore list but sometimes, I admit, I cant help but read some of his posts.

GMTA!

"Three strikes, he'sssss OUT!"

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I once got him to cite specific portions of Heller and what he did was he pointed out sources that Heller cited and says that if Heller cites those it means it's true. Which is great except Heller also cites the 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) which states that no "Papist" (derogatory term for Catholic) may bear arms. So... if everything Heller cites is law, I guess SCOTUS wants us to understand that the 2A means Catholics shall not be armed? Weird, considering that Catholics on SCOTUS signed that opinion. Anyway, "just read Heller" tells us that according to Mr.Rabbit! Never got any explanation.

Did you ever ask him what panels in what circuit courts of appeals in what cases have adopted his interpretation of Heller? While this linked thread is old and I stopped updating it long ago after Peruta was denied cert (so there's subsequent Carry Cases not listed), this shows there's been plenty of opportunity for plenty of circuits to say "Open Carry is the Right." If they haven't, it kinda makes you wonder why?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=812950

ETA: here's a link to my old thread re. OC cases: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=869265

[Califpatriot]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Last line...

...it already has.

If if it is a win...it will cause activist judges to either reset on current cases (delay) OR as you've already noted, spite their noses forcing it to SCOTUS for an even further delay.

Anytime something is added to the pipeline or causes a reconsideration of something in the pipeline, a delay is inevitable.

It's also smacks of a "strategy". Some would call it a conspiracy.

=8-|

SCOTUS can and does act quickly when it feels lower courts are ignoring its clear rulings.

[Paladin]

bump to remind folks of other Carry Cases that are in the wings (pending Young) now that NYSRPA has been mooted

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Nichols is actually ahead of Flanagan.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Nichols is actually ahead of Flanagan.

But they’re both stayed pending Young, right? IOW Nichols is pending Young, but Flanagan is NOT pending Nichols. So Nichols and Flanagan are, procedurally, independent of each other, neither depends from the other. That’s what I meant when I said they are “along side of each other”: they each directly depend from Young and not from each other.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

But they’re both stayed pending Young, right? IOW Nichols is pending Young, but Flanagan is NOT pending Nichols. So Nichols and Flanagan are, procedurally, independent of each other, neither depends from the other. That’s what I meant when I said they are “along side of each other”: they each directly depend from Young and not from each other.

[press1280]

My prediction-with CA going shall-issue (putting aside all the new sensitive areas, exc.), Nichols loses (the court tells him to now go get a CCW), and Flanagan gets mooted

[abinsinia]

Originally Posted by press1280

My prediction-with CA going shall-issue (putting aside all the new sensitive areas, exc.), Nichols loses (the court tells him to now go get a CCW), and Flanagan gets mooted

Nichols was a shotgun tho, and you can't concealed carry a shotgun.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by abinsinia

Nichols was a shotgun tho, and you can't concealed carry a shotgun.

Stacey Abrams and Rosie O'Donnell can... in pocket holsters to boot.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

Exactly!

=8-)

I wonder what that fact does to the theory that States can ban OC in favor of permitted CC?

[Paladin]

I have a note to myself we are awaiting a mootness decision in this case. True? If so, about when?

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I have a note to myself we are awaiting a mootness decision in this case. True? If so, about when?

According to the last few filings, it looks like the 9th is still planning on hearing the case: https://michellawyers.com/michelle-f...-harris-et-al/

Flanagan is asking for remand back to the district court for immediate judgement, while CA is asking for dismissal based on "good cause" no longer being enforced.
However there is the issue of fees-

11. Costs of suit, including attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988.
12. Any further or alternative relief as the Court deems just and proper.

CA may be trying to claim they don't owe anything, you got your CCW.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

According to the last few filings, it looks like the 9th is still planning on hearing the case: https://michellawyers.com/michelle-f...-harris-et-al/

Flanagan is asking for remand back to the district court for immediate judgement, while CA is asking for dismissal based on "good cause" no longer being enforced.
However there is the issue of fees-

11. Costs of suit, including attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988.
12. Any further or alternative relief as the Court deems just and proper.

CA may be trying to claim they don't owe anything, you got your CCW.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

According to the last few filings, it looks like the 9th is still planning on hearing the case: https://michellawyers.com/michelle-f...-harris-et-al/

Flanagan is asking for remand back to the district court for immediate judgement, while CA is asking for dismissal based on "good cause" no longer being enforced.
However there is the issue of fees-

11. Costs of suit, including attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988.
12. Any further or alternative relief as the Court deems just and proper.

CA may be trying to claim they don't owe anything, you got your CCW.

Wasn’t there an Open Carry aspect to this case?

Does Young getting settled affect this case?

[Paladin]

Is this case still set for oral arguments on Feb 8th?

Four weeks to go!

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by press1280

According to the last few filings, it looks like the 9th is still planning on hearing the case: https://michellawyers.com/michelle-f...-harris-et-al/

Flanagan is asking for remand back to the district court for immediate judgement, while CA is asking for dismissal based on "good cause" no longer being enforced.
However there is the issue of fees-

11. Costs of suit, including attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988.
12. Any further or alternative relief as the Court deems just and proper.

CA may be trying to claim they don't owe anything, you got your CCW.

Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

The appeal is DISMISSED as moot. The judgment below is VACATED,
and the case is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case. Each party shall bear its own costs. This order constitutes the mandate of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[Drivedabizness]

So - we lost?

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

So - we lost?

Well, what the Court said was that Bruen eliminated "good cause," without which Plaintiff may apply for a CCW without showing good cause, and therefore the request to have some meaningful way to carry, openly or concealed, was moot as he now has a meaningful way to apply for a CCW. The Court did not allow either side costs as the case was decided by a change in the law dictated by Bruen.

[randomBytes]

Total BS - just kicking the can down the road

[JiuJitsu]

Seems like every open carry case just keeps getting treated badly and/or delayed as much as possible.

It’s almost as if no judge wants to be forced to rule on open carry post-Bruen as they know there’s no text/history/tradition to back up such restrictions.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by JiuJitsu

Seems like every open carry case just keeps getting treated badly and/or delayed as much as possible.

It’s almost as if no judge wants to be forced to rule on open carry post-Bruen as they know there’s no text/history/tradition to back up such restrictions.

No SH*T! They need an airplane ride on a plane piloted by HB to IM's hog farm if they are not willing to perform their sworn duty!