Flanagan v. Harris 2023 Feb 08 Dismissed as moot

[stag6.8]

Now since D.C. is done (no appeal to SCOTUS)and now there is a circuit split..and the Flanagan case was made AFTER open carry was banned...unlike peruta...any comments on how the 9th circuit will decide this?...Fabio gets goosed...paladin..k c brown...wolfwood?

[TruOil]

Wrenn, at least in terms of CCW, is not at issue in this case, since the trial court (correctly) concluded, at the time that he issued his ruling, that his hands on concealed carry were tied by the Peruta decision. Therefore, that question is not before the court on this msj. On top of that, he is not going to revisit his prior ruling now and go against an explicit ruling in his own circuit, although the split of authority technically (but not practically for political reasons) would allow him to do so.

The one and only proposition for which Wrenn is citeable here is that there is a Constitutional right to bear arms outside the home, an issue not encompassed by Peruta, or, as I vaguely recall, any other circuit court of appeal decision (all having merely assumed that such a right exists). I believe that this trial court is thus bound by that portion of the decision in the absence of contrary authority.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by stag6.8

Now since D.C. is done (no appeal to SCOTUS)and now there is a circuit split..and the Flanagan case was made AFTER open carry was banned...unlike peruta...any comments on how the 9th circuit will decide this?...Fabio gets goosed...paladin..k c brown...wolfwood?

I won't be watching this case until it gets to CA9.

FWIW, until Jan, I'll just be watching Norman (for cert) and national reciprocity.

From Jan to July, I'll just be watching Norman (if granted cert), Nichols, national reciprocity and a few CA sheriffs' races (Sac, Sonoma, OC and SD).

Haven't decided re. beyond July. ETA: Flanagan will probably be here.

I'll let someone else do a state ConCarry thread this year.

I may post "high fives" for Pena or Kolbe wins (hopefully). Dittos with a "swing" or Leftist SCOTUS justice "leaving" the Court.

I won't be posting much otherwise. Even on those topics I won't be posting much.

That's my current expectation.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I won't be watching this case until it gets to CA9.

FWIW, until Jan, I'll just be watching Norman (for cert) and national reciprocity.

From Jan to July, I'll just be watching Norman (if granted cert), Nichols, national reciprocity and a few CA sheriffs' races (Sac, Sonoma, OC and SD).

Haven't decided re. beyond July. ETA: Flanagan will probably be here.

Since the date of the trial decision determines the deadline for appeal, and since the date of the trial is related to the date of the decision...

Is the Flanagan trial still set for Feb 6th at 9:00am, one week from now? Do they video and post them?

[stag6.8]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Since the date of the trial decision determines the deadline for appeal, and since the date of the trial is related to the date of the decision...

Is the Flanagan trial still set for Feb 6th at 9:00am, one week from now? Do they video and post them?

Since this is tommorrow, anybody has info. on this?

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

No, all trial deadlines were vacated pending ruling on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.

[stag6.8]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

No, all trial deadlines were vacated pending ruling on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.

In layman's terms what does summary judgment means...and what follows afterwards?

[gunuser17]

When a party to a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment, they are saying that no trial is needed because:

1. There is no dispute as to any material fact at issue in the case - in other words - everyone essentially agrees to the facts or if there is a dispute, it is a meaningless dispute.

2. Based on the undisputed facts, the case can be decided by the judge without a jury by applying the law to the undisputed facts.

So - say you call your broker Monday and tell him to sell a stock. The broker waits until Wednesday to sell the stock. The stock drops in value by 50% on Tuesday. The call is recorded so there is really no dispute as what was said. You may file a motion for summary judgement saying his failure to sell the stock on Monday entitles you to damages. He may file a cross-motion for summary judgment saying that he was entitled to two days to execute the sale. The only real dispute is what does the law say in relation to these facts and under the law, is the broker liable.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by gunuser17

When a party to a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment, they are saying that no trial is needed because:...

Thanks for the explanation. It seems like that would apply in most gun rights cases, right? It's all based on documents that are pretty clear. The only question is, are the statute and policy consistent with the meaning of the 2A, right?

[Drivedabizness]

Except of course, in the 9th Circuit the 2A is not recognized as the fundamental, enumerated individual right that Heller said it as and MacDonald applied against the States.

So yes - theoretically, CA's laws are such obvious infringements that they ought to be immediately struck down or enjoined. The mag ban is a good example (as well as the previous ammo ban that was also in Federal Court IIRC). Others like Peruta (discretionary CCW issuance) were overturned as errant by a 3-judge panel (we got the win) only to have the 9CA take the unprecedented to overturn them en banc.

[stag6.8]

will this case be filed and heard before the 9th circuit...after...summary judgement issues, etc. has been resolved?...is it going forward?
Im sure im not the only person who would like more information.

[Drivedabizness]

This case was filed in the 9th Circuit. So yes, assuming the losing side at the District Court level chooses to appeal on summary judgement, and/or if the case goes to trial, and that the Appeals Court agrees to hear the appeal (if any).

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Wrong case. This (Flanagan) is about right to carry.

You are thinking about the Wiese case, I believe.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Kestryll

BREAKING: CRPA FILES NRA SUPPORTED LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA’S BAN ON PUBLICLY CARRYING FIREARMS

-- See also the Michel & Associates case page here. --

So it looks like the filings ended in mid Nov: 3 months ago, 3 months down. So give it another 6 months for a decision and that brings us to mid Aug 2018.

Assume looser appeals to CA9. The process to a 3-judge panel decision there we'll guess takes ~1.5 years (quick is my guess), bringing us to ~Feb 2020.

Whether that goes en banc or not is anyone's guess.

After that, SCOTUS!

Sound about right?

ETA: Or do you think the trial court judge will sit on Flanagan until CA9 decides Nichols so that the judge can then use it and Peruta to make their decision?

[MJB]

Yep

Your Grandkids will see some light

[stag6.8]

anything new with this case?

[wolfwood]

Court just ruled against Flanagan I am on my phone and can not link to order

[Librarian]

The orders are on the Michel & Assoc page linked in the first post.

[tenemae]

Is it safe to presume the next stop is the 9th Circus?

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Court just ruled against Flanagan I am on my phone and can not link to order

This was fully expected right? This has to be won at the 9th circuit level or at SCOTUS. Trump and the Judiciary Committee need to hurry up and get us some judges in the 9th.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

This was fully expected right? This has to be won at the 9th circuit level or at SCOTUS. Trump and the Judiciary Committee need to hurry up and get us some judges in the 9th.

Yes but the Court did not even try to justify the outcome. It is a pretty outrageous opinion.

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Yes but the Court did not even try to justify the outcome.

I thought they did. They insisted you only have a right to defend yourself in your "hearth and home", citing Heller

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by tenemae

I thought they did. They insisted you only have a right to defend yourself in your "hearth and home", citing Heller

Fair point but that statement conflicts with every other court that has ruled on this issue. Even NY and NJ issues on occasion. As a trial court it is pretty outlandish to say all the court of appeals are wrong. None of the trial court's cites to other court's really support his holding.

[CCWFacts]

When do we know who is on the panel? It's pretty obvious that the outcome at the 9th is a political question, not a legal question, and if we get lucky like with the Peruta panel we might have a good result.

I wish we could pressure our GOP to hurry up and confirm some judges.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

When do we know who is on the panel? It's pretty obvious that the outcome at the 9th is a political question, not a legal question, and if we get lucky like with the Peruta panel we might have a good result.

I wish we could pressure our GOP to hurry up and confirm some judges.

In a couple years unless the Young panel decides this issue in a way that is definitive for Falnegan's and then the case will be decided quickly.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

In a couple years unless the Young panel decides this issue in a way that is definitive for Falnegan's and then the case will be decided quickly.

Ok got it. Young v. Hawaii deals with open carry and has already been heard by the 9th in February of this year and this case will be stuck behind it. That's ok for us, right? I guess we'll find out about Young v. Hawaii's outcome at the 9th sometime this year? And the Young panel is great for us, so we could get a good result from that. In fact, if Trump would hurry up with getting us some judges, we could get a balanced court and the other side won't risk an en banc, just like they didn't want to chance it in the DC case.

That means there's hope, this year!

[press1280]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Yes but the Court did not even try to justify the outcome. It is a pretty outrageous opinion.

The judge is talking out of both sides. He says the right is confined to the home but even if the right applies outside the home you can still defend yourself in your home

Fortunately this is a District judge, and I believe Young will take care of this, although it's noted that the Flanagan plaintiffs wanted CCW, not open carry.

[stag6.8]

it will be interesting on how the 9th circuit will try to bring up open carry..since open carry has been banned...which hurt the peruta case..they cant use that anymore..

[FatCity67]

Can we just move to over throwing the government and lining up all the judges now. I keed I keed. Sort of.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by tenemae

I thought they did. They insisted you only have a right to defend yourself in your "hearth and home", citing Heller

And once again, Scalia’s ruling comes back to haunt us. He did far more for the antis than he did for the 2nd Amendment.

[adam6955]

You could not possibly be that stupid. First, it was not "Scalias ruling" it was the Supreme courts ruling, with Scalia writing the primary opinion.

Second, that single ruling cemented the civilians right to bear arms in the USA. Without that ruling, the definition of "a well trained militia" would have left us with a country where only the National Guard, Cops and Military had guns.

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

And once again, Scalia’s ruling comes back to haunt us. He did far more for the antis than he did for the 2nd Amendment.

[desert dog]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Trump and the Judiciary Committee need to hurry up and get us some judges in the 9th.

Trump is....but anti-2nd amendment!!!!!!! Don't get your hopes up.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1440238

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by adam6955

You could not possibly be that stupid. First, it was not "Scalias ruling" it was the Supreme courts ruling, with Scalia writing the primary opinion.

Second, that single ruling cemented the civilians right to bear arms in the USA. Without that ruling, the definition of "a well trained militia" would have left us with a country where only the National Guard, Cops and Military had guns.

Yes, I meant opinion, not ruling.

Either way, the only parts of his Heller opinion that have had any long term effect are the statements regarding the 2nd Amendment not being unlimited, and subject to reasonable regulations, and the part where he said the 2nd Amendment primarily applies to defending hearth and home.

Those two statements have given anti gun judges all the wiggle room they need to shut down lawsuits trying to overturn these laws.

Heller has done nothing to improve our 2A rights, in California or federally. We are losing ground, still.

[mit31]

Thats actually not accurate, given the ownership bans that have been overturned in other states, Heller has done quite a bit. You cannot blame the ruling, which was clearly set up for future rulings to clarify things, when those future rulings do not materialize. You CAN blame the current court for that.

You are also acting like only Scalia's input was used for the opinion. You should be thinking the opposite... the opinion authored was the most allowed by the other, weak justices to get their vote; assuredly Kennedy / Roberts. Every opinion is a compromise between 5 justices.

You are also acting as if things would be the same or better if Heller had never happened, which is also not accurate.

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Yes, I meant opinion, not ruling.

Either way, the only parts of his Heller opinion that have had any long term effect are the statements regarding the 2nd Amendment not being unlimited, and subject to reasonable regulations, and the part where he said the 2nd Amendment primarily applies to defending hearth and home.

Those two statements have given anti gun judges all the wiggle room they need to shut down lawsuits trying to overturn these laws.

Heller has done nothing to improve our 2A rights, in California or federally. We are losing ground, still.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Yes, I meant opinion, not ruling.

Either way, the only parts of his Heller opinion that have had any long term effect are the statements regarding the 2nd Amendment not being unlimited, and subject to reasonable regulations, and the part where he said the 2nd Amendment primarily applies to defending hearth and home.

Those two statements have given anti gun judges all the wiggle room they need to shut down lawsuits trying to overturn these laws.

Heller has done nothing to improve our 2A rights, in California or federally. We are losing ground, still.

Off the top of my head here are some 2a wins post Heller COurts have overturned
Wisconsin overturned its switchblade ban on 2a grounds
Connecticut overturned its restrictions on dirk and baton transport
Baton Rouge overturned its law banning transport of firearms to any place or parking lot that sells alcohol.
Chicago had its ban on firearms overturned
Chicago later had its ban on firing ranges overturned
Federal government has had its ban on felons in possession overturned as applied to persons in Pennsylvania and one fellow in Illinois
D.C. has had 4 registration laws overturned.
D.C. has had its may issue law overturned.
Illinois has had its carry ban overturned.
Saipan has had its bans on carry, handguns and AW overturned
Chicago had its complete ban on gun stores overturned
Hawaii has had its ban on resident aliens owning firearms overturned
Mass has had its ban on resident aliens owning firearms overturned
Illinois had its ban on carrying firearms within 1000 feet of a park overturned
National Corps of Engineers has had its ban on carrying in its parkland overturned
Nevada had its ban on keeping firearms in tents overturned
New Jersey has had its ban on stun guns overturned
Same with New Orleans, several cities in Maryland and D.C.

Is that everything we want? Of course not. But its better than nothing

[wireless]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

Yes, I meant opinion, not ruling.

Either way, the only parts of his Heller opinion that have had any long term effect are the statements regarding the 2nd Amendment not being unlimited, and subject to reasonable regulations, and the part where he said the 2nd Amendment primarily applies to defending hearth and home.

Those two statements have given anti gun judges all the wiggle room they need to shut down lawsuits trying to overturn these laws.

Heller has done nothing to improve our 2A rights, in California or federally. We are losing ground, still.

Uh no. I don't even know where to begin but it seems like the other posters are making the point I'd like to make. Heller hasn't done us a *ton* of good but it has set the bare minimum at an individual right to own firearms. Prior to that states could interpret the 2a to mean a "collective right".

Where do you think CA would be right now without Heller? My guess is you wouldn't be able to own handguns. Best case scenario you'd be passing psyche tests and special training just to buy a gun.


Also someone correct me if I am wrong, but the lower courts blatant disregard for Heller and current judicial activism is unprecedented. I don't know of any time where the courts have behaved the way they are now. Scalia's words in SCOTUS's decision are very clear if they are read honestly, and none of it justifies assault weapon bans or complete bans on carry. Some of the best legal minds in the country took a few sentences out of a 64 page opinion to push a political agenda.

Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting
upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future
judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with
the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes)
even future judges think that scope too broad. We would
not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition
of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43
(1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the
freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,
which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure
of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely
unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second
Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very
product of an interest-balancing by the people—which
JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And
whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely
elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and
home.

The lower courts have decided to follow the dissenting opinion rather than the majority opinion. I don't know how much clearer SCOTUS could have been with the question that was posed to them.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Off the top of my head here are some 2a wins post Heller COurts have overturned
<snip>

Is that everything we want? Of course not. But its better than nothing

Unfortunately, almost 10 years after winning a RKA (Heller) that was incorporated against the state govts as well as the federal 8 years ago (McDonald), SCOTUS still hasn't declared a RBA or strict scrutiny as the standard of review for 2nd A cases. IOW, our constitutional legal foundation hasn't been laid.

How long ago was the 2nd A ratified?

[wolfwood]

Flanagan is officially over in the lower court. The court entered judgement for the state and awarded the State costs.

[press1280]

I really didn't get the gist of this case. It was supposedly open carry but they were asking for CCW permits as relief?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Flanagan is officially over in the lower court. The court entered judgement for the state and awarded the State costs.

So, time to have a sandwich and nap until, oh, about 2020 Jan 01 for a decision by the 3 judge panel of CA9. And then, en banc or asking SCOTUS for cert....