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
  #1041  
Old 06-06-2020, 3:59 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
When do we found out who the judges are?
If memory serves a week or so before orals.
Reply With Quote
  #1042  
Old 06-06-2020, 7:21 AM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 738
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It would be nice to have a CCW law like Arizona's no permit required.
Reply With Quote
  #1043  
Old 06-06-2020, 8:14 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,949
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Paraphrasing the state’s argument: “hypothetical access to carry permits satisfies the right to bear arms.”
Reply With Quote
  #1044  
Old 06-06-2020, 8:35 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

God Bless Alan and George who are actively doing something to try to restore the Liberty we have allowed the government to take from us. What they, among others, are doing is expensive, time and life consuming. The State has unlimited resources. The state has the help of other gun grabbing states with unlimited resources. Wolfwood, please provide a method so that we can at least help out with contributions to your efforts. Thank you for fighting this fight!
Reply With Quote
  #1045  
Old 06-07-2020, 4:10 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

FWIW, Peruta was heard en banc on 2015 June 16 and decided 2016 June 09, so don't be surprised if it takes them a year here too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruta...n_Diego_County
Reply With Quote
  #1046  
Old 06-07-2020, 4:22 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Except that the selection of panel judges is random. And the panel was selected before the stay because there was no stay. the case proceeded as normal until the stay order.
IIRC, they selected the panel despite knowing SCOTUS granted NYSRPA cert and then immediately stay Young.
Reply With Quote
  #1047  
Old 06-07-2020, 4:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Case Name: George Young, Jr. v. State of Hawaii, et al
Case Number: 12-17808
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS): On February 14, 2019, this Court stayed en banc proceedings pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle& Pistol Association, Inc, v. City of New York, No. 18-820 and further order of this Court. The Supreme Court has now issued its decision. New York State Rifle & Pistol ***’n, Inc, v. City of New York, 590 U.S. ___, 2020 WL 1978708 (April 27, 2020). Therefore, the stay of en banc proceedings in this case is lifted. En banc argument will take place during the week of September 21, 2020, at the James R. Browning United States Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The specific date and time will be set by separate order. For further information or special requests regarding scheduling, please contact Deputy Clerk Paul Keller at Paul_Keller@ca9.uscourts.gov or (206) 224- 2236. Given this order, appellant Young’s motion to lift the stay (Dckt # [226]) is DENIED as moot. The parties are instructed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs of no more than 10,000 words on or before June 4, 2020. The parties may file an optional supplemental reply brief of not more than 5,000 words on or before June 22, 2020. Given this order, the State of Hawai’i’s motion for supplemental briefing (Dckt # [202]) is DENIED as moot. The parties shall file with the Court eighteen additional copies of the supplemental briefs filed within seven days of the due dates. The State of Louisiana’s motion for an extension of time in which to file an amicus curiae brief (Dckt # [218]) is GRANTED. The amicus brief will be due on or before June 4, 2020, shall not exceed 5,000 words, and shall otherwise conform to the requirements of Ninth Circuit Rule 29. Amicus shall file with the Court eighteen additional copies of the brief filed within seven days of the due date. Further motions to file amicus briefs must be filed on or before June 4, 2020, must conform to the requirements of Circuit Rule 29, and any brief submitted shall not exceed 5,000 words. Any amicus curiae who is granted leave to file an amicus brief shall file with the Court eighteen additional copies of the brief within seven days after leave to file a brief is granted. [11677171] (AF)
~15 weeks to go!

Reply With Quote
  #1048  
Old 06-08-2020, 11:16 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AF): Defendants-Appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file their supplemental en banc reply brief is GRANTED. The reply brief for both parties will now be due on Monday, June 29, 2020. [11713990] (AF)

Notice will be electronically mailed to:
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1049  
Old 06-08-2020, 6:24 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

one last amicus from brady campaign
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Young Brady Campaign Amicus 1.pdf (556.8 KB, 31 views)
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1050  
Old 06-09-2020, 3:29 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
.... It would also help reciprocity (at least for the states under the 9th).
How so? Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Arizona already recognize permits from all other states. Nevada and Washington recognize Utah, which is easy for non residents to get. Nevada and Washington also issue to non residents on a shall issue basis, which eliminates the need for reciprocity. So it is already easy to carry in most states in the 9th Circuit.

That leaves California, Oregon and Hawaii, which do not recognize permits from any other states. Oregon is may issue for non residents of adjoining states and there are some Oregon sheriffs who are nearly shall issue to residents of these states. So for a California resident who has a permit it is already easy to carry in all states in the 9th Circuit other than Hawaii.
Reply With Quote
  #1051  
Old 06-10-2020, 6:27 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
one last amicus from brady campaign
There is so much double speak in that doc. They denounce the recent events in Virginia where an organized group of armed citizens ( a militia) protested the government and succeed in stopping legislation. Then in the next section pleaded that the right only applies to a militia.

If anything that example in Virginia proves how an armed militia can peacefully protect themselves from government infringement on rights.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #1052  
Old 06-10-2020, 9:29 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
There is so much double speak in that doc. They denounce the recent events in Virginia where an organized group of armed citizens ( a militia) protested the government and succeed in stopping legislation. Then in the next section pleaded that the right only applies to a militia.

If anything that example in Virginia proves how an armed militia can peacefully protect themselves from government infringement on rights.
Absolutely! They can protest all they want. In Idaho that would fall on deaf ears. See ARTICLE XIV Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution.
"PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male persons, residents of this state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia, and perform such military duty as may be required by law; but no person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to perform such duty in time of peace. Every person claiming such exemption from service, shall, in lieu thereof, pay into the school fund of the county of which he may be a resident, an equivalent in money, the amount and manner of payment to be fixed by law."

The North Idaho Militia, recognizing that women have equal rights, has female members as well as members over 45 years of age.
Reply With Quote
  #1053  
Old 06-11-2020, 11:33 AM
Kate Kate is offline
Why Change the Default?
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 267
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post

The North Idaho Militia, recognizing that women have equal rights, has female members as well as members over 45 years of age.
But neither are protected by the State Constitution...



Katie
Reply With Quote
  #1054  
Old 06-11-2020, 5:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
~15 weeks to go!

Which again is 1 day longer than.



Reply With Quote
  #1055  
Old 06-11-2020, 6:26 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,633
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
one last amicus from brady campaign
I Tried to read thru it....

But after reading years of this type of Horse Sh*t from the Anti-2A
Zealots, I find myself just Rolling my Eyes at all the Incorrect Opinions
framed as though they are Now Facts and the obligatory Cherry
Picking of Rare Events as if that is the Norm, etc...

I fear reading documents like this will eventually Give Me Brain Cancer..

Quote:
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The panel opinion claims that the Second Amendment "protect[s]
a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense"
3 and restricts
states’ authority to reduce the risks resulting from public carry —
as Hawaii’s laws do. The ruling is unsupported by District of
Columbia v. Heller,4 and the Second Amendment’s text and
meaning, and would dangerously limit states’ longstanding
police power to protect Americans’ most fundamental right —
their right to live.
Dear Democrat Morons, Disarming American Citizens and stripping
them of the Ability to Adequately Defend Themselves, Family, Friends
and Neighbors from say, as a Recent Example, RIOTING,
is an Actual Infringement on a Fundamental Right, you Twits.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #1056  
Old 06-15-2020, 6:56 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

With the wipeout of all the 2nd A cases at SCOTUS today, all eyes turn to Young (and then Nichols, and then Flanagan).

~14 weeks to go!


Last edited by Paladin; 06-15-2020 at 6:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1057  
Old 06-15-2020, 7:00 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So how screwed are we on this? Very?
Reply With Quote
  #1058  
Old 06-15-2020, 7:04 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
So how screwed are we on this? Very?
Look on the bright side: if Trump wins re-election and the GOP holds the Senate, and he gets to replace an anti within a year, this case will be perfect and ready for SCOTUS review.
Reply With Quote
  #1059  
Old 06-16-2020, 6:45 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
So how screwed are we on this? Very?
IMHO, but IANAL. I don't hold much hope fore YOUNG. In light of the fact that just yesterday. SCOTUS gave a green light to any/all leftist politicos to pass any ANTI-2A crap they want to. Because SCOTUS...........JDGAF.

And the Ninth Circus has carte blanc to now totally ignore the 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #1060  
Old 06-28-2020, 5:32 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
So how screwed are we on this? Very?
Well, according to my very unofficial math skills we are looking at about a 28% chance of picking 6 GOP nominee judges (6 needed to win en banc). And obviously not all of them would necessarily vote for our side. I don't know if any Dems would vote for our side either.
But one bright spot is that the 9th painted themselves into a corner after the Peruta en banc. If they try to come back and say that now open carry is not protected, they set up a split with Moore (and basically uphold a complete carry ban). They also may try to cut and paste other carry opinions from CA2-4. Only problem is that Hawaii hasn't issued a permit....so the 9th would essentially back a completely theoretical permit and the most restrictive system in the nation.
Reply With Quote
  #1061  
Old 06-28-2020, 8:21 AM
Wildcat19 Wildcat19 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 324
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Look on the bright side: if Trump wins re-election and the GOP holds the Senate, and he gets to replace an anti within a year, this case will be perfect and ready for SCOTUS review.
If this happens and that happens - when the planets align we will finally win.

Problem is the dummies are blaming Trump for the riots and the Xi Jinping flu fallout. He may not get re-elected. I wouldn't count on it, but there is still time.

Now, if the planets don't align, we in for a heap of troubles. In 5 to 10 years, you will see Chinese and Russian warships in our ports and their warplanes in our airspace.

I'll say this again: hear that sucking sound? It's a decade's worth of money feeding attorneys that don't win enough.
Reply With Quote
  #1062  
Old 06-28-2020, 11:02 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Well, according to my very unofficial math skills we are looking at about a 28% chance of picking 6 GOP nominee judges (6 needed to win en banc).
Not even close. The en banc panel was selected last February, at which time only two of the 10 Trump appointees had been seated (one of whom was anti-gunner Mark Bennett). And one anti-gunner (Chief Judge Thomas) is automatically seated. So we would have needed 6 of the remaining 10 to be favorable draws. At that time, there were only 6 active judges (including Bennett) appointed by Republican Presidents plus O'Scainlann (who as a Senior Judge on the 3-judge panel was eligible for the draw) against 17 Dem-appointed judges (plus Clifton, who was appointed by GWB, but dissented on the original panel).

The odds of a successful draw was less than 1%. Don't get your hopes up on this one.
Reply With Quote
  #1063  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:40 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Today we filed our reply brief in Young and the State filed their reply. The first link is to the State's and the second is ours.

https://pdfhost.io/v/5tvyPqdIw_Micro...ef_629docx.pdf

https://pdfhost.io/v/e1xBjJK8P_Young...y_Briefpdf.pdf
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1064  
Old 06-29-2020, 2:51 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,718
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
Not even close. The en banc panel was selected last February, at which time only two of the 10 Trump appointees had been seated (one of whom was anti-gunner Mark Bennett). And one anti-gunner (Chief Judge Thomas) is automatically seated. So we would have needed 6 of the remaining 10 to be favorable draws. At that time, there were only 6 active judges (including Bennett) appointed by Republican Presidents plus O'Scainlann (who as a Senior Judge on the 3-judge panel was eligible for the draw) against 17 Dem-appointed judges (plus Clifton, who was appointed by GWB, but dissented on the original panel).

The odds of a successful draw was less than 1%. Don't get your hopes up on this one.
I haven't seen any list of judge for this case, are you guessing or do you have some inside info ?
Reply With Quote
  #1065  
Old 06-29-2020, 4:19 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I haven't seen any list of judge for this case, are you guessing or do you have some inside info ?
I don't have any inside info on this case, I have just practiced in the Ninth Circuit for many years. The panel for this case was drawn; and once drawn, the panel maintains jurisdiction over the case until its completion (absent extenuating circumstances, e.g., the death or unavailability of a panel member). It was the 11-member en banc panel that voted to stay this case pending NYSRPA last February, and it will be that same panel that hears it in September. Just because we don't know the names of the panel members (those are published the Monday of the week prior to argument) does not mean they haven't been assigned; they have been. Panels are assigned many months in advance of argument (a very large percentage of three-judge appeals are decided without argument), and especially en banc panels, which require so many judges to travel (almost always to San Francisco) long distances. (The court tries to mitigate this problem by setting most of the en banc sessions on dates when many of the judges will be in town, e.g. in September when new clerk orientation is held.)
Reply With Quote
  #1066  
Old 06-29-2020, 4:33 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,718
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
I don't have any inside info on this case, I have just practiced in the Ninth Circuit for many years. The panel for this case was drawn; and once drawn, the panel maintains jurisdiction over the case until its completion (absent extenuating circumstances, e.g., the death or unavailability of a panel member). It was the 11-member en banc panel that voted to stay this case pending NYSRPA last February, and it will be that same panel that hears it in September. Just because we don't know the names of the panel members (those are published the Monday of the week prior to argument) does not mean they haven't been assigned; they have been. Panels are assigned many months in advance of argument (a very large percentage of three-judge appeals are decided without argument), and especially en banc panels, which require so many judges to travel (almost always to San Francisco) long distances. (The court tries to mitigate this problem by setting most of the en banc sessions on dates when many of the judges will be in town, e.g. in September when new clerk orientation is held.)

Ok .. Aren't the members of the original three judge panel also on the En Banc panel ?
Reply With Quote
  #1067  
Old 06-29-2020, 4:39 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Ok .. Aren't the members of the original three judge panel also on the En Banc panel ?
No. Those who were on it were eligible to be drawn (the Senior Judges, Clifton and O'Scainlann had the option of being in the pool from which the 11 members are drawn or not), but the only auto member is the Chief Judge (Thomas).
Reply With Quote
  #1068  
Old 06-29-2020, 6:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
... especially en banc panels, which require so many judges to travel (almost always to San Francisco) long distances. (The court tries to mitigate this problem by setting most of the en banc sessions on dates when many of the judges will be in town, e.g. in September when new clerk orientation is held.)
With CV19 is everyone (panel + parties) really going to all get together vs Zoom/online conferencing?

Who knows? If Trump gets reelected, he may have a bunch of openings on CA9 to fill. LOL! (Nice knowing ya, wolfwood!)

Last edited by Paladin; 06-29-2020 at 6:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1069  
Old 06-29-2020, 9:17 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
With CV19 is everyone (panel + parties) really going to all get together vs Zoom/online conferencing?
Tough to say. Probably depends on how long this environment lasts.

But for the time being, the court has shown no interest in conducting en banc arguments via video conference, and has dispensed with argument entirely in favor of deciding the cases on the papers.
Reply With Quote
  #1070  
Old 06-29-2020, 9:46 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

~12 weeks to go!

Reply With Quote
  #1071  
Old 06-29-2020, 10:13 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
With CV19 is everyone (panel + parties) really going to all get together vs Zoom/online conferencing?

Who knows? If Trump gets reelected, he may have a bunch of openings on CA9 to fill. LOL! (Nice knowing ya, wolfwood!)

Dulcē et decōrum est prō patriā mōrī
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1072  
Old 07-02-2020, 5:14 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So...

now that the case is going forward what are the chances that Hawaii will pull a New York? As in change the law just enough to try to moot the case?

Because it's hard to see what plausible gyration the 9th could pull at this point to save the existing law. They've argued themselves into a corner.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #1073  
Old 07-02-2020, 5:46 AM
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 4,228
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsandrockets View Post
So...

now that the case is going forward what are the chances that Hawaii will pull a New York? As in change the law just enough to try to moot the case?

Because it's hard to see what plausible gyration the 9th could pull at this point to save the existing law. They've argued themselves into a corner.
Do not underestimate the ability of the ninth circuit to get the outcome they desire. Given the reluctance of SCOTUS to rule on 2A cases they can pretty much put up any twisted argument that they want.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #1074  
Old 07-02-2020, 9:17 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,718
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think they will just conclude that DC v. Heller protects arms in the home , and that's the extent of the right etc. etc.. You can bear arms, in your home.
Reply With Quote
  #1075  
Old 07-12-2020, 11:10 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

~10 weeks to go!

Reply With Quote
  #1076  
Old 07-12-2020, 1:18 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Until 100% inevitable reversal. And subsequent denial of cert.

Seriously, is there anyone believing we actually have a chance?
Reply With Quote
  #1077  
Old 07-12-2020, 3:07 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Until 100% inevitable reversal. And subsequent denial of cert.

Seriously, is there anyone believing we actually have a chance?
NOPE

Not after the can kicking that the Roberts SCOTUS pulled.

9th CIRCUS now has Carte Blanche to continue allowing Ca Legislature to crap on the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #1078  
Old 07-14-2020, 9:04 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,150
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Seriously, is there anyone believing we actually have a chance?
What's the probability calculation based on the composition of the 9th at the time the en banc was selected? Just intuitively it seems like a 10% chance, but someone could calculate it.

Also note that there's a high chance of RBG or perhaps one of the other liberals leaving SCOTUS while Trump still has a chance to make a replacement. This case is on a ventilator but isn't dead.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #1079  
Old 07-14-2020, 10:12 AM
Maverick237 Maverick237 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
What's the probability calculation based on the composition of the 9th at the time the en banc was selected? Just intuitively it seems like a 10% chance, but someone could calculate it.

Also note that there's a high chance of RBG or perhaps one of the other liberals leaving SCOTUS while Trump still has a chance to make a replacement. This case is on a ventilator but isn't dead.
Thomas, a Dem. appointee will always be on en-banc.

There are 10 seats on an en-banc court as a result not counting Thomas. There are currently 13 Republican appointed justices and 15 Democrat ones (not counting Thomas). In order to have a majority this means that 6 have to be Republican (this will result in a 6 - 5 split) out of 10, selected out of a total of 28 justices.

The odds are honestly not that good. It's a 17% chance that we get exactly 6 Republican appointed justices (it goes down to 5% for getting exactly 7 and then 1% for 8). There is a 29% chance that 5 justices selected are democrats (it goes down to 27% for 6 and 14% for 7). This results in an overall percent of a little over 23% that we have a Republican appointed majority for this en-banc case.

This calculation was done using the method for draws without replacement. It is not the be-all, end-all calculation. It is merely showing what is the chance that a specific circumstance would occur (in this case, choosing 10 justices out of 28 and having 6 of those be Republican appointed when there are a total of 13 of them in that 28).

Then again, it was a 7% chance that the Duncan case would've had 3 Republican-appointed justices and a 35% chance we would've had 2 picked so there was an overall 42% percent of having a majority.

Last edited by Maverick237; 07-14-2020 at 10:23 AM.. Reason: Updated overall percenage
Reply With Quote
  #1080  
Old 07-14-2020, 7:51 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverick237 View Post
Thomas, a Dem. appointee will always be on en-banc.

There are 10 seats on an en-banc court as a result not counting Thomas. There are currently 13 Republican appointed justices and 15 Democrat ones (not counting Thomas). In order to have a majority this means that 6 have to be Republican (this will result in a 6 - 5 split) out of 10, selected out of a total of 28 justices.
As I noted a couple of weeks ago, the panel was selected last February, when there were only 6 non-senior Republican appointees to 17 Democrat appointees. The odds are much, much worse than that.
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 7:37 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy