Nichols Vs. Brown Live NOW

[sfpcservice]

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/v...vid=0000013005

[Merkwurdigliebe]

I'm enjoying watching this. No idea where it's headed.

[sfpcservice]

Not sure how that's going to turn out.... Seems like the Hawaii case is more directed at the question of public open carry than this was.

[sfpcservice]

I think the judges found it interesting that there are exempted classes of people like hunters, but they have no 4th amendment protection against a search to see if the gun is loaded.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

As someone who doesn't get a regular opportunity to observe judges in action, I must admit I was somewhat impressed with their ability to give the appearance that they were trying to flesh out both sides of the argument...knowing all along what their ruling is going to be.

Interesting points raised for sure.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

On a 10 minute recess.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Back in session.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Sorry on to next case.

[Drivedabizness]

I haven't seen a lot of positive stuff towards Nichols on the site

I have to say - and IANAL - I think he's handling himself very well. Period.

The judges are burning up a lot of his time, where he is doggedly being forced to correct the panels misinterpretation of case law findings.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

I haven't seen a lot of positive stuff towards Nichols on the site

I have to say - and IANAL - I think he's handling himself very well. Period.

The judges are burning up a lot of his time, where he is doggedly being forced to correct the panels misinterpretation of case law findings.

Unfortunately this is a common tactic when the court doesn't like the predictable outcome based on the law/facts. What they do is make you chase the laser dot and then claim you didn't raise an argument or defense, therefore you lose. That they created the situation whereby you run out of time and cannot mount an effective argument on point is never mentioned. The tactic is disingenuous to the extreme.

The other one is where they deny that a case holding is what the holding actually is. That false denial makes you hunt to find the holding in the case so you can cite to it directly and quote the language. This burns your time and they STILL won't acknowledge the case holding if it goes against what they want to decide.