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
  #1321  
Old 09-25-2020, 1:20 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,391
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
On ARFCOM, the attorney who was working on the case with wolfwood and was sitting off to his side during the arguments (off-camera) said this in response to some of the stuff I'd reported as posted here (addressing help being offered from other orgs):



And this:
Thank you for posting this.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1322  
Old 09-25-2020, 5:15 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,587
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You do have to wonder why the NRA didn’t originally file a lawsuit in Hawaii. Outside of a pure carry ban jurisdiction this is the next most draconian law.
Reply With Quote
  #1323  
Old 09-25-2020, 6:55 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The “history” presented by Obama’s former solicitor general is intentionally conflated to present a picture which did not exist in old England, except when the dictatorial edicts of a paranoid king were enforced,(hardly constitutional behavior even under the joke of an English constitution). The intentional misreading of Heller, and the supposedly long standing gibberish do not change the plain meaning or intention of the founders. The Human right of self defense and defense against tyranny predates government itself. This Right is not dependent upon the Constitution because it predates the Constitution. This is an individual Right unconnected to militia service, and the Right itself declares that it shall not be infringed. Good cause and interest balancing are constructs of a government which is more interested in disarming it’s people than it is in keeping them safe.
Government has no duty and no responsibility to protect the individual from crime or violence, or anything else, and further will suffer no liability for failing to do so.
You are responsible for your own defense as clearly stated in the Second Amendment. The plain meaning of the Second is clear! Thank you to Alan Beck, George Young, Charles Nichols, and all of the others who put their time, money and personal liberty at risk.
Reply With Quote
  #1324  
Old 09-25-2020, 7:39 AM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose, California / Princeton, New Jersey
Posts: 2,454
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbair View Post
The “history” presented by Obama’s former solicitor general is intentionally conflated to present a picture which did not exist in old England, except when the dictatorial edicts of a paranoid king were enforced,(hardly constitutional behavior even under the joke of an English constitution). The intentional misreading of Heller, and the supposedly long standing gibberish do not change the plain meaning or intention of the founders. The Human right of self defense and defense against tyranny predates government itself. This Right is not dependent upon the Constitution because it predates the Constitution. This is an individual Right unconnected to militia service, and the Right itself declares that it shall not be infringed. Good cause and interest balancing are constructs of a government which is more interested in disarming it’s people than it is in keeping them safe.
Government has no duty and no responsibility to protect the individual from crime or violence, or anything else, and further will suffer no liability for failing to do so.
You are responsible for your own defense as clearly stated in the Second Amendment. The plain meaning of the Second is clear! Thank you to Alan Beck, George Young, Charles Nichols, and all of the others who put their time, money and personal liberty at risk.
Arguing that Hawaii's current permitting scheme should survive legal scrutiny because it can be linked to historical precedent extending from precolonial to Anglo-American periods is like saying that slavery should survive legal scrutiny because it was prevalent during the same time periods (and even further into history).

The prevalence of injustice over an extended period of time is not a justification for maintaining the status quo.

Katyal tries to lean heavily on this point and the fact that the literal textual interpretation of the statute doesn't result in a complete ban (a right that is dejure still accessible), but I still think Beck drives a perhaps less well spoken, yet more persuasive point that this is irrelevant if the application of the law results in a defacto ban. I suspect that if this goes our way, a key point in Beck's argument about having a single point of failure with complete issuing discretion (the chief in this case) could have implications on the current may issue regime here.
__________________
"There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."

Last edited by The Soup Nazi; 09-25-2020 at 7:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1325  
Old 09-25-2020, 8:40 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 178
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
I'm honestly not sure that the best presentation in the world would have mattered. This case was most likely determined by the panel draw.
Yep. Back in February of 2019.

Of course, that still doesn't leave counsel (and the plaintiff) in this case blameless. I privately offered to put Mr. Beck in touch with Paul Clement (who used to be one of my many partners at my prior firm) to discuss the implications of this case--and the obviously unsympathetic panel it would be heard by--after the 3-judge opinion in Duncan was issued. He ignored my communications, although when he had asked me questions previously, I of course responded.

Those implications are, of course, that this panel--which never had any realistically probable chance of being an objective one because of when it was drawn--is likely to issue a broad (and constitutionally unsupported) ruling on the standard of review for gun control laws in this circuit. They'll do so now because they know the next case before the en banc court (almost certainly Duncan unless) will have the opportunity to do otherwise if we get lucky and a sympathetic panel is drawn. (Yes, the next en banc panel can theoretically reverse the prior one, but that kind of nuclear act would never be taken, especially when there's another hyper-nuclear possibility, full court en banc, or "super en banc" also at play.)

This is why, taking the long, less self-interested (both client and attorney) view, in my opinion, the correct move here would have been to attempt to withdraw the appeal, and submit to the judgment of the district court. All we lose is a case we weren't going to win anyway, and the binding circuit precedent that it will be accompanied by, like an IED. Instead, we wait for the inevitable en banc call in Duncan, and hope for the best with the draw, which for the first time in many years would have given us a snowball's chance.

Which is all to say I agree with Chuck, but on slightly different grounds.
Reply With Quote
  #1326  
Old 09-25-2020, 9:05 AM
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
Yep. Back in February of 2019.

Of course, that still doesn't leave counsel (and the plaintiff) in this case blameless. I privately offered to put Mr. Beck in touch with Paul Clement (who used to be one of my many partners at my prior firm) to discuss the implications of this case--and the obviously unsympathetic panel it would be heard by--after the 3-judge opinion in Duncan was issued. He ignored my communications, although when he had asked me questions previously, I of course responded.

Those implications are, of course, that this panel--which never had any realistically probable chance of being an objective one because of when it was drawn--is likely to issue a broad (and constitutionally unsupported) ruling on the standard of review for gun control laws in this circuit. They'll do so now because they know the next case before the en banc court (almost certainly Duncan unless) will have the opportunity to do otherwise if we get lucky and a sympathetic panel is drawn. (Yes, the next en banc panel can theoretically reverse the prior one, but that kind of nuclear act would never be taken, especially when there's another hyper-nuclear possibility, full court en banc, or "super en banc" also at play.)

This is why, taking the long, less self-interested (both client and attorney) view, in my opinion, the correct move here would have been to attempt to withdraw the appeal, and submit to the judgment of the district court. All we lose is a case we weren't going to win anyway, and the binding circuit precedent that it will be accompanied by, like an IED. Instead, we wait for the inevitable en banc call in Duncan, and hope for the best with the draw, which for the first time in many years would have given us a snowball's chance.

Which is all to say I agree with Chuck, but on slightly different grounds.
Perhaps.

But then they'd be daring the new Supreme Court to take a look, and decide what level of scrutiny applies nationally.
Reply With Quote
  #1327  
Old 09-25-2020, 9:13 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 178
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meanspartan View Post
Perhaps.

But then they'd be daring the new Supreme Court to take a look, and decide what level of scrutiny applies nationally.
Huh? Daring the Supreme Court to take a look when? If Young had withdrawn his appeal, the District Court’s ruling on the State and County’s motions to dismiss would stand, and there would be nothing for the Supreme Court to review. As it is now, Mr. Young will lose and surely convince his counsel to “dare the new Supreme Court” to grant cert and review the case.

When the Supreme Court eventually does decide to announce a clear standard of review for gun control laws, it is my hope that it’s Mr. Clement arguing the case.
Reply With Quote
  #1328  
Old 09-25-2020, 9:53 AM
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
Huh? Daring the Supreme Court to take a look when? If Young had withdrawn his appeal, the District Court’s ruling on the State and County’s motions to dismiss would stand, and there would be nothing for the Supreme Court to review. As it is now, Mr. Young will lose and surely convince his counsel to “dare the new Supreme Court” to grant cert and review the case.

When the Supreme Court eventually does decide to announce a clear standard of review for gun control laws, it is my hope that it’s Mr. Clement arguing the case.
I meant that if the 9th circuit decides scrutiny on this case as a way to hurt Duncan.

I think Young is a particularly bad one for the 9th to lay down intermediate scrutiny definitively on, because it is clear to me that Hawaii's regime can't even meet that lessened scrutiny. When you issue literally zero permits, how can you argue you are tailoring at all? lol
Reply With Quote
  #1329  
Old 09-25-2020, 12:20 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,919
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
Yep. Back in February of 2019.

Of course, that still doesn't leave counsel (and the plaintiff) in this case blameless. I privately offered to put Mr. Beck in touch with Paul Clement (who used to be one of my many partners at my prior firm) to discuss the implications of this case--and the obviously unsympathetic panel it would be heard by--after the 3-judge opinion in Duncan was issued. He ignored my communications, although when he had asked me questions previously, I of course responded.

Those implications are, of course, that this panel--which never had any realistically probable chance of being an objective one because of when it was drawn--is likely to issue a broad (and constitutionally unsupported) ruling on the standard of review for gun control laws in this circuit. They'll do so now because they know the next case before the en banc court (almost certainly Duncan unless) will have the opportunity to do otherwise if we get lucky and a sympathetic panel is drawn. (Yes, the next en banc panel can theoretically reverse the prior one, but that kind of nuclear act would never be taken, especially when there's another hyper-nuclear possibility, full court en banc, or "super en banc" also at play.)

This is why, taking the long, less self-interested (both client and attorney) view, in my opinion, the correct move here would have been to attempt to withdraw the appeal, and submit to the judgment of the district court. All we lose is a case we weren't going to win anyway, and the binding circuit precedent that it will be accompanied by, like an IED. Instead, we wait for the inevitable en banc call in Duncan, and hope for the best with the draw, which for the first time in many years would have given us a snowball's chance.

Which is all to say I agree with Chuck, but on slightly different grounds.
With that reasoning, there's basically not much of a point of pursuing RKBA cases in the 9th Circuit at all, whether argued by Paul Clement or someone else, with or without the backing of any large organizations.

I mean, pretty much any RKBA case in this circuit has a very high chance of a loss on appeal, either at the 3-judge panel, or en banc. Chances have improved a bit very recently, but still, the chances of a loss are higher. And SCOTUS has consistently turned down these cases when appealed there (that may soon change, however).
Reply With Quote
  #1330  
Old 09-25-2020, 1:07 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,010
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
With that reasoning, there's basically not much of a point of pursuing RKBA cases in the 9th Circuit at all.
Yes. Handing this cause over to a different org would have been just a fund raising opportunity for them. It would not make any difference at all.
Reply With Quote
  #1331  
Old 09-25-2020, 2:56 PM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 799
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
On ARFCOM, the attorney who was working on the case with wolfwood and was sitting off to his side during the arguments (off-camera) said this in response to some of the stuff I'd reported as posted here (addressing help being offered from other orgs).
This is basically an argument about respect and honor. "Dance with the one who brung ya" and all that. No one was interested in Young's case until Beck did some good work, and then suddenly they come calling to try to take over. I get it.

The point remains that when Hawaii County lost, they hired Neal Katyal, who was an acting Solicitor General under Obama. Solicitor General is arguably one of three most prestigious positions for an attorney (the other two being US Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice). They brought in the big guns.

Honor be damned. This case could have broad implications for 2A jurisprudence in the 9th Circuit. We needed someone at Katyal's level. Would it have made a difference to have a Clement do orals? Maybe, maybe not. But now we'll never know.
Reply With Quote
  #1332  
Old 09-25-2020, 4:04 PM
OverturnWickard OverturnWickard is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
With that reasoning, there's basically not much of a point of pursuing RKBA cases in the 9th Circuit at all, whether argued by Paul Clement or someone else, with or without the backing of any large organizations.

I mean, pretty much any RKBA case in this circuit has a very high chance of a loss on appeal, either at the 3-judge panel, or en banc. Chances have improved a bit very recently, but still, the chances of a loss are higher. And SCOTUS has consistently turned down these cases when appealed there (that may soon change, however).
Yes, no Second Amendment case is ever likely to prevail in the Ninth Circuit with Chief Judge Thomas on his crusade to abolish the 2A. The point of getting Paul Clement to take the case is to make sure the appeal record is clean and directly limited to a core Second Amendment question. It is much MUCH easier to get a cert grant if the state cannot simply state in its opposition brief that "the en banc court did not squarely address the merits of the Second Amendment claim since it was too busy trying to make sense of what the plaintiff was actually arguing" or something along those lines. Young's due process argument also does not strike me as particularly helpful.

And I need not restate the obvious; while I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Beck for making this case happen for the plaintiff, his oral argument skills simply will not cut it if this goes to SCOTUS. If he petitions for cert without retaining specialized appellate counsel, it would be best if it were denied.
Reply With Quote
  #1333  
Old 09-25-2020, 5:10 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 178
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
With that reasoning, there's basically not much of a point of pursuing RKBA cases in the 9th Circuit at all, whether argued by Paul Clement or someone else, with or without the backing of any large organizations.

I mean, pretty much any RKBA case in this circuit has a very high chance of a loss on appeal, either at the 3-judge panel, or en banc. Chances have improved a bit very recently, but still, the chances of a loss are higher. And SCOTUS has consistently turned down these cases when appealed there (that may soon change, however).
They haven’t just improved “a bit,” they’ve improved exponentially. When this panel was drawn, there were 16 Dem appointees, and 7 Republicans, one of whom being anti-gunner Bennett. In addition, Clifton and O’Scannlain were eligible as Senior Judges on the 3-judge panel. So that leaves a total of a likely 17 anti-gunners (16 D-appointees minus Thomas who is an autopick plus Clifton and Bennett who are anti-gunning R appointees) against 7 sympathetic judges (7 R appointees minus Bennett, plus O’Scannlain) vying for the 10 remaining spots, which we would need to win 6 of.

That means the hypergeometric probability of us drawing a sympathetic panel last February was less than 1%, or 0.008494557.

On the other hand, currently there are 16 D appointees and 13 R appointees. Subtracting Thomas again and moving Bennett to the anti-side gets us to 16-12 for the pool of candidates to be among the 10 selected to sit with Chief Judge Thomas on the Duncan v. Becerra en banc panel.

That’s a hypergeometric probability of us drawing a good panel today of almost 13%, or .128146453.

To be sure, a 13% chance is still a long shot, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the impossibility that was this case, and discretion is the better part of valor.

At this point, it seems clear that the best hope is ACB’s swift nomination and confirmation, and a cert grant.

Last edited by LVSox; 09-25-2020 at 5:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1334  
Old 09-25-2020, 5:26 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 640
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This nonsense will not end until the Supreme Court ends it.
Reply With Quote
  #1335  
Old 09-25-2020, 8:23 PM
johnireland johnireland is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 135
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How can anyone read all these pages and pages and pages and thread and threads and threads about the legal games and Constitutional dishonesty going on, and still have an ounce of respect or belief in our courts. It is time to replace all the judges with average citizens, and replace all the lawyers with same. No one serves more than six months...and no case takes longer than that to be resolved.
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 8:34 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, 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.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical