Young v. Hawaii (CA9); Dismissed with predjudice 12-16-22

[Paladin]

[LVSox]

The 14 days to request rehearing starts today. The 90 days for cert starts upon the issuance of the mandate (which absolutely does not need to be 14 days from now). The 90 days is extended by 30 days as a matter of course upon request in most circuits. (I’m not sure what Kagan’s feeling is about extensions. But AMK used to grant them routinely. I don’t know of any Justices who are sticklers as Scalia used to be. EDIT: checked, and looks like since she’s been on the court Kagan’s been up around 90% for extension grants, even more generous than AMK.)

We’ll likely get a cert decision on NYSRPA v Corlett before then, which will be the writing on the wall, anyway.

[Paladin]

Librarian that Nichols might start moving again so get ready to unlock its thread: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1222587

[LVSox]

Librarian that Nichols might start moving again so get ready to unlock its thread: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1222587

Yeah, Bybee and Berzon will likely go through the motions of asking for additional briefing on the effect of the Young en banc opinion (written by Bybee of course). Then my bet is they swiftly affirm the district court without further argument.

[abinsinia]

The more of the dissent I read the more disgusting the majority opinion appears. If this doesn't get cert, I would be really black pilled, this opinion is the epitomy of 2A being a second class right.

[usr1987]

slowly but surely... let argues among ourselves... maybe things will change...

I think open carry is stupid, but conceal is great!

[Paladin]

Yeah, Bybee and Berzon will likely go through the motions of asking for additional briefing on the effect of the Young en banc opinion (written by Bybee of course). Then my bet is they swiftly affirm the district court without further argument.

How long will that take? (I’m guessing 4 weeks for briefing and about the same for denial)

And then???

Nichols asks for en banc. (14 days?)

It gets denied? (within a few months later)

Nichols ask for cert.... (in about 4-6 months from now, late summer to fall)

Nichols could catch up to NYSRPA! (and Young)

And then there’s still Flanagan bringing up the rear....

[DolphinFan]

[nick]

If SCOTUS doesn't do its job, what's there worth preserving?

[phdo]

Young v. Hawaii (CA9); EN BANC LOSS 3-24-2021

If SCOTUS doesn't do its job, what's there worth preserving?

Preserve the majority on the court. Hopefully, for only four years. Would you rather they keep the status quo with the nine justices and we retain majority or would you rather they pack the court with two more liberal justices and we lose majority? A right delayed is a right denied but losing a battle to win the war is worth it in my book. Not to mention they control the House, Senate, and White House. A seat on that bench is a lifetime appointment. A seat in the Oval Office is eight years max.

[Foothills]

The 9th sounds like they are using the same logic as the appeals court in Caetano-which was vacated unanimously.

Judge Kenneth Lee did a great job laying out the case for armed self defense in Duncan vs. Becerra, starting around page 37.

Today’s decision definitely sets up a circuit conflict with the 7th Circuit, specifically Moore vs. Madigan.

https://www.heritage.org/report/concealed-carry-illinois-supremes-catch-the-second-amendment

[nick]

Preserve the majority on the court. Hopefully, for only four years. Would you rather they keep the status quo with the nine justices and we retain majority or would you rather they pack the court with two more liberal justices and we lose majority? A right delayed is a right denied but losing a battle to win the war is worth it in my book. Not to mention they control the House, Senate, and White House. A seat on that bench is a lifetime appointment. A seat in the Oval Office is eight years max.

Frankly, at this point I don't really care. I no longer think our rights are going to be decided/restored by courts (I've stopped thinking that a while back), or by anyone else other than us.

[Davidwhitewolf]

That's a very interesting observation and a glimmer of hope. Thank you!

[phdo]

Frankly, at this point I don't really care. I no longer think our rights are going to be decided/restored by courts (I've stopped thinking that a while back), or by anyone else other than us.

[bigstick61]

Corrected...

1) to bear is to carry in ones hand, upon one's person or in one's clothing.
2) like the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment is not absolute.

Read DC v. Heller please.

=8-|

Heller is a compromise ruling meant to assure Kennedy's vote. One must read its language keeping that in mind. Any opinion that stuck true to "shall not be infringed" would have likely resulted in a 5-4 loss in Heller.

The meaning of the words in the law is fixed. It means and always meant what it does, regardless of what any court has to say about it. Our courts have for decades, though, operated under a different understanding, to the detriment of the law and our country.