Kachalsky - CA2 Decision is out - Loss

[wildhawker]

There are carry cases all over the country, we eventually will get a "split circuit".

Just a note that it's "circuit split."

I didn't realize that SAF lost standing in this case. How the hell did that happen?

What's more important? Getting the case up to SCOTUS ASAP or appealing a bad decision on standing, going back down, and starting at virtually zero again?

-Brandon

[Gray Peterson]

I didn't realize that SAF lost standing in this case. How the hell did that happen?

Irrelevant & immaterial.

[OleCuss]

Irrelevant & immaterial.

You may be right, but I persist in thinking that Maestro asked a good question.

If legitimate standing is being denied and it sticks, then we may have further standing problems in the future.

However, for this particular case I understand that our team basically told the court that SAF's standing should have been recognized but that they weren't going to fight the issue because the case could readily advance whether or not SAF's standing was recognized.

This means that the adverse ruling on standing really has little to no precedential value and probably won't be a significant problem in the future.

If I am wrong I'm sure someone will slap me around a little.

[Gray Peterson]

You may be right, but I persist in thinking that Maestro asked a good question.

If legitimate standing is being denied and it sticks, then we may have further standing problems in the future.

However, for this particular case I understand that our team basically told the court that SAF's standing should have been recognized but that they weren't going to fight the issue because the case could readily advance whether or not SAF's standing was recognized.

This means that the adverse ruling on standing really has little to no precedential value and probably won't be a significant problem in the future.

If I am wrong I'm sure someone will slap me around a little.

We have numerous individual plaintiffs for a reason. Once the right is actually recognized, the organization standing is easy to do.

[hoffmang]

Justice Kennedy however, would have to be coerced. Such coercion would necessarily entail Judge Posner (CA7 - Moore/Sheppard) issuing a well written decision in favor of the SAF/NRA. Gura holding back (in the hopes of a favorable CA7 decision) in filing for cert is a tactical response I believe he will make.

When Justice Kennedy was just a CA-9 Judge he already voted to hold may issue up to equal protection scrutiny in Guillory v. Gates.

You may be right, but I persist in thinking that Maestro asked a good question.

If legitimate standing is being denied and it sticks, then we may have further standing problems in the future.

However, for this particular case I understand that our team basically told the court that SAF's standing should have been recognized but that they weren't going to fight the issue because the case could readily advance whether or not SAF's standing was recognized.

This means that the adverse ruling on standing really has little to no precedential value and probably won't be a significant problem in the future.

If I am wrong I'm sure someone will slap me around a little.

SAF's standing here is irrelevant. Every time SAF's standing has been directly at issue, the 7th Circuit and the DC Circuit courts of appeals have held that SAF has standing (Ezell, Dearth.) CA-4 is determining standing for SAF right now in Lane, but even the 5th Circuit held NRA had standing as it lost its 18-20 year olds purchasing handguns case. The clear majority of circuits are ruling that SAF and NRA have standing and if one does not that's likely to get Cert.

Even this panel in CA-2 is doing the "right thing" in that it is irrelevant whether SAF has standing in this case. It does because it's members - who are the actual plaintiffs - certainly do.

-Gene

[Maestro Pistolero]

Maestro Pistolero:

I didn't realize that SAF lost standing in this case. How the hell did that happen?

Gray Peterson:

Irrelevant & immaterial.

Gene Hoffman:

SAF's standing here is irrelevant.

It may well be irrelevant to the outcome, but I insist it is WTF-worthy.

[hoffmang]

It may well be irrelevant to the outcome, but I insist it is WTF-worthy.

Again, and with reinforcement - this panel (Kachalsky) knows better than to say SAF doesn't have standing. Instead it is saying correctly that it doesn't matter as at least one of the plaintiffs does have standing. Think of it as them saying, "well, the lower courts are even more full of it than us, but we're going to avoid that pile of steaming BS because it would further undermine our steaming pile of BS for us to address that issue."

To, even this panel, it's so wrong that it's not even worth addressing because their decision does nothing to undermine SAF or any other .org's standing at all.

-Gene

[Maestro Pistolero]

Again, and with reinforcement - this panel (Kachalsky) knows better than to say SAF doesn't have standing. Instead it is saying correctly that it doesn't matter as at least one of the plaintiffs does have standing. Think of it as them saying, "well, the lower courts are even more full of it than us, but we're going to avoid that pile of steaming BS because it would further undermine our steaming pile of BS for us to address that issue."

Fair enough. Steaming pile indeed. Can't wait 'til we are singing this:

[Al Norris]

Justice Kennedy however, would have to be coerced. Such coercion would necessarily entail Judge Posner (CA7 - Moore/Sheppard) issuing a well written decision in favor of the SAF/NRA. Gura holding back (in the hopes of a favorable CA7 decision) in filing for cert is a tactical response I believe he will make.

When Justice Kennedy was just a CA-9 Judge he already voted to hold may issue up to equal protection scrutiny in Guillory v. Gates.

Gene, I disagree.

It doesn't matter what he did before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. What matters is how he has sided since. More on point, how Justice Kennedy has voted since the passing of C.J. Rehnquist and A.J. O'Conner's leaving.

For all the blathering of the liberal and conservative members of the Court, it is Justice Kennedy that drives this bus. That is something that every appellate attorney knows.

[bussda]

I didn't realize that SAF lost standing in this case. How the hell did that happen?

It is my belief this is a tactic to limit the scope of the case. When SAF or another group is denied standing, the court can then focus solely on the plaintiff, and find grounds to dismiss the case, because the other group can argue more generally, where an individual is limited to his singular issues.

Net effect is to delay the case.

Also see: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=627300

[hoffmang]

Gene, I disagree.

It doesn't matter what he did before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. What matters is how he has sided since. More on point, how Justice Kennedy has voted since the passing of C.J. Rehnquist and A.J. O'Conner's leaving.

For all the blathering of the liberal and conservative members of the Court, it is Justice Kennedy that drives this bus. That is something that every appellate attorney knows.

Are you really opposing the idea that Justice "Grizzly Bears" Kennedy isn't pro-carry? Grizzly Bears are not "in the home." It may be worth re-listening to the oral argument in Heller.

-Gene

[Maestro Pistolero]

Are you really opposing the idea that Justice "Grizzly Bears" Kennedy isn't pro-carry? Grizzly Bears are not "in the home." It may be worth re-listening to the oral argument in Heller.

-Gene

Huh? Please dumb that one down for the rest of us.

[wildhawker]

Huh? Please dumb that one down for the rest of us.

Listen to/read the Heller orals.

-Brandon

[safewaysecurity]

Huh? Please dumb that one down for the rest of us.

He talks about how grizzly bears were around during the time of the founding and people needed guns to defend against bears in the wild. I don't know how that would transfer to an urban carry case where they could argue that carry is permitted for hunters in areas where bears would be present.

[stix213]

He talks about how grizzly bears were around during the time of the founding and people needed guns to defend against bears in the wild. I don't know how that would transfer to an urban carry case where they could argue that carry is permitted for hunters in areas where bears would be present.

Tell that to the guy texting....