hutchens stayed

[fizux]

What is "swag"?

Scientific Wild-@$$ Guess.

[sholling]

What is "swag"?

Scientific Wild Azz Guess. It's a step up from a simple WAG (Wild Azz Guess) because it's a guess based on history or experience.

[nicki]

The Ghost of Nordyke.

The opposing counsel at the oral hearings were seriously outgunned by Alan Gura and Paul Clement. The other side's attorney's basically sabotaged their own case, so on that angle, we have some hope.

Chief Justice Kozinski was pretty pissed at the Nordyke en banc hearing when Alameda effectively caved at the en banc hearing.

It was obvious that Alameda didn't want Don Kilmer to have a chance to get to the US Supreme court, so the way to block Don was to throw the case.

The 9th circuit could do something off the wall, like repeal laws against open carry and leave the CCW laws in tact.

This is what happened in Ohio in 2003 btw.

Nicki

[wolfwood]

And they will rule strongly in our favor- not swag- but in a general way affirming that the right exists outside the home and that presumptive bans violate 2a.
I wonder if they issued an order in Jackson or if that will just sit because not pi?

Jackson is a PI appeal despite being filed 3.5 years into litigation. Its a different legal question so I don't see a reason to stay it. Every case in the nation says we win in Baker so I'm feeling pretty good about this.

[fizux]

Jackson is a PI appeal despite being filed 3.5 years into litigation. Its a different legal question so I don't see a reason to stay it. Every case in the nation says we win in Baker so I'm feeling pretty good about this.

[fizux]

Thanks, OP. I've RECAPped the docket update (should be available in 24 hrs.) and updated my McKay case status thread.

[wolfwood]

Thanks for agreeing with me (I was not the one arguing though that was Rick). A PI appeal is decided on whether or not the lower Court applied a erroneous legal standard. The Court did so by stating the Second Amendment does not confer a right outside the home. Every case in the nation decided at the Circuit Court level has stated in fact there is a right outside the home or at least assumed there is one. Hawaii's carry law can not survive intermediate scrutiny which is the standard being used by the Court as to issues outside the home. That is because HRS 134-9 acts as a complete ban due to the State of Hawaii having never issued a permit and they have no guidelines as to how a permit could be issued. As to the carry law, it will be enjoined for the pendancy of the litigation and the Ninth Circuit will then remand the case back to the lower Court so that we can finish up the case. There are literally no procedural grounds upon which they can avoid ruling on the case. Out of the three cases heard oddly enough Baker is the only case which that can be said for. However I don't see any reason that they would not issue a ruling on the merits for all three cases.

[wolfwood]

There is a facial challenge to a broad federal statute. Listening now too. Gov just acknowledged may be a violation but want intermediate not strict. Case could be part of global scrutiny issue.

I read the briefs and the Federal Public Defender actually made both a as applied challenge and a facial challenge to 922(c).

[press1280]

A little of both. This panel was ready to decide, then Nichols got stayed and now this stay. Now add chovan and the delay in setting orals on the rest of the cases combined with a one year average time for opinion. Finally a little of kozinskis anger at nordyke. This order says the first four are being clustered for a decision and because a pi requires a prompt decision, this panel thinks that decision is coming soon and will solve the problem for them.

How does this get resolved when Chovan was heard by a different panel then the other 3 cases? I thought these cases when there's a "grand opinion" are usually just 1 panel involved.

[wolfwood]

I think he is thinking that a opinion is going to get released at the same time as the panel that heard our cases. Remember despite being heard be the same panel Baker/Richards/Peruta are three separate cases and each case will receive its own opinion. Whether he is right, I have no idea. It sounds reasonable though.

[fizux]

@Flyonwall -- good call on imminent release of opinion in Chovan (pretty good 20/20 hindsight reveals Justice Pregerson on both McKay and Chovan panels, while wrapping up his opinion on the latter).

Chovan opinion: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...8/11-50107.pdf

Now, hopefully you're right about Richards, Peruta, and Baker.