Will a Sykes/Peruta win be stayed while being appealed?

[Paladin]

Assume we get strict scrutiny w/Nordyke. Once we win either Sykes or Peruta, would the decision in our favor be stayed during an appeal by the losing party?

Or, since they're dealing w/a fundamental right, would the court require "virtual Shall Issue" while the appeal is being decided? Would info re 40 out of 50 states being Shall Issue or better, and, most importantly, the momentum for change has been uniformly on our side for the past 25 years, influence the court?

If the trial court's decision is enforced during an appeal, we should have as much in place as possible to flood the application system.

[Crom]

There are a few permutations of the "what if" scenario and the scope of the rulings and how it will apply to everyone. The best writing I have seen so far on the subject is by Charles Nichols on the possibilities of Peruta in his Concealed Carry of handguns imminent? article.

I can only presume that the same would apply for Sykes as well. It really is the $10 question, and nobody knows the answer for certain.

[yellowfin]

The usual answer: Gene knows, but it's strategically disadvantageous to say, but you'll like the outcome at an undeterminable point in the future and it will work towards an undisclosed follow up case that is currently in development.

[Glock22Fan]

The usual answer: Gene knows, but it's strategically disadvantageous to say, but you'll like the outcome at an undeterminable point in the future and it will work towards an undisclosed follow up case that is currently in development.

Hmm . . . Now where have I heard all that before . . . . more than once . . .

[Gray Peterson]

Assume we get strict scrutiny w/Nordyke. Once we win either Sykes or Peruta, would the decision in our favor be stayed during an appeal by the losing party?

Or, since they're dealing w/a fundamental right, would the court require "virtual Shall Issue" while the appeal is being decided? Would info re 40 out of 50 states being Shall Issue or better, and, most importantly, the momentum for change has been uniformly on our side for the past 25 years, influence the court?

If the trial court's decision is enforced during an appeal, we should have as much in place as possible to flood the application system.

As usual: It depends. Take a look at what happened during the Perry Prop 8 situation (this isn't to segway to a larger issue of Prop 8, but merely pointing out a procedural. Posters, do not get this thread shut down over Prop 8). In that case, the plaintiffs asked for the stay to be lifted immediately after they won, the defendant-intervenors asked the judge to stay during the entire appeals process. The judge denied the permanent stay but gave a temporary one for 6 days while they appealed to the merits panel. The D-I's appealed to the motions panel of the 9th Circuit, asking for a permanent stay. The plaintiffs asked for there not to be a stay as they believed that their fundamental rights were being violated, but they asked in the alternative to be given an accellerated briefing schedule due to the fundamental right nature involved. The motions panel voted to put in a stay, but followed the plaintiffs' alternative suggestion which was accelerated briefing schedule.

Not saying here that that's what's gonna happen, but it's one potential path.

[choprzrul]

Gene's head is going to explode with all that backed up info building pressure. I wish that he would let a little leak out, just to tease us a bit.

.

[Paladin]

As usual: It depends. Take a look at what happened during the Perry Prop 8 situation (this isn't to segway to a larger issue of Prop 8, but merely pointing out a procedural. Posters, do not get this thread shut down over Prop 8). In that case, the plaintiffs asked for the stay to be lifted immediately after they won, the defendant-intervenors asked the judge to stay during the entire appeals process. The judge denied the permanent stay but gave a temporary one for 6 days while they appealed to the merits panel. The D-I's appealed to the motions panel of the 9th Circuit, asking for a permanent stay. The plaintiffs asked for there not to be a stay as they believed that their fundamental rights were being violated, but they asked in the alternative to be given an accellerated briefing schedule due to the fundamental right nature involved. The motions panel voted to put in a stay, but followed the plaintiffs' alternative suggestion which was accelerated briefing schedule.

Not saying here that that's what's gonna happen, but it's one potential path.

But wouldn't there be a difference because the fundamental right in the Prop 8 case was found, IIRC, by a trial court vs the one found by SCOTUS in Heller-McDonald. Thus, wouldn't the 9th be much less likely to stay the trial court's decision w/the CCW case(s)?

IOW, here it is a question of an application of a right declared by SCOTUS vs whether a right declared by a trial court exists. The CCW case is, so to speak, coming from the top down (after the right already went up to the top) vs the Prop 8 case which is still on its way up.

Thus, wouldn't the evidence of a lack of mischief/harm caused by not staying the decision for our side (as seen in the pro-Shall Issue statistics and the decades long move for Shall Issue w/o a single state going in the opposite direction), when weighed against possible infringement of a fundamental right and the statistically likeliness of people actually being physically harmed due to lack of CCWs cause the 9th to not issue a stay?

[yellowfin]

Gene's head is going to explode with all that backed up info building pressure. I wish that he would let a little leak out, just to tease us a bit.

The answer is likely in a court case you've never heard of that applies in a random yet relevant way plus a current case that hasn't been discussed, in combination with specific obscure Latin terminology. When in doubt, just check the Volokh Conspiracy and Scotusblog.

Some restrictions may apply. No purchase necessary, void where prohibited.

[Glock22Fan]

The answer is likely in a court case you've never heard of that applies in a random yet relevant way plus a current case that hasn't been discussed, in combination with specific obscure Latin terminology. When in doubt, just check the Volokh Conspiracy and Scotusblog.

De Factos will be carefully studied by de Jure who will Stare Decisisly at the plaintiff while rendering their verdict.

[bulgron]

You guys are making this way too complicated.

The rule is: if there's a way to drag out the decision, and then the implementation of the decision, that is what will be done. Nothing quick happens with 2A case law. Everything takes at least two years (and sometimes 10+ years).

The longest, least efficient path to affirming our right to arms will be found. If that means obscure Latin terminology, then they will resort to obscure Latin terminology. Count on it.

[wash]

You assume there will be an appeal.

If the case for discretionary issue is the loser I think it is, the counties might not appeal a loss.

If the judges are bad enough to hand us a loss, we'll appeal. I'm sure of that.

[N6ATF]

The usual answer: Gene knows, but it's strategically disadvantageous to say, but you'll like the outcome at an undeterminable point in the future and it will work towards an undisclosed follow up case that is currently in development.

The answer is likely in a court case you've never heard of that applies in a random yet relevant way plus a current case that hasn't been discussed, in combination with specific obscure Latin terminology.

Sigline material right there.

De Factos will be carefully studied by de Jure who will Stare Decisisly at the plaintiff while rendering their verdict.

Someone's been reading the lawyer pick-up lines thread.

You guys are making this way too complicated.

The rule is: if there's a way to drag out the decision, and then the implementation of the decision, that is what will be done. Nothing quick happens with 2A case law. Everything takes at least two years (and sometimes 10+ years).

The longest, least efficient path to affirming our right to arms will be found. If that means obscure Latin terminology, then they will resort to obscure Latin terminology. Count on it.

Sigh. Such low expectations that I cannot help but be pleasantly surprised.

[Gray Peterson]

You guys are making this way too complicated.

The rule is: if there's a way to drag out the decision, and then the implementation of the decision, that is what will be done. Nothing quick happens with 2A case law. Everything takes at least two years (and sometimes 10+ years).

The longest, least efficient path to affirming our right to arms will be found. If that means obscure Latin terminology, then they will resort to obscure Latin terminology. Count on it.

Wow, tough crowd.

[Paladin]

You assume there will be an appeal.

If the case for discretionary issue is the loser I think it is, the counties might not appeal a loss.

I'd love for them to roll over and die and give me my RKBA, or at least a CCW. But I wanted to see how people thought things would play out if they don't.

If the judges are bad enough to hand us a loss, we'll appeal. I'm sure of that.

Me too!

[wuluf]

duabus hebdomadibus