Another Nordyke question

[chewy352]

Seems like a win win for us no matter how they rule. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...t-coast-bench/

The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.

[dantodd]

if I could pick the opinion's author it would be Gould.

[Window_Seat]

Seems like a win win for us no matter how they rule. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...t-coast-bench/

Yes, and...

Nordyke III oral argument audio at 25:51 into the recording:

Judge: "McDonald tells us not only is the Hellersubstantial, fundamental right, suggesting as we've seen in some of these other post McDonald cases, "

Opposing Counsel:
"The fundamental rights cases do not pronounce a rule that we use strict scrutiny in the context of all fundamental rights, even when strict scrutiny is used, there are lots of variations on the forms..."

Judge:
"Sure, there has to be a showing on some burden on the right, isn't that correct?"

Opposing Counsel:
"There has to be a showing of a direct burden on the right, and as I tried to point out, here, we have at most an indirect burden on the right to purchase a gun, it makes it less convenient... We... We.. We only... wah... We have a situation in which strict scrutiny is not compatible with the court pointing out that there are several presumptively valid categories of regulation that survives Second Amendment."

Erik; hopeful.

[Purple K]

All things come to those that wait.

[tabrisnet]

Including death.

[wildhawker]

Yes, and...

Nordyke III oral argument audio at 25:51 into the recording:

Erik; hopeful.

Consider, however, that the panel previously said that the ordinance was not violative even if strict scrutiny were to be applied.

If they reverse and a "strict scrutiny" analysis creates a different outcome, it would be tantamount to admitting that their 'strict scrutiny', isn't. McDonald does provide some cover for them to go farther than they did previously, though I'm not convinced any judge but Gould wants to.

Accordingly, I think we may very well see a similar outcome in the upcoming decision but with more tangible boundaries placed on sensitive places.

[Kenpo Joe]

I'll wait and see before I start celebrating. I'll either be hoisting a few beers to those who did all of the fighting(in court) or crying in the beer. I hope we win.

Back on mute.

[ddestruel]

Consider, however, that the panel previously said that the ordinance was not violative even if strict scrutiny were to be applied.

If they reverse and a "strict scrutiny" analysis creates a different outcome, it would be tantamount to admitting that their 'strict scrutiny', isn't. McDonald does provide some cover for them to go farther than they did previously, though I'm not convinced any judge but Gould wants to.

Accordingly, I think we may very well see a similar outcome in the upcoming decision but with more tangible boundaries placed on sensitive places.

i'll be pleasantly shocked if they extend the previous ruling, some clearer definitions of sensitive places will be nice for the ccw challenges. It will be interesting though with chester being considered on how they will inturpret strict scrutiny application against law abiding citizens. We can only speculate and hold our breath

[IrishPirate]

how much time is left in the Two Weeks 'til decision? The gunwiki said it's expected by the end of Q1 2011....that's the end of March right??????