Peruta: Update - Clement enters

[kcbrown]

Didn't we not have a conversation about you erroneously viewing the 9th Circuit as a monolithic entity?

Yes. And as a result, I don't view it as a monolithic entity. I view it as a D26.

A D26 that's heavily loaded against us, that is...


Yeah, we could get lucky. But that's not the way to bet.

[Window_Seat]

I'm looking forward to law school more than ever, but hopefully I get there.

Erik.

[dantodd]

Bottom line for different newbies I talk to every week when I share my LTC "business card fliers" is no real progress in carry in CA until 2013, and probably summer '13 at earliest.

Since SCOTUS chose not to take on any of the carry cases this session I think that timeline is close.

[OleCuss]

I think one thing needs to be understood. A good win on a carry case from SCOTUS can create a legal nightmare for non-compliant entities.

As nicki suggested, CGF and company seem quite ready and willing to settle cases. A part of this is that CGF really isn't in this fight for the money, it's in the fight to advance our civil rights.

But once SCOTUS lays down a specific ruling about right to carry provisions, you are going to have a lot of lawyers salivating over the opportunity to sue big-pocket entities such as cities, counties, and states over their denial of civil rights to their citizens. You could have multiple lawyers suing each of our most non-compliant entities in our state - and doing it with near-certainty of an eventual win!

You ask me as a city councilman or county supervisor or state legislator whether I want to plow a bunch of resources into defending multiple lawsuits with a near-guarantee of a loss?

Yes, in some of the bigger budget entities they'll happily defend the indefensible. I have both sympathy for their residents and glee at the opportunity for CGF/SAF to make good case law due to their obstinacy. This has the potential to be a loser legally, financially, and politically for the nutcase entities.