Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-24-2012, 7:10 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow The Three Judge Panel in Richards v. Prieto is set

So here are the three Judges in the Richards v. Prieto case:
  • O'Scannlain (Ronald Reagan)
  • Thomas (Bill Clinton)
  • Callahan (George W. Bush)

If there's a dupe, please lock. Otherwise, I'm not sure what to make of that other than who they were picked by, and the fact that Judge O’Scannlain wrote the original Nordyke opinion.

I also posted this to the Lunch thread.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-24-2012, 7:25 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
★ Junior G Man ✈
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 USC Section 798
Posts: 12,815
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

LTC issuance/compliance in Yolo Co for those just tuning in.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto

I gather from the nominating presidents the political leanings of the three but can any of our legal-beagles chime in about the current status of these justices?
Should one maintain a “cautiously-optomistic” attitude?
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-25-2012, 3:11 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,794
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not quite a dupe since I only posted this in the Baker(Hawaii) thread.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...=470102&page=6

Callahan's opinion in a recent case against Glock, said that Glock can't be held responsible for illegal acts of someone using a Glock.

All in all I think we got a pretty good draw on the panel considering the makeup of the 9th.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-25-2012, 6:52 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
I gather from the nominating presidents the political leanings of the three but can any of our legal-beagles chime in about the current status of these justices?

Should one maintain a “cautiously-optomistic” attitude?
Eric Holder was first appointed judge by Ronald Reagan.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-25-2012, 11:03 PM
uhlan1's Avatar
uhlan1 uhlan1 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Corralitos/Watsonville
Posts: 5,891
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Didn't know that. well, no one's perfect.
Anyone know when the case may be heard?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-25-2012, 11:32 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhlan1 View Post
Didn't know that. well, no one's perfect.
Anyone know when the case may be heard?
You mean this Richards case?

December 6, 2012, 9:00AM
Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor
James R. Browning Building
95 7th ST.
San Francisco, CA 94103

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-26-2012, 6:49 AM
Curley Red Curley Red is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: El Dorado Hills
Posts: 1,738
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesa Tactical View Post
Eric Holder was first appointed judge by Ronald Reagan.
Reagan took away our right to loaded open carry also. Reagan was not that great of a person when it came to gun rights, something a lot of people seem to forget real easily.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-26-2012, 7:11 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curley Red View Post
Reagan took away our right to loaded open carry also. Reagan was not that great of a person when it came to gun rights, something a lot of people seem to forget real easily.
But he had great hair.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-26-2012, 7:42 AM
Renaissance Redneck's Avatar
Renaissance Redneck Renaissance Redneck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Joaquin Valley, CA
Posts: 638
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curley Red View Post
Reagan took away our right to loaded open carry also. Reagan was not that great of a person when it came to gun rights, something a lot of people seem to forget real easily.
Indeed. Plenty of Republicans (Reagan, Romney) have limited gun rights in their states when they were governors.

Dem/Repub, it doesn't really matter. They're all made from the same cloth.
__________________
.
.


"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away." - Barrack Hussein Obama, 2008 Presidential Campaign Speech

"It's a TRAP!" - Admiral Ackbar, Rebel Alliance
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-26-2012, 9:19 AM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 683
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I did a very brief Google search on these three. Emphasis on "brief," as I haven't looked into any actual cases/decisions by any of the justices.

A couple items of note:
  • Judge Sidney Thomas was short-listed by Obama for the Supreme Court before ultimately deciding on Kagan.
  • Judge Connie Callahan, while nominated by George Bush, has received strong support from the Democratic side of the political spectrum, including Dianne Feinstein. A number of Democrats pushed for her as a Supreme Court replacement for O'Conner, as she was viewed as more moderate than other Bush options.
  • Judge O'Scannlain - Is in favor of splitting the 9th circuit into 2 different courts, and has spoken less than favorably about the court. In 1998, stated to the White Commission "When a court grows too large, it is more likely to resemble a legislative body in which strong-willed individuals are prone to developing policy rather than, to paraphrase Chief Justice Marshall, saying what the law is."

  • He also said, "Our batting average before the Supreme Court should not, by itself, be an indicator of a dysfunctional court. On the other hand, when the Supreme Court reaches out to take 29 cases in one Term only to reverse 28 of them, perhaps it is telling us something. And, when the Supreme Court takes three of our cases and reverses them, unanimously, without oral argument, on the same day, as it did just a few months ago, I believe it is telling us something.(March 2003)"


If I had to guess, Thomas would be a sure vote to confirm the lower court decision. It's probably less predictable what the other two will do, but I'd be shocked if at least one of them doesn't vote to confirm the lower court decision as well.

But as has been said time and time again, some arguments are designed for higher courts.

Last edited by Big Ben; 11-26-2012 at 9:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-26-2012, 10:26 AM
Curley Red Curley Red is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: El Dorado Hills
Posts: 1,738
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesa Tactical View Post
But he had great hair.
I liked him as an actor, just not a politician.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-26-2012, 10:34 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curley Red View Post
I liked him as an actor, just not a politician.
I've seen a couple of his movies. He was underrated as an actor. Certainly better than Charlton Heston (are we allowed to say that here?).
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-26-2012, 12:11 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Do you mean "Bedtime for Bonzo"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-26-2012, 3:20 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

Judges O'Scannlain and Callahan have said before that the Court needs to adopt a standard of review on the Second Amendment:

Quote:
"But I cannot agree with the majority’s approach, which fails to explain the standard of scrutiny under which it evaluates the ordinance.² Rather than leave the level of scrutiny in doubt, I would expressly adopt the measured, calibrated approach developed in the original three-judge panel majority opinion, which considers carefully the extent of the regulation’s burden on Second Amendment rights. See Nordyke, 644 F.3d at 782-88 (explaining that the level of scrutiny applied to gun control regulations depends on the regulation’s burden on the Second Amendment right to keep and to bear arms); cf. Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (developing framework for reviewing gun control regulations with reference to the extent of the regulation’s burden on Second Amendment rights); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. Reese, 627 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (same)."

All that is clear from the majority’s approach is that the majority cannot be evaluating the ordinance under strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that it has taken the least restrictive means to serve a compelling government interest. It is an exceptionally difficult standard to satisfy. See Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 214, 219 & n.6 (1984). Here, the parties have not even had an opportunity to build a factual record regarding the County’s new interpretation of its ordinance, so it is impossible to say at this stage that the County could establish that its ordinance would satisfy a least-restrictive-means analysis."

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, joined by TALLMAN,
CALLAHAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, concurring in the
judgment.
Quote:
"Rather than applying a constitutional standard of review to Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge, see maj. op. at 6168, the majority applies the ever popular “rule of thumb” standard, concluding that an amendment of Plaintiffs’ complaint is futile because the majority has the strong impression that County’s newly interpreted ordinance is not sufficiently burdensome to violate the Second Amendment."

—IKUTA, Circuit Judge, with whom CALLAHAN, Circuit
Judge, joins, concurring in the judgment
Also, for those doubting that this court will continue to be par for the course in their standards, see this video that I watched in its entirety:



My hope for this case is that the Judges don't rush through it because of the Court's case load.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-26-2012, 4:14 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Also, for those doubting that this court will continue to be par for the course in their standards ...
This panel will probably do what the 9th circuit panels always do: they'll start with the conclusion that they want to find (in this case, "We don't want ordinary citizens carrying guns because we think ordinary citizens are dangerous and emotionally unstable") and then they'll work backwards to arrive at the arguments they need to make in order to arrive at that conclusion. This is especially true since all the powers that be in the 9th circuit also really, really want to stop ordinary citizens from carrying arms, and the 9th circuit justices are highly influenced by the opinions of the powers that be.

So.

We're going to lose this case in the 9th.

SCOTUS or bust. And it has to be SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to reshape that court, too. Once again, I can't thank enough all the gun owners nationwide who thought voting for Obama, or voting for no one at all, was okay because their gun rights looked secure to them.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-26-2012, 6:32 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,869
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

A shout-out goes to press1280 who posted this little encouraging tidbit over at MDShooters/post 122

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The calendar shows the panel for Baker, Richards, and Peruta:

O'Scannlain (Reagan Nominee)
Thomas (Clinton Nominee)
Callahan (Bush 43 Nominee)

For those that don't know Conseulo Callahan, read this clip from the NRA's website:

Last fall, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the firearm industry that had been previously tossed out by a Los Angeles federal judge before it went to trial. The suit, Ileto v. Glock, seeks to blame Glock and others for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow`s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted but did nothing illegal.

Following last fall`s decision, Glock asked that the full court reconsider the ruling. Last week, the full court voted to allow the suit to proceed. Significantly, eight of the judges dissented. In writing the dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan said, "The potential impact of the panel`s decision is staggering. Any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product." Drawing an obvious conclusion, Judge Callahan went on to say, "Thus, General Motors would be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile."


O'Scannlain is the same from the various Nordyke cases, and supported incorporation of the 2A to help set up a circuit split to get McDonald to SCOTUS.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-26-2012, 7:01 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,513
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That is encouraging. Thanks for the re-post, SW Chuck
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-26-2012, 7:05 PM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Okay, so let's say that this case goes in our favor, what exactly does that mean for our side ?

I seriously doubt it will mean that California instantly becomes a shall issue state.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-26-2012, 7:31 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
This panel will probably do what the 9th circuit panels always do: they'll start with the conclusion that they want to find (in this case, "We don't want ordinary citizens carrying guns because we think ordinary citizens are dangerous and emotionally unstable") and then they'll work backwards to arrive at the arguments they need to make in order to arrive at that conclusion. This is especially true since all the powers that be in the 9th circuit also really, really want to stop ordinary citizens from carrying arms, and the 9th circuit justices are highly influenced by the opinions of the powers that be.

So.

We're going to lose this case in the 9th.

SCOTUS or bust. And it has to be SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to reshape that court, too. Once again, I can't thank enough all the gun owners nationwide who thought voting for Obama, or voting for no one at all, was okay because their gun rights looked secure to them.
This.

O'Scannlain wrote the majority opinion in Nordyke III in which they attempted to neuter "strict scrutiny" as applied to the 2nd Amendment. Looks to me like he is no friend of ours.

We will lose this case in the 9th Circuit. The faster, the better. We only have a very limited window of opportunity in the Supreme Court before it slams shut in our faces.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-26-2012 at 7:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-26-2012, 7:33 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,137
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Okay, so let's say that this case goes in our favor, what exactly does that mean for our side ?

I seriously doubt it will mean that California instantly becomes a shall issue state.
I would like to know also. Gene, Bill and the rest of the right people have been quiet for a while. That has forced me into OT and my IQ is dropping like a rock.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-26-2012, 8:09 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Okay, so let's say that this case goes in our favor, what exactly does that mean for our side ?

I seriously doubt it will mean that California instantly becomes a shall issue state.
This is a guess, but here's how I envision it'll go down:
  1. Some counties will go shall-issue immediately. I don't have a clue how many of them will do so, but most of them will be those that are nearly shall-issue already.
  2. We'll have to file additional suits against one or more of the smaller but more reluctant counties to force them to go shall-issue. How hard they fight will depend on their budget, which will determine their ability to fight.
  3. All of the counties that didn't go shall-issue already will refuse to go shall-issue until we win one or more of the lawsuits started in (2).
  4. The anti-gun strongholds (Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Clara, and San Francisco at a minimum, and possibly including Alameda and San Mateo), will staunchly refuse to go shall-issue regardless of where else we win. We will have to sue them individually and win directly.
  5. Once we win in (4), the anti-gun strongholds go shall-issue but will employ other tactics (that I will not mention here) to make the resulting licenses as useless as possible to those who aren't "special". The California legislature, now a Democrat supermajority, will pass laws that will aid those counties in their resistive efforts. We will have to fight all of those things separately, which will take lots of time and lots of money.
  6. Lather, rinse, repeat step (5) until the counties run out of ways to neuter the right. This will take many years, and quite possibly (greater than 50% chance, in my estimation) more than a decade. And, of course, any unappealable loss in any of the above stops us dead in our tracks.

A win in Richards is just the beginning. There will be a lot more needed before we have truly secured the right for the majority of people in California.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-26-2012, 8:48 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,107
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curley Red View Post
Reagan took away our right to loaded open carry also. Reagan was not that great of a person when it came to gun rights, something a lot of people seem to forget real easily.
Some people forget that Reagan started out a Progressive Democrat and an admitted socialist. And they forget that although he was finally a Republican when he became governor he was still evolving toward conservative positions and never completely outgrew his Progressive Democrat past. They also forget that the majority of Americans supported gun control during the 50s and 60s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
This is a guess, but here's how I envision it'll go down:
  1. Some counties will go shall-issue immediately. I don't have a clue how many of them will do so, but most of them will be those that are nearly shall-issue already.
  2. We'll have to file additional suits against one or more of the smaller but more reluctant counties to force them to go shall-issue. How hard they fight will depend on their budget, which will determine their ability to fight.
  3. All of the counties that didn't go shall-issue already will refuse to go shall-issue until we win one or more of the lawsuits started in (2).
  4. The anti-gun strongholds (Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Clara, and San Francisco at a minimum, and possibly including Alameda and San Mateo), will staunchly refuse to go shall-issue regardless of where else we win. We will have to sue them individually and win directly.
  5. Once we win in (4), the anti-gun strongholds go shall-issue but will employ other tactics (that I will not mention here) to make the resulting licenses as useless as possible to those who aren't "special". The California legislature, now a Democrat supermajority, will pass laws that will aid those counties in their resistive efforts. We will have to fight all of those things separately, which will take lots of time and lots of money.
  6. Lather, rinse, repeat step (5) until the counties run out of ways to neuter the right. This will take many years, and quite possibly (greater than 50% chance, in my estimation) more than a decade. And, of course, any unappealable loss in any of the above stops us dead in our tracks.

A win in Richards is just the beginning. There will be a lot more needed before we have truly secured the right for the majority of people in California.
Based on 2nd Amendment litigation history and the makeup of our mentally unbalanced political masters in Sacramento and the counties I strongly suspect that the 9th Circus will reject carry as a right and we'll have to appeal any decision to SCOTUS. But assuming we do win anything more than an empty victory at the 9th I think your projections are right on the money. A solid win in the 9th would bring shall issue to all but a handful of counties but that handful will fight to the end to keep from issuing or honoring LTCs. And I predict that the fun and games coming out of Chicago where they erect new barriers every time one is knocked down will come to California and 10 years of litigation is probably about right.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 11-26-2012 at 8:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-27-2012, 8:32 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,173
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Speaking personally, I just need a decision one way or the other. Thereafter, let the chips fall where they may.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-27-2012, 8:44 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Note that if SCOTUS takes Kachalsky, then we should expect to see these California carry cases stayed pending the SCOTUS decision. And if SCOTUS takes another carry case the following term, then the same thing will happen again. Lather, rinse, repeat, until we get a SCOTUS session in which no carry cases make it up to SCOTUS. Once we get a SCOTUS session with no carry cases, we'll finally get a decision on these cases, in which the 9th Circuit will rule against us anyway (i.e., regardless of what SCOTUS says in the decisions for which these cases were stayed). Then, and only then, will we be able to appeal these cases to SCOTUS and get final resolution (and that's assuming we don't get a bunch of en banc action to stall things even further).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-27-2012 at 9:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-27-2012, 6:30 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 691
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Is Gura doing oral arguments in this hearing or is it going to be Kilmer?
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-27-2012, 6:32 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Alan is arguing for Richards and Baker.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-27-2012, 8:23 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
What does it have to do with this case? We will lose this case at the 9th and our chance of winning will be at the SCOTUS.

If the gun fight is at the state level, not the federal level, we have lost.
We thought with Kachalsky that Judge Wesley would write a dissent, since he seemed during oral argument to be in agreement with the plaintiff-appellants. Instead, Judge Wesley was the one who wrote the decision. Perhaps he was doing us a favor taking over the writing & writing such a terrible decision as did Judge Easterbrook in the 7th during the McDonald case. We can't exactly ask Judge Wesley that question, as it would be highly inappropriate.

There have been situations where we had a really obvious win. First was the Ezell in it's first appeal, where Judge Sykes & Kanne were excoriating the City of Chicago's lawyer (Feldman), flat out calling their arguments fallacies & red herrings. Even the judge who concurred with the judgement (Rovner) but made her own decision on the matter told the City of Chicago's lawyer that they were going to have major problems.

The 9th Circuit, Judge O'Scannlain specifically, wrote a decision incorporating 2A using due process incorporation, but still ruled against the Nordykes.

There's simply no way to inside baseball the situation until the oral arguments, and even then it's a crapshoot.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-27-2012, 10:05 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,107
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Where i stand? Sooo, what proof do you have that any conservative judge will leave his job during the next 4 years?

Reversing Heller would not be as easy as you seem to think. The courts don't just flip flop like politicians do. Worst case is Heller gets bogged down. Thats only if one of the Heller 5 leave or die.
Fact: judges aren't any more immune from a debilitating stroke or fatal heart attack than the rest of us so based on the ages of the Heller 5 (Roberts 57, Scalia 76, Kennedy 76, Thomas 64, and Alito 62) and the average life expectancy for a white male of 76 years and the fact that only 49% white males make it to age 80 there is a 50:50 chance that we will lose one or more of the Heller 5 over the next 4 years. That's just the statistics.

As for ease of reversing Heller and ruling that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right I've already quoted the Progressive justices's repudiation of Heller and any individual right to RKBA in the McDonald dissent. All those 4 and a 5th Progressive to be named later have to do is apply that reasoning in a future case and any constitutional right to RKBA is gone. They've already told us in the McDonald dissent how they will rule once they have a majority.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 11-27-2012 at 10:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-27-2012, 11:23 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
No conservative judge will leave during this presidency. They are not going to give up all they have worked for. They have all basically said this. It would take a death to lose a Heller 5.
No, it doesn't take a death, just a condition sufficiently debilitating that it would prevent the justice in question from carrying out his duties.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Fact: judges aren't any more immune from a debilitating stroke or fatal heart attack than the rest of us so based on the ages of the Heller 5 (Roberts 57, Scalia 76, Kennedy 76, Thomas 64, and Alito 62) and the average life expectancy for a white male of 76 years and the fact that only 49% white males make it to age 80 there is a 50:50 chance that we will lose one or more of the Heller 5 over the next 4 years. That's just the statistics.
Yes, though one might conclude from your statement here that the 50% figure is due to the 49% figure alone. It's not.

Based on the statistics (in particular, the proper use of the "probability of dying between ages x to x+1" column in the relevant life tables -- that of black males for Thomas, white males for the rest -- found in http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_09.pdf), the chances of each member of the Heller 5 dying within the next 4 years are as follows:
  • Roberts (57): 4%
  • Scalia (76): 19%
  • Kennedy (76): 19%
  • Thomas (64): 11%
  • Alito (62): 6%


Taken together, that yields a 47% chance of one of them dying within the next 4 years.

The yearly probabilities that we'll lose at least one of the Heller 5 to death are:
  • 2013: 13%, cumulative 13%
  • 2014: 14%, cumulative 25%
  • 2015: 15%, cumulative 37%
  • 2016: 17%, cumulative 47%


Gotta show my work on the above: Attachment 181721


Now, that's death we're talking about in the above. The odds of a debilitating condition are not factored into it, but will, I'd wager, significantly increase the odds. It's why I believe the odds we'll lose one of the Heller 5 in the next 3 years remains at the 75% I estimated a couple of years ago.



Quote:
As for ease of reversing Heller and ruling that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right I've already quoted the Progressive justices's repudiation of Heller and any individual right to RKBA in the McDonald dissent. All those 4 and a 5th Progressive to be named later have to do is apply that reasoning in a future case and any constitutional right to RKBA is gone. They've already told us in the McDonald dissent how they will rule once they have a majority.
Precisely.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-30-2012 at 2:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-28-2012, 12:03 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't understand why we're even discussing worries about the Heller 5 being replaced at this point. There is absolutely nothing we can do about the situation. We have to proceed forward with our cases as quickly as possible. That is the extent of what we can do.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-28-2012, 12:38 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I don't understand why we're even discussing worries about the Heller 5 being replaced at this point. There is absolutely nothing we can do about the situation. We have to proceed forward with our cases as quickly as possible. That is the extent of what we can do.
Yes. The point is to emphasize the "need for speed". Every possible thing we can do to speed things along is what we should be doing. I get the (possibly false) impression we thought we had more time than this. "Chess" usually involves taking your time to set up your pieces in the right places and to react to the opposition's moves in such a way as to close off as many effective avenues of attack on their part as possible. While there may be a clock governing how long you can think about your moves, there's no clock on the execution.

That's not the case here anymore. Now, suddenly, time is very much against us -- it's another avenue of attack the opposition can wield against us that probably didn't matter before. Now it suddenly matters a great deal.

This has big strategic implications. It means we may need to move before we otherwise would, and possibly before we otherwise should. It means we will almost certainly have to take risks that would otherwise seem imprudent.

Because I'm not privy to the actual strategy, I can't say how much of the above is actually applicable, but if we're not already full speed ahead in every respect, then we'd better get that way, and quick.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-28-2012, 5:55 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Its back!!! Happy E? Now to the discussion at hand.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-28-2012, 5:59 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Yes. The point is to emphasize the "need for speed". Every possible thing we can do to speed things along is what we should be doing. I get the (possibly false) impression we thought we had more time than this. "Chess" usually involves taking your time to set up your pieces in the right places and to react to the opposition's moves in such a way as to close off as many effective avenues of attack on their part as possible. While there may be a clock governing how long you can think about your moves, there's no clock on the execution.

That's not the case here anymore. Now, suddenly, time is very much against us -- it's another avenue of attack the opposition can wield against us that probably didn't matter before. Now it suddenly matters a great deal.

This has big strategic implications. It means we may need to move before we otherwise would, and possibly before we otherwise should. It means we will almost certainly have to take risks that would otherwise seem imprudent.

Because I'm not privy to the actual strategy, I can't say how much of the above is actually applicable, but if we're not already full speed ahead in every respect, then we'd better get that way, and quick.
You would be incorrect if the folks who deal with the legal stuff, at least on the SAF/CGF side, thought we had more time. This is why there were numerous carry cases filed in every possible circuit. Not every court can stop like what happened to the Palmer case.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-28-2012, 6:09 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Based on 2nd Amendment litigation history and the makeup of our mentally unbalanced political masters in Sacramento and the counties I strongly suspect that the 9th Circus will reject carry as a right and we'll have to appeal any decision to SCOTUS. But assuming we do win anything more than an empty victory at the 9th I think your projections are right on the money. A solid win in the 9th would bring shall issue to all but a handful of counties but that handful will fight to the end to keep from issuing or honoring LTCs. And I predict that the fun and games coming out of Chicago where they erect new barriers every time one is knocked down will come to California and 10 years of litigation is probably about right.


I think 10 years is wildly optimistic. Why should they ever quit trying?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-28-2012, 6:19 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

This thread was deleted (temporarily), cleaned up and resurrected to reflect its relevance. Is it possible to keep things that way here? What Taperxz said above (and I will be happy when the partisan bickering ends).

Thanks.

NOW...

Judge Callahan sat on the Bench in CTIA the Wireless Association v. City & county of S.F., which involves a First Amendment claim in which there is "forced speech".

Could the heightened cause requirement be considered "forced speech" if this court rules in CTIA the Wireless that requiring waring labels on products that are protected by the First Amendment is a violation? This case also sounds like Anderson v. Hermosa Beach, does it not?

**EDIT**

Is it normal for a Counsel to say before a Court that 50 amicus briefs are not anything to rely on? It happens somewhere in the argument of the below case. (Edit again): I believe that the amicus briefs they talk about are in favor of the Government.



Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 11-28-2012 at 6:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-28-2012, 6:31 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,797
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Not every court can stop like what happened to the Palmer case.
Really?

Why not?

What makes those courts any different from the Palmer court?

Yes, I know that certain circuits have certain rules governing the amount of time allowed before issuing an opinion and such. Such rules are toothless. No judge has ever lost his job over violating such rules, right?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-28-2012 at 6:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-28-2012, 6:47 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

I'm looking into the near future and see kcbrown's ToE really coming together... :P

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-28-2012, 7:13 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Alan is arguing for Richards and Baker.
Alan will only be arguing for Richards/SAF/CGF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
You would be incorrect if the folks who deal with the legal stuff, at least on the SAF/CGF side, thought we had more time. This is why there were numerous carry cases filed in every possible circuit. Not every court can stop like what happened to the Palmer case.
Time is of the essence. The average age of retirement or death of a SCOTUS justice is quite high. That said, in regards to this argument, we've always known that we'd have to have SCOTUS be the court of first impression. What we'd hoped is that we'd have had a dissent in Kachalsky.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-28-2012, 7:15 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Alan will only be arguing for Richards/SAF/CGF.
Interesting, new (to me) development).

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-28-2012, 7:19 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Really?

Why not?

What makes those courts any different from the Palmer court?

Yes, I know that certain circuits have certain rules governing the amount of time allowed before issuing an opinion and such. Such rules are toothless. No judge has ever lost his job over violating such rules, right?
The only way a judge loses his job is by resignation or impeachment. What can happen is that the Chief Judge may assign himself to the panel and replace the writer of the panel who's refusing to write the opinion. There's numerous internal circuit operating procedures that have been done for exactly this situation. Certain district courts, including the Central District of California, have strict time limitations to make rulings.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:54 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.