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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1081  
Old 02-28-2019, 12:24 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 678
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
It does if you don't like the result and can punt another year or so.
Yeah, we are talking about different kinds of "sense"...
Reply With Quote
  #1082  
Old 02-28-2019, 3:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Yeah, we are talking about different kinds of "sense"...
Bingo. Vacating the panel opinion means that the prior status quo returns until...until....sometime. The longer that is the better. But ti also suggest that the SCOTUS will clarify/specify the standard of review that applies in these cases, and that the Ninth's (obvious) sliding scale intermediate scrutiny is facing the dustbin of history. At least one would hope so.
Reply With Quote
  #1083  
Old 04-12-2019, 11:37 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.scribd.com/document/4061...8j-Re-NYC-Case

we filed this today
__________________
We are twice armed if we fight with faith.

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1084  
Old 04-13-2019, 12:08 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 678
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Fother muckers.
Reply With Quote
  #1085  
Old 04-13-2019, 7:06 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The liberal progressives of NY will stop at nothing to prevent the new conservative majority on SCOTUS from establishing new dicta on the 2nd amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #1086  
Old 04-13-2019, 8:58 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,723
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Sounds like you're pretty confident that the new NY rulemaking activity will indeed moot the SCOTUS case
Reply With Quote
  #1087  
Old 04-13-2019, 9:32 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Waste of paper. The Ninth is not going to act based on filings or requests in the Supreme Court. And its certainly not going to act because of a change in New York City law. It will act when SCOTUS disposes of the case, one way or another.
Reply With Quote
  #1088  
Old 04-13-2019, 9:49 AM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In my opinion, rather than banging your head against the wall with these repeated quixotic requests to the Ninth Circuit, you’d be better served filling a petition for cert before judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2101(e).

While you’d only have slightly better than a snowball’s chance in hell, that chance is still more than you have convincing the Ninth to move forward on this case. A recitation of the CA9’s repeated abuse of the en banc process in Second Amendment cases along with the clear intentional delay here is likely to find a sympathetic ear with at least a couple of the Justices.

And there’s a legitimate case to be made that this case should be heard as a companion to NYSRPA, and potentially Grewal and Mance if granted.
Reply With Quote
  #1089  
Old 04-14-2019, 2:07 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
In my opinion, rather than banging your head against the wall with these repeated quixotic requests to the Ninth Circuit, you’d be better served filling a petition for cert before judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2101(e).

While you’d only have slightly better than a snowball’s chance in hell, that chance is still more than you have convincing the Ninth to move forward on this case. A recitation of the CA9’s repeated abuse of the en banc process in Second Amendment cases along with the clear intentional delay here is likely to find a sympathetic ear with at least a couple of the Justices.

And there’s a legitimate case to be made that this case should be heard as a companion to NYSRPA, and potentially Grewal and Mance if granted.
editing this out
__________________
We are twice armed if we fight with faith.

― Plato

Last edited by wolfwood; 04-15-2019 at 2:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1090  
Old 04-14-2019, 4:11 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I don't see that as a good use of money. Chuck Michel and he says that you need to have 7-10 thousand budgeted just for the printing costs at the Supreme Court


I am happy to pay for it but as a solo practitioner I have to be frugal.
That is why I win so many of my 1983 cases. I have to win just to keep going.
7-10k for printing costs to file cert, or if cert is granted, then 7-10k in printing costs?

I ask because if cert were to be granted, you might ask some organizations with deeper pockets to participate at that time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1091  
Old 04-15-2019, 11:06 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
7-10k for printing costs to file cert, or if cert is granted, then 7-10k in printing costs?

I ask because if cert were to be granted, you might ask some organizations with deeper pockets to participate at that time.
I have been told that briefs in the Supreme Court are literally "published" with a printer binding them into a hard cover book. And of course there haws to be a copy for each justice, and a bunch more for everyone else. No e-filing, nothing simple. Yeah, that costs a bunch.
Reply With Quote
  #1092  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:27 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 614
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Sounds like you're pretty confident that the new NY rulemaking activity will indeed moot the SCOTUS case
If I were the plaintiff/plaintiff's atty in NYSRPA, I would think about maybe filing something with SCOTUS reminding them that even if NYC changes it's law, the case is not mooted because the issue could re-arise in other districts/states absent a clarification from SCOTUS on whether bearing arms is within the core scope of the 2A.

Perhaps the attys for other parties in other cases should be conferencing with NYSRPA on this...?
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #1093  
Old 04-15-2019, 12:50 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I have been told that briefs in the Supreme Court are literally "published" with a printer binding them into a hard cover book. And of course there haws to be a copy for each justice, and a bunch more for everyone else. No e-filing, nothing simple. Yeah, that costs a bunch.
Yes. There are about 10-12 printers that specialize in appellate briefing including preparing Petitions for Cert and Supreme Court merits briefing.

The preparation of a cert petition can easily be done for around $1,000 (that includes the 40 copies for the Court and a few others). One needs to be judicious about the length of the brief and appendix, and shop around and not just be set on Wilson-Epes or Cockle because that's who the big firms use. And if the attorney really wants to save money, he puts in the work to submit a camera-ready brief already formatted in compliance with Supreme Court rules, so that all the printer needs to do is print and bind. Most printers will also be willing to give a discount to a solo practitioner, at least on the first go-round.

In sum, price should not be the determinative factor with respect to whether a cert petition is filed. If it is, it's probably not a serious petition in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #1094  
Old 04-15-2019, 1:09 PM
LVSox LVSox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I don't see that as a good use of money. Chuck Michel and he says that you need to have 7-10 thousand budgeted just for the printing costs at the Supreme Court


I am happy to pay for it but as a solo practitioner I have to be frugal.
That is why I win so many of my 1983 cases. I have to win just to keep going.
One other thing I feel compelled to say is that if finances are driving your decisions at this stage in the litigation, you need to consider whether your representation (at least in a lead counsel context) is in the best interests of your client. Especially now that this case has been taken en banc, I am very confident you'd have little trouble getting a large law firm to co-counsel with you on a pro bono basis. That means you wouldn't have to worry about money. Period. A team of legal assistants will do multiple rounds of proofreading of each filing, bluebooking, and checking for compliance with the applicable rules. Printing will just get done, without the blink of an eye. Etc. Etc.

But of course this also means you'd likely have to permit the lead attorney from Kirkland/Jones Day/Gibson/etc. to argue the case. So the question becomes one of whether you're in this for ego, or the result for your client.
Reply With Quote
  #1095  
Old 04-15-2019, 1:51 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
One other thing I feel compelled to say is that if finances are driving your decisions at this stage in the litigation, you need to consider whether your representation (at least in a lead counsel context) is in the best interests of your client. Especially now that this case has been taken en banc, I am very confident you'd have little trouble getting a large law firm to co-counsel with you on a pro bono basis. That means you wouldn't have to worry about money. Period. A team of legal assistants will do multiple rounds of proofreading of each filing, bluebooking, and checking for compliance with the applicable rules. Printing will just get done, without the blink of an eye. Etc. Etc.

But of course this also means you'd likely have to permit the lead attorney from Kirkland/Jones Day/Gibson/etc. to argue the case. So the question becomes one of whether you're in this for ego, or the result for your client.
I responded to this and then realized it is a horrible idea to be discussing this online. Feel free to send me a PM if you want to continue this conversation. Have a good day Sir.
__________________
We are twice armed if we fight with faith.

― Plato

Last edited by wolfwood; 04-15-2019 at 2:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1096  
Old 04-15-2019, 2:43 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,302
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I responded to this and then realized it is a horrible idea to be discussing this online. Feel free to send me a PM if you want to continue this conversation. Have a good day Sir.

Prudent move Wolfie. One thing for non participants to discuss hypotheticals on open forum.

Different ball game when litigants go into strategic details.
Reply With Quote
  #1097  
Old 05-20-2019, 6:46 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,420
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's a link to a CA9 page devoted to all cases granted en banc review:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/

Note well how it does NOT list the judges selected to serve on the Young en banc panel.

Quote:

Young v. State of Hawaii, No. 12-17808

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 896 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2018)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 915 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2019)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc: February 8, 2019

Status: Stayed pending the issuance of an opinion by the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 18-280

Members of En Banc Court: Not yet available

Subject Matter: Appeal from the district court's dismissal of plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that the County of Hawaii's denial of his application for a handgun license violated his Second Amendment right to carry a loaded firearm in public for self-defense.

Holding: Not yet decided
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-22-2019 at 11:38 PM..
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 4:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.