Young v. Hawaii (CA9); en banc *STAYED* 2-14-19

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by ritter

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"...

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Offwidth

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.

[wolfwood]

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

we filed this today

[Offwidth]

Fother muckers.

[dawgcasa]

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.

[cockedandglocked]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

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

we filed this today

Sounds like you're pretty confident that the new NY rulemaking activity will indeed moot the SCOTUS case

[LVSox]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

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

we filed this today

Waste of paper. The Ninth is not going to act based on filings or requests in the Supreme Court. And it’s 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.

[LVSox]

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.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by LVSox

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

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

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.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

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.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

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...?

[LVSox]

Originally Posted by TruOil

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.

[LVSox]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

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.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by LVSox

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.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

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.

[Paladin]

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.

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