The Three Judge Panel in Richards v. Prieto is set

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

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.

And if the Chief Judge happens to be against our position and thus implicitly approves of the delaying tactics, or at the very least doesn't care about such tactics enough to take action?

Again, how exactly does this make these courts any different from the one hearing Palmer? Note that in Palmer, the judge hearing the case has already been replaced once, and yet it continues to experience interminable delays. This, despite the fact that it's Justice Roberts (on the Supreme Court itself, and one of the Heller 5) that's overseeing the process.

[1JimMarch]

We're missing something major here.

This panel cannot approve California's shall-issue system without also addressing cases where carry is completely banned - because Hawaii is in the mix and as a practical matter they're in exactly the same situation as Illinois.

What I mean is, the Kachalsky panel had the option of saying that may-issue satisfied a basic "carry right". It's horsecrap of course but they went there.

This panel can't go there in lockstep with Kachalsky.

They not only have Hawaii to contend with, there's also a few California counties that are zero-issue by local policy too.

Where Hawaii is concerned, they only have two choices: support some kind of "carry right" OR try and write "bear arms" completely out of the 2nd.

I think this will influence the California-related decision.

If the California state defendant wins (based on Kachalsky-type "logic") but Hawaii loses ("hey, there has to be SOME carry right!") then it would have an immediate effect on myself (living in AZ full-time since 2008) and Gray (based in WA state since forever). We have no carry rights in California whatsoever - we're barred from CCW access. If this panel were to support SOME kind of carry right for Hawaii Gray and I would immediately win - the total ban on our carry in Cali would become unsupportable.

[Gray Peterson]

Jim,

Hawaii is a may-issue statute. Practical & actual are two completely different things.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by 1JimMarch

We're missing something major here.

This panel cannot approve California's shall-issue system without also addressing cases where carry is completely banned - because Hawaii is in the mix and as a practical matter they're in exactly the same situation as Illinois.

What I mean is, the Kachalsky panel had the option of saying that may-issue satisfied a basic "carry right". It's horsecrap of course but they went there.

This panel can't go there in lockstep with Kachalsky.

They not only have Hawaii to contend with, there's also a few California counties that are zero-issue by local policy too.

Where Hawaii is concerned, they only have two choices: support some kind of "carry right" OR try and write "bear arms" completely out of the 2nd.

Even though Gray is right and these states are essentially the same in law, you should nevertheless not underestimate the 9th Circuit's ability to craft language which claims to support some kind of carry "right" while in actuality writing "bear arms" entirely out of the 2nd Amendment (at least in the public context).

[Funtimes]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

Jim,

Hawaii is a may-issue statute. Practical & actual are two completely different things.

Yeah but we have admissions that no permits have ever been issued. We also differ in that there is not a disagreement on the policy, but the fact that no policy exists.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Funtimes

Yeah but we have admissions that no permits have ever been issued. We also differ in that there is not a disagreement on the policy, but the fact that no policy exists.

It doesn't matter. There will be no split between Baker and Richards because the statute clearly gives the chief the authority to issue the licenses. That makes it not similar to DC & IL, and this panel, given it's makeup, will see that it's a California-style may-issue statute.

[Funtimes]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

It doesn't matter. There will be no split between Baker and Richards because the statute clearly gives the chief the authority to issue the licenses. That makes it not similar to DC & IL, and this panel, given it's makeup, will see that it's a California-style may-issue statute.

I'm referring to the differences in the NY case. Apparently, since they had a 'policy', they didn't buy the prior restraint argument. I also don't disagree that we will all rise or sink together. One screw - one crew as we would say on a submarine.

[Window_Seat]

On Monday, Alan Gura filed a 28(j) Letter discussing the decision in Hightower and how that court “[did] not reach the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment as to carrying firearms outside the vicinity of the home without any reference to protection of the home.” (Citing Slip Op. at 22 n.8.1) (Gura, 2012).

Yesterday, the Counsel in Peruta submitted a 28(j) Letter discussing Kachalsky, (2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24363 (2nd Cir. 11/27/12) affirmed).

Today, the Court issued an order advising the parties that they should be prepared to explain the significance of the State of CA not showing up at the appeal. 28 USC § 2403 and Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1 tells me (and please correct me otherwise) that this is the Court's way of pinging the AGs office in the event of an en banc order, is it not?

Erik.

[Gray Peterson]

Dupe

[Gray Peterson]

If you look at the Baker docket, you'll see this being discussed:

http://1.USA.gov/QPPgmz

[NoJoke]

Originally Posted by Window_Seat

On Monday, Alan Gura filed a 28(j) Letter discussing the decision in Hightower and how that court “[did] not reach the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment as to carrying firearms outside the vicinity of the home without any reference to protection of the home.” (Citing Slip Op. at 22 n.8.1) (Gura, 2012).

Yesterday, the Counsel in Peruta submitted a 28(j) Letter discussing Kachalsky, (2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24363 (2nd Cir. 11/27/12) affirmed).

Today, the Court issued an order advising the parties that they should be prepared to explain the significance of the State of CA not showing up at the appeal. 28 USC § 2403 and Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1 tells me (and please correct me otherwise) that this is the Court's way of pinging the AGs office in the event of an en banc order, is it not?

Erik.

Like:
One does not need to be an expert in American history
to understand the fault inherent in a gun-permitting system that would allow
a licensing body carte blanche authority to decide who is worthy of carrying
a concealed weapon. The constitutional right to bear arms would be
illusory...

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by Funtimes

I'm referring to the differences in the NY case. Apparently, since they had a 'policy', they didn't buy the prior restraint argument. I also don't disagree that we will all rise or sink together. One screw - one crew as we would say on a submarine.

this is what Funtimes is referring to. I could not join in due to ethical reasons before.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114988449/...ity-New-York-2