The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 24, 2009, 03:17 PM   #1
freonr22
Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2008
Posts: 54
Gunshows Nordyke Audio case heard today!!

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi..._id=0000003933

Here is the audio from California Nordyke case just the oral arguments to start regarding gunshows, that may very well have National implications.

the county gets pounded!!!
freonr22 is offline  
Old September 24, 2009, 09:07 PM   #2
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
The court vacated the order applying the 2nd Amendment to the states and will let the SCOTUS decide - if they choose to. For now no incorporation.
"Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI): Submission is vacated pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Maloney v. Rice, No. 08-1592, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, and National Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1497. [7074146] (AF)"
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old September 24, 2009, 11:02 PM   #3
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,316
Gene Hoffman has the official order on his site. Download it here.

Just looked at the SCOTUS website, and all three (Maloney; NRA and McDonald) are now scheduled for conference next Tues. the 29th.

Let me see if I can put some kind of perspective on what just happened today.

We've had the en banc orals in Nordyke. There seemed, to me, to be 2 questions the 9th circuit was wanting more information on. First, the incorporation issue itself. Second, the issue of just what is a "sensitive" place. At least, that's what I get out of hearing the questions put to both sides at orals.

That kinda brings up another aspect. Normally, the audio of the orals are put up by noon the next day. Here however, the audio was up within a matter of minutes. Not in and of itself unusual, but odd, nonetheless.

Now just at days end, the case submission has been vacated and the 9th circuit is waiting on the what the Supreme Court does (if anything) with the three current Incorporation cases.

After weighing as many different scenarios as I can think of, my best guess is that the 9th Circuit is subtly asking the Supreme Court to grant cert.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 24, 2009, 11:30 PM   #4
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
Subtle request? It's about as subtle as:

__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old September 24, 2009, 11:34 PM   #5
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,316
Jim, you know that I tend to be conservative, yes?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 24, 2009, 11:38 PM   #6
Yellowfin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: West Upstate NY
Posts: 2,303
Jim, how did you manage to get a picture of my wife's reaction to me undercooking the broccoli tonight???
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org
New York gun owners unite! Join now! http://www.nyshooters.net
May Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Yellowfin is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 12:30 AM   #7
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
I think the two most striking things about today's events were 1) an appeals court justice demanding to know plaintiff's long term goal. The way he asked that question signaled that he would rule based strictly on his personal politics. Basically he was highly offended that his someone might want to restore the right to keep and bear arms. 2) the rapidity with which the court posted their decision is a clear signal that the decision was made well before they heard any oral arguments, and I suspect well before any of the filings. Today was nothing but a show trial to give some fig leaf of legitimacy to predetermined outcome.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 10:12 AM   #8
freonr22
Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2008
Posts: 54
"(09-24) 14:43 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A divided federal appeals court wrestled Thursday with potentially the most important gun case in its history, a dispute over a firearms ban at the Alameda County Fairgrounds that has expanded into a constitutional battle over state and local authority to regulate gun possession.
"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BA0119S7I5.DTL

So far, only the Chronicle has covered this story in the Bay Area.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Short silver-lining analysis from David Hardy: http://armsandthelaw.com/

UPDATE: by held onto I mean the Circuit will take no action, leaving it in a sort of limbo. It won't send it back to the lower court for action, nor give a final decision, which would mean it could move on to the Supreme Court. Judges do not like to be reversed , and here the exact issue is going before the Supreme Court, why take a position that might get crosswise with their ruling? If the Supreme Court grants review, the Circuit will hold onto it until the Supreme Court rules. If the Supreme Court denies review of the earlier Chicago cases, the 9th Circuit will proceed to rule.



This is nice in a way since it gives two shots at Supreme Court review, and IF the Chicago cases were refused, and the 9th then ruled for incorporation of the right to arms, there would be a second shot at Supreme Court consideration, now with a split among the circuits,


Posts above not mine, reposted for your enjoyment
freonr22 is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 01:17 PM   #9
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
My guess is that the 9th reverses its previous ruling. The 9th isn't the least bit afraid of being reversed by SCOTUS - it is the most frequently overruled appellate court in all the land, so that wouldn't be a consideration in its eventual action (or inaction).

But...the 9th is a circuit of ideologues, and the fact that it even took the case en banc implies to me a predisposition to reverse itself. Further, reversing itself then has the effect of eliminating an important motivation for the SCOTUS to rule upon incorporation, since there would then be no discrepancy between appeals court rulings in different circuits.

I'd be astonished if the 9th allowed Nordyke to stand.
csmsss is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 04:00 PM   #10
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 516
Quote:
My guess is that the 9th reverses its previous ruling. The 9th isn't the least bit afraid of being reversed by SCOTUS - it is the most frequently overruled appellate court in all the land, so that wouldn't be a consideration in its eventual action (or inaction).

But...the 9th is a circuit of ideologues, and the fact that it even took the case en banc implies to me a predisposition to reverse itself. Further, reversing itself then has the effect of eliminating an important motivation for the SCOTUS to rule upon incorporation, since there would then be no discrepancy between appeals court rulings in different circuits.

I'd be astonished if the 9th allowed Nordyke to stand.
It seems to me they have only decided to wait and see what SCOTUS does. That seems like a wise choice. No reason to spend a lot of time screwing around deciding something if SCOTUS is going to do so.

If SCOTUS refuses to take up the issue, the 9th wlll.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.
ilbob is offline  
Old September 25, 2009, 06:53 PM   #11
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,322
Interesting:

Quote:
At the en banc arguments, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, who wrote the panel opinion, brought up California Attorney General Jerry Brown. Brown filed a brief in the 7th Circuit case, taking the side of the National Rifle Association.

"Do you disagree with your own state attorney general?" he asked a lawyer representing the county.

"Yes. Yes I do," replied Sayre Weaver of Richards, Watson & Gershon.

"I won't tell him when I see him," quipped Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, breaking up the courtroom. To which Weaver turned and gestured toward the galleries packed with spectators and press: "I have a feeling he'll find out somehow."
I don't think this is what Brown had in mind when he wrote the brief, but it does set up an interesting conflict.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 12:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09008 seconds with 9 queries