Nordyke - Cert filed at SCOTUS - Page 3

KyJim · April 7, 2012, 06:51 PM

I don't have a lot of experience in mediation because of the nature of what I do. I can very well believe a court would not look kindly on someone refusing to mediate. The fact this is an appellate court involving substantial questions of constitutional law would problem lessen any "hostility" but I think it would be a bad idea not to at least go through the motions.

maestro pistolero · June 1, 2012, 01:24 PM

Decision
I think even the county will be so glad to have this behind them that piling on of new, unusual restrictions is unlikely, until they get their bill!

Each justice characterized the 11th hour consessions as broad, sweeping, etc.

Quote:

The County now avers that a gun show is an event within the meaning of the exception . . . . We hold the county to it's interpretation of the ordinance, . . .

Quote:

Twelve years into this appeal, the County now represents that its ordinance presents no barrier to conducting gun shows. Contrary to its previous assertions, the County now concedes . . .etc, etc,

Quote:

The County's sweeping concession - made at oral argument before the en banc court - change the game and make this a far different case from the one argued before the three judge panel.

Quote:

In light of the breadth of the County's concessions at oral argument, I am satisfied that the ordinance, as applied to Plaintiff's gun shows and as now interpreted by the County, survives this [undue burden] standard

Looks to me like Don's going to get paid. May it cause an undue burden on the county coffers.

CowTowner · June 1, 2012, 05:48 PM

Awesome! Now what I think is needed is those cases waiting on this decision need to be moved forward. Time for the chock blocks to be pulled and let them roll further down the runway.

maestro pistolero · June 1, 2012, 05:59 PM

It will be interesting to see if the county attempts to enforce the ammo ban. Ammo sales are the bread and butter of gun show sales, and part and parcel of the right itself.

If there is an ammo ban, I believe it puts a 2A claim back on the table. If I were the county, I would just acquiesce and be done with it. But this is Alameda, so who knows.

The exemption for events does not include ammo, only secured firearms.

**Aguila Blanca** · June 1, 2012, 07:42 PM

That's an interesting judgment. Thanks in no small part to the County's almost complete reversal of position, the judgment essentially boils down to "There's no more argument here so let's all go home."

I wonder if the decision is going to provide any guidance whatsoever for other cases being held in abeyance for this one, since it's unlikely the other cases can be counted upon to be resolved by the defendants reversing their positions.

Al Norris · June 1, 2012, 08:12 PM

Nordyke was essentially mooted by the defendant Alameda County at orals. In other words, they caved and gave up.

Because of this reversal of position by the County, there was no case or controversy. No case, no controversy, no decision, no precedent.

This case neither helps nor hinders any of the other cases at the 9th Circuit.

What remains to be seen is if Don Kilmer can recoup any fees for the last 12 years of litigation.

maestro pistolero · June 12, 2012, 03:02 PM

The Energize Bunny of gun cases is possibly not over yet! 'Krucam' at MDSHOOTERS posted the following recently filed briefs here, and here.

Don Kilmer, not surprisingly, feels there are unresolved issue of major import.

CowTowner · June 12, 2012, 07:44 PM

Too bad I can't read the briefs without joining the forum.
Such is life in cyberspace.

Al Norris · June 12, 2012, 08:27 PM

So... Read them here.

CowTowner · June 13, 2012, 09:40 AM

Many thanks, Al.

Al Norris · October 15, 2012, 07:36 PM

It was never reported, but Don Kilmer lost his bid to recoup his costs. He then filed for certiorari for prevailing party status. Here is the docket, currently at SCOTUS:

Quote:

No. 12-275
Title:
Russell Nordyke, et al., Petitioners
v.
Mary V. King, et al.
Docketed: September 4, 2012
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (07-15763)
Decision Date: June 1, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 30 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 4, 2012)
Sep 12 2012 Waiver of right of respondents Mary V. King, et al. to respond filed.
Sep 26 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 12, 2012.
Oct 10 2012 Response Requested . (Due November 9, 2012)

The Nordykes are contesting the "prevailing party" decision. At stake is over ten years of fees for attorney Donald Kilmer.

Al Norris · October 16, 2012, 04:34 PM

Here is the 7 page Petition for Certiorari:

Al Norris · January 7, 2013, 02:32 PM

Today, Jan 7th, 2013, the SCOTUS denied cert. Don Kilmer will not get paid.

KyJim · January 7, 2013, 07:26 PM

Disappointing but maybe it just wasn't "clean enough."

June 1, 2012, 05:48 PM	#53
CowTowner Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: Cowtown of course! Posts: 1,747	Awesome! Now what I think is needed is those cases waiting on this decision need to be moved forward. Time for the chock blocks to be pulled and let them roll further down the runway. __________________ NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor *“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......”* President John F. Kennedy

June 12, 2012, 03:02 PM	#57
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	It's BAAAAAAACKKK!!!!!! The Energize Bunny of gun cases is possibly not over yet! 'Krucam' at MDSHOOTERS posted the following recently filed briefs here, and here. Don Kilmer, not surprisingly, feels there are unresolved issue of major import.

June 12, 2012, 07:44 PM	#58
CowTowner Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: Cowtown of course! Posts: 1,747	Too bad I can't read the briefs without joining the forum. Such is life in cyberspace. __________________ NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor *“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......”* President John F. Kennedy

June 13, 2012, 09:40 AM	#60
CowTowner Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: Cowtown of course! Posts: 1,747	Many thanks, Al. __________________ NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor *“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......”* President John F. Kennedy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

April 7, 2012, 06:51 PM	#51
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	I don't have a lot of experience in mediation because of the nature of what I do. I can very well believe a court would not look kindly on someone refusing to mediate. The fact this is an appellate court involving substantial questions of constitutional law would problem lessen any "hostility" but I think it would be a bad idea not to at least go through the motions.

June 1, 2012, 05:59 PM	#54
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	It will be interesting to see if the county attempts to enforce the ammo ban. Ammo sales are the bread and butter of gun show sales, and part and parcel of the right itself. If there is an ammo ban, I believe it puts a 2A claim back on the table. If I were the county, I would just acquiesce and be done with it. But this is Alameda, so who knows. The exemption for events does not include ammo, only secured firearms.

June 1, 2012, 07:42 PM	#55
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	That's an interesting judgment. Thanks in no small part to the County's almost complete reversal of position, the judgment essentially boils down to "There's no more argument here so let's all go home." I wonder if the decision is going to provide any guidance whatsoever for other cases being held in abeyance for this one, since it's unlikely the other cases can be counted upon to be resolved by the defendants reversing their positions.

June 1, 2012, 08:12 PM	#56
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Nordyke was essentially mooted by the defendant Alameda County at orals. In other words, they caved and gave up. Because of this reversal of position by the County, there was no case or controversy. No case, no controversy, no decision, no precedent. This case neither helps nor hinders any of the other cases at the 9th Circuit. What remains to be seen is if Don Kilmer can recoup any fees for the last 12 years of litigation.

January 7, 2013, 02:32 PM	#63
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	Today, Jan 7th, 2013, the SCOTUS denied cert. Don Kilmer will not get paid.

January 7, 2013, 07:26 PM	#64
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	Disappointing but maybe it just wasn't "clean enough."