The Firing Line Forums

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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 26, 2012, 04:49 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
Baker/Richards/Peruta panel is announced


O'Scannlain (Reagan Nominee)
Thomas (Clinton Nominee)
Callahan (Bush 43 Nominee)

For those that don't know Conseulo Callahan, read this clip from the NRA's website:

Last fall, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based court reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the firearm industry that had been previously tossed out by a Los Angeles federal judge before it went to trial. The suit, Ileto v. Glock, seeks to blame Glock and others for the horrendous criminal actions of deranged white supremacist Buford Furrow. In 1999, Furrow shot and killed postal worker Joseph Ileto, and wounded three children at a Jewish Community Center in Grenada Hills, California, after illegally acquiring firearms. What is not often reported is that, while a Glock pistol was used in Furrow`s heinous crime, the gun was originally sold to a police department, which subsequently sold it to a licensed dealer, who in turn sold it to a collector, who finally sold it to Furrow. Glock is being targeted but did nothing illegal.

Following last fall`s decision, Glock asked that the full court reconsider the ruling. Last week, the full court voted to allow the suit to proceed. Significantly, eight of the judges dissented. In writing the dissent, Judge Consuelo Callahan said, "The potential impact of the panel`s decision is staggering. Any manufacturer of an arguably dangerous product that finds its way into California can be hauled into court in California to defend against a civil action brought by a victim of the criminal use of that product." Drawing an obvious conclusion, Judge Callahan went on to say, "Thus, General Motors would be sued by someone who was hit by a Corvette that had been stolen by a juvenile."

O'Scannlain is the same from the various Nordyke cases, and supported incorporation of the 2A to help set up a circuit split to get McDonald to SCOTUS. Considering the makeup of the 9th Circuit, our draw for the panel was about as good as it could be.
press1280 is offline  
Old November 26, 2012, 08:44 PM   #2
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,550
Thanks press1280. This was overlooked by krucam and myself.

This is going to be an interesting set of orals, folks. The three cases mentioned above, while separate cases, and will be heard separately, they will all be heard by the same panel on the same day.

The CA9 makes audio of the orals available for free and usually on the same day. So it's going to be interesting to here how different the attorneys argue and how the panel questions the attorneys.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 27, 2012, 09:42 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 348
Press, you are like WAAAY out of date. The decision to which you refer was in 2004, and ultimately, in 2009, the Court held that actions against federally licensed manufacturers were pre-empted by the PLCAA. Glock and the federally licensed retailer were dismissed. The only claims that survived were asserted against China North, who was not a federally licensed firearms manufacturer. See 565 F.3d 1126.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old November 27, 2012, 09:49 PM   #4
Tom Servo
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,158
Press1280 is referring to a current case (3, actually). The mention of the older Glock lawsuit was to show which way Callahan might lean in the current case.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 29, 2012, 12:29 AM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 348
I know what he was refering to, and he said "last fall the 9th Circuit reinstated a wrongful death action...." and further suggested that further action occurred last week. If he was refering to Ileto--which is what he said he was referring to--the decisions he is refering to occurred eight years ago. I just wanted to make that clear. Further, the potential impact to which she referred was eliminated by a federal law that immunized gun manufacturers, thus ending a spate of cases that sought to hold manufacturers liable for deaths caused by guns they manufactured--which of course would have been a sure fire way to put them all out of business. Mnufacturers are still liable for injuries resulting from defective guns.

OSacnlain is a good judicial conservative. He is good for our side. I don't know anything about Thomas. The real issue is, suddenly, Kachalsky, which although supposedly applying heightened scrutiny to CCW laws, found that public safety can trump the ability of the average citizen to bear arms in public, absent a showing of "good cause," the very issue these cases raise. Hopefully this court will not be fooled by the slight of hand the 2d engaged in by ignoring the fact that open carry--as it is now in California--is banned, and therefore only police, criminals, and special people designated in the essentially unappealable discretion of a public official are permitted to carry outside the home. IThat coourt concluded, in essence, that as long as there is some way--no matter how unobtainable--to gain a CCW, the ban of carrying in any other manner passes judicial scrutiny as not unduly infringing on the right. The semantic repurcutions of this conclusion--as .melifluously as the court's opinion states them--are incomprehensible. By focusing on the tree (CCW and proper cause) the court ignored the forest (no way to lawfully carry arms in self defense.) I can't see O'Scannlain going that route, but it will be argued
62coltnavy is offline  
Old November 29, 2012, 01:26 AM   #6
Jim March
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,413
We're forgetting about Hawaii, aren't we? The panel will also be confronting that situation where carry is just as completely banned (in practice if not in law) as in Illinois!

So, let's say the court says "there has to be SOME carry" (overturning Hawaii's practices) but supporting shall-issue as most or all California counties do it in line with Kachalski.

Well that would be interesting in once sense...and would benefit me personally. Because as an AZ resident I cannot get a Cali CCW at all - totally barred.

So a ruling in favor of California's state government but against Hawaii might well be usable by people like me in Cali. Weird.

THAT aside, having to confront the Hawaii situation means they MUST addresses situations where carry is completely banned. They cannot ignore that particular case as the Kachalski panel could.
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old November 29, 2012, 11:43 AM   #7
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,550
Two things to keep in mind.
  1. In Peruta, the district judge relied upon the CA law that allowed unloaded open carry (UOC) in order to find that there was no ban.
    1. In Richards, the district judge relied upon the Peruta decision as the basis of his decision.
  2. In Baker, there is no carry allowed without a permit.
    1. While a permitting system exists, it is on record that no permits have ever been issued.
With that in mind, there have been changes made in the underlying decisions in both Peruta and Richards.

CA has since made UOC unlawful. There is now no meaningful way to carry without a CC permit. That alone changes the way the courts must view those cases.

The CA9 cannot now go the route that the Kachalsky panel did, because of the specific facts of the Hawaii case. While it may have used the reasoning of Kachalsky for a decision in Peruta and Richards, that would put it at odds with Baker. The CA9 will have to squarely address the issue of carry in public places and how a government can regulate that carry.

Meanwhile, we still await for a decision in Moore/Sheppard (CA7). That decision, if Judge Posner is honest, will have an effect on the outcome of these cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 30, 2012, 06:52 PM   #8
Join Date: August 10, 2012
Posts: 26

the new york case is highly distinguishable
filed this yesterday
wolfwood is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 02:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05826 seconds with 9 queries