|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 12, 2010, 07:25 PM | #1 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Nordyke en banc Dismissed and Remanded - Update!
From CalGuns Foundation: The Nordyke en-banc is remanded back to the original panel: Judges Gould, O’Scannlain and Alarcón.
Quote:
This means that the panel will no longer be addressing the incorporation issue. That is now settled fact. What they will do is to visit the "sensitive places" doctrine of Heller in light of the RKBA being a fundamental right. |
|
July 12, 2010, 07:46 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
July 12, 2010, 08:09 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
|
Interesting.
|
July 12, 2010, 08:36 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
So, if I'm reading the sequence correctly, this opens up the way for Sykes and Pena.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
July 12, 2010, 09:28 PM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Sykes was limited to the en banc Nordyke issue. They are now free to go within 60 days, IIRC.
Pena was at first timed-out by Nordyke, but later ruled otherwise. Pena is continuing. |
July 12, 2010, 09:38 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Yeah, Sykes was previously un-linked from Nordyke and re-linked to the Supreme Court decision in McDonald, so that 60-day clock already started. Pena's 60-day clock ought to start now.
__________________
Jim March |
July 12, 2010, 10:03 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Have Sykes (the carrying case) or Pena (the handgun roster case) been argued yet? Are they just awaiting an initial decision after argument?
Also does anyone know the status of Palmer in DC - I heard it was overdue for a decision on Gura's last motion for summary judgement. |
July 13, 2010, 12:47 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
If this is the now the first 'sensitive places' case post McDonald it is time to go to the mat, is it not? We can't afford a broad definition of 'sensitive'.
|
July 13, 2010, 07:17 AM | #9 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Well considering this is the same panel of judges who actually took the time to consider whether the Second Amendment applies through the doctrine of substantive due process instead of punting on the issue, I feel good about this one.
On the other hand, I imagine a pro-RKBA decision is probably going to see an en banc review that is not quite as friendly. |
July 13, 2010, 08:49 AM | #10 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
As I understand, the panel can do one of three things.
1. Reword their prior decision (striping out the incorporation analysis) and reissue. 2. Actually brief the "sensitive places" issue (de novo), which wasn't done earlier. 3. Send it back to the District court to brief the "sensitive places" issue to develop a record in which an actual appeal can be made. Option 3 seems to be the most sensible thing to do. Nothing was really explained at the prior appeal, to define what makes a gun show "sensitive" as opposed to the Scottish Games. Alameda briefly made claim to a shooting at a county fair, which has no bearing upon the other two events - one which has firearms and is even permitted to fire blanks, and the other is not permitted to have guns, at a "gun-show" - of all things! |
July 13, 2010, 11:30 AM | #11 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Well, it seems like #1 is probably the most likely. The alternative is basically for the three judge panel to admit that their earlier sensitive places analysis was flawed (either by not being done or by having no facts on which to base it).
Of course, they could always say that based on further definition of the protected right provided by McDonald, they have decided the issue needs a deeper investigation or something of that sort. |
July 13, 2010, 02:57 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 368
|
I'm not up to speed on Nordyke, although I just read the panel decision that has now been vacated. I must be missing something, because I don't see how the McDonald decision has any bearing on Nordyke. How would anything the SCOTUS said in McDonald change anything the 9th Circuit did in Nordyke?
DD |
July 13, 2010, 03:05 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
The best thing that could happen is they would apply the new, fundamental right status and equal protection, and say that the gun show must be permitted as long as the any one else is allowed to have guns on the property for lawful purposes.
As already pointed out, it is NOT a sensitive place as concealed carry permit holders are admittedly allowed. |
July 14, 2010, 08:57 PM | #14 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Update!
A motion for supplemental briefing was filed in the Nordyke case today by Don Kilmer and Don Kates.
While highly unusual for a case at this late date, it is not unprecedented. |
July 14, 2010, 09:14 PM | #15 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
That is some good stuff, right there. My favorite part....
Quote:
Hahaha! I love it.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 14, 2010, 10:09 PM | #16 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yeah, that was footnote 3. Absolutely hilarious!
|
July 14, 2010, 10:23 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Wouldn't the trial court have ordered briefs anyway?
|
July 20, 2010, 08:25 AM | #18 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
According to the Volokh Conspiracy the Ninth Circuit has ordered the parties to brief the issue of how McDonald effects the case as well as any other issues that are related to the case, including the level of scrutiny.
Looks like the Ninth Circuit may be willing to take another look at the "sensitive places" issue despite the earlier ruling. |
July 20, 2010, 09:20 AM | #19 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This is not entirely unexpected.
After theMcDonald decision was rendered, Don Kilmer filed a rule 28J letter. Then when the case was remanded, a motion for supplemental briefing was filed. From the news, it appears the motion was granted. I read Eugenes comments. His analysis fails to account for the discrimination between guns at a gun show and guns and the Scottish Games. One is explicitly denied while the other is explicitly granted. |
July 20, 2010, 10:17 AM | #20 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I stand corrected! With a bit of legal tom-foolery, the court called for supplemental briefing, then denied the motion for supplemental briefing as moot.
The Court Order can be read here. One chuckles when asking which came first!! |
July 20, 2010, 10:30 AM | #21 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 20, 2010, 06:30 PM | #22 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
"No, we didn't give them their motion. We made everyone do things OUR way!" |
|
July 20, 2010, 06:55 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Brinksmanship, probably - but they would almost certainly have ordered briefs anyway.
|
July 20, 2010, 07:33 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I am totally confused. The court ordered supplemental briefing and denied the request for supplemental briefing as moot? Why, because they ordered it up themselves? No need to grant a request for something that they ordered?
|
July 20, 2010, 09:50 PM | #25 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I'm now thinking that the panel wants to expedite this case.
Consider, the motion would have required a response from Alameda and then a further response would have been filed Nordyke. Then the wait for further orals, should the panel want them. Now however, both parties are ordered to file their supplemental briefs no later than 30 days from the order. The order also includes any amici that may be filed. Further, all briefs are to be no more than 15 pages. A future order will state the time and location of oral argument. |
Tags |
9th circuit , california , nordyke , second amendment |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|