Jump to content


Photo

Breaking news on Peruta -- NO APPEAL


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
143 replies to this topic

#121 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,016 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:47 PM

Hmm, this should be interesting to watch.


“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#122 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 16 June 2015 - 02:29 PM

The en banc panel will make short work of the panel ruling. There's a reason why the Ninth Circuit's nickname is the Ninth Circus, they hold en banc rehearings whenever they don't like the panel ruling...I mean, Barry Bonds managed to get an en banc panel to rehear his appeal of his obstruction conviction. Just look at the composition of the panel.... THOMAS , Chief Judge; and PREGERSON, SILVERMAN, GRABER, McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, PAEZ, CALLAHAN, BEA, N.R. SMITH and OWENS That's at least three votes to overturn the panel, I'll have to look into the ideologies of the judges. Callahan was on the original panel. Thomas kept O'Scannlain off the en banc panel.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#123 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 16 June 2015 - 02:43 PM

Chief Judge Thomas (Clinton), Judges Pregerson (Carter), Paez, Silverman, McKeown, Fletcher, Graber (all Clinton), and Owens (Obama). Then there's Judges Callahan, Bea, and Smith, Bush I and II appointees. Unless several of those judges decide to not turn a sound ruling on its head in the interest of maintaining th credibility of the court (fat chance), then the rulings in Peruta and Richards are going down 8-3
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#124 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,286 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 16 June 2015 - 02:51 PM

That's consistent with Alan Gottlieb's predictions. Not very encouraging.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#125 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 16 June 2015 - 04:23 PM

It's panel stacking, plain and simple. They did it with the gay marriage cases, they're doing it with Peruta. Chief Judge Thomas is flexing his muscles. This, coupled with CADC staying Scullin's injunction in Wrenn and SCOTUS allowing lower courts to ignore the plainest of the plain language in Heller...it's not very encouraging.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#126 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,286 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 16 June 2015 - 04:28 PM

A random en banc panel selection would have placed the odds against us anyway. I thought the panel was selected randomly. Is this not the case?
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#127 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 16 June 2015 - 04:36 PM

They say it's random but I don't believe that for one second. The panel in the gay marriage cases was "randomly drawn" and it just so happens that three of the most fringe left judges were drawn to sit on the panel.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#128 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 16 June 2015 - 04:37 PM

It's panel stacking, plain and simple. They did it with the gay marriage cases, they're doing it with Peruta. Chief Judge Thomas is flexing his muscles. This, coupled with CADC staying Scullin's injunction in Wrenn and SCOTUS allowing lower courts to ignore the plainest of the plain language in Heller...it's not very encouraging.


I agree. And honestly, with SCOTUS refusing to take any action whatsoever on all these 2A issues, I'm really starting to lose respect for them. This is getting to be absolutely unacceptable.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#129 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 16 June 2015 - 05:49 PM

That wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. At least some of the judges seemed skeptical of the state's claims.

We'll see.

Edited by chislinger, 16 June 2015 - 05:49 PM.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#130 KarlJ

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,121 posts
  • Joined: 20-November 12

Posted 16 June 2015 - 06:37 PM

So...... When can we expect a decision?
"Waiting periods are only a step.
Registration is only a step.
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."

Janet Reno

U.S. Attorney General

1993-12-10

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the governments ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."

Bill Clinton

1993-08-12

#131 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:10 PM

I missed it, is there a tape available?


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#132 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:12 PM

I missed it, is there a tape available?

You can watch it.


"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#133 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:13 PM

thanks!


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#134 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:14 PM

So it hasn't come up yet? I don't have any sound :(


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#135 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:18 PM

So it hasn't come up yet? I don't have any sound :(

Starts about 8 minutes in, just skip ahead.

Edited by chislinger, 16 June 2015 - 07:19 PM.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#136 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:24 PM

Here we go!


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#137 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 3,289 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:30 PM

It's like watching Max Headroom.


Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#138 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 16 June 2015 - 07:30 PM

I love how Judge Posner was taken in dicta, as well as other cases such as the one cited involving the 13th Amendment. I also heard some straight up lies by omission. One judge stated that Posner wrote (in the Shepard v. Madigan appeal) that the state could enact an extremely restrictive policy...omitted that he stated that would trigger a new lawsuit, one they likely would lose, and the state would find itself back in front of CA7. Seems like this is going back to the district because the judges are confused as to how to handle the case when UOC was banned after summary judgment had been granted in district court. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#139 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,611 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 17 June 2015 - 05:46 AM

They also seemed to have trouble grasping the concept that a car without fuel in the tank is not functional as intended. UOC was not a realistic implementation of functional. It is equivalent to Illinois's 6 seconds to safety (fanny pack FOID carry).

Edited by lockman, 17 June 2015 - 05:47 AM.

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#140 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 17 June 2015 - 08:25 AM

Not to mention dangerous, as Gura pointed out but couldn't elaborate while he was being peppered with questions.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#141 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,165 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 17 June 2015 - 08:50 AM

So...... When can we expect a decision?


Sometime before the Sun blows up or the Cubs win the World Series. Whichever comes first.

Seriously though considering how long the DC case and the Novak case took it is anyone's guess. I wouldn't be surprised if it took over a year to get a ruling.

#142 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 June 2015 - 12:14 PM

Well, considering it takes about 18 months for three-judge panel opinions to be released, out in CA9, I'd say...two years, I dunno how the en banc process operates out there, they overturned Bonds' conviction pretty quickly, heard it last fall and dumped the obstruction conviction back in April. That's...fast. Now, that means nothing really. They could take a year, two years, there's quite a few issues for the panel to decide on. This isn't simple, they have to rule on Kamala's motion to intervene, the three-judge panel findings in Peruta and Richards, several other issues. I guess it depends on how much the judges hate guns (yet I bet most are licensed to carry a firearm on their person).
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#143 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,708 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 18 April 2016 - 11:15 PM

Just checked. Still no movement on this. https://www.ca9.usco...k_id=0000000722
Uinta Firearms Training, Inc.
a subsidiary of Uinta Preparations, Corp.

Supporting Member
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
USCCA Member
SAF Member
NRA Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Basic Rifle Instructor
NRA Basic Shotgun Instructor
NRA Personal Protection Inside the Home Instructor
Utah Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor

NRA Range Safety Officer


Training@UintaFirearms.com

#144 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,392 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 April 2016 - 05:31 PM

I wouldn't expect anything until at least late Summer or early Fall (that's optimistic). They move slower than any other circuit because of their caseload and the en banc makes it even worse because there WILL be dissenters (a few GOP nominees on the en banc panel), takes forever for a simple three-judge panel opinion to be published, much less an en banc panel ruling. Then again, they could drag their feet for however long they wish, knowing full well that the original panel ruling was vacated. Sent from my VK700 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder