skinnyb82 Posted March 30, 2015 at 03:16 PM Share Posted March 30, 2015 at 03:16 PM You are correct about the order being...wonky. They're holding the cases pending the outcome of the en banc proceedings (on reversal of the denial will grant her status as party, case heads back to district court). The three judge panel's denial of her motion to intervene is what is being reheard in front of the en banc panel. That's something I have never seen before, probably never will see but what can you expect in the Ninth Circus. The order is confusing, very confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campfire Posted April 5, 2015 at 02:44 AM Share Posted April 5, 2015 at 02:44 AM You are correct about the order being...wonky. They're holding the cases pending the outcome of the en banc proceedings (on reversal of the denial will grant her status as party, case heads back to district court). The three judge panel's denial of her motion to intervene is what is being reheard in front of the en banc panel. That's something I have never seen before, probably never will see but what can you expect in the Ninth Circus. The order is confusing, very confusing. Skinny, the guys over at MDShooters seem to have a consensus that the en banc review is of the cases, not the intervention request by Harris. One pointed out that she only tried to intervene in Peruta, not Richards, but both are going en banc. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted April 5, 2015 at 03:58 AM Share Posted April 5, 2015 at 03:58 AM Maybe it is time to change the subject line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 8, 2015 at 07:05 PM Share Posted April 8, 2015 at 07:05 PM Well then, I'm just confused by the order issued by C.J. Thomas. If they really wanted to drag it out, they'd rehear the panel's denial of Kamala's motion to intervene, reverse the panel, send it back for trial, and then make the case go back up the pipe to CA9. That'd ensure that the cases don't make it out of the Circuit for the better part of a decade. They'd be hoping for a Justice to retire and Obama or his handpicked successor to place a frothing at the mouth, bleeding heart liberal on the bench of the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted April 23, 2015 at 02:31 PM Share Posted April 23, 2015 at 02:31 PM I just read this about an amicus brief allowed to be filed in Peruta regarding open carry. Wouldn't it be interesting if California ends up being an open carry state after all. I have always felt that the 2A guaranteed open carry and no state could restrict that but concealed carry was a 10th amendment issue. IANAL. I know the either or thing. But Heller did specify open carry. Maybe this will work out better than I had hoped. http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?86hw0--45wzt-fox07k3&_v=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 23, 2015 at 03:16 PM Share Posted April 23, 2015 at 03:16 PM Oh the brief filed by Nichols? In his open letter to a California newspaper, he states that those who carry concealed are either criminals or cowards. He asks the court to vacate Peruta because open carry is the only means of carry (concealed is not a protected right, open is). He also trashes Judges O'Scannlain and Callahan for the holding in Peruta. Really angry man, I don't know what his deal is but he wants it his way, we're all wrong, he's just right, you know how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted April 23, 2015 at 04:03 PM Share Posted April 23, 2015 at 04:03 PM There is no one way. Balance is best. But California is a funny place so logic may not be reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted April 23, 2015 at 04:05 PM Share Posted April 23, 2015 at 04:05 PM Oh the brief filed by Nichols? In his open letter to a California newspaper, he states that those who carry concealed are either criminals or cowards. He asks the court to vacate Peruta because open carry is the only means of carry (concealed is not a protected right, open is). He also trashes Judges O'Scannlain and Callahan for the holding in Peruta. Really angry man, I don't know what his deal is but he wants it his way, we're all wrong, he's just right, you know how it goes.The arguments of his brief mirror parts of the Heller ruling so they can not easily dismiss it. Also if a new Peruta ruling allowed unrestricted open carry than it may help pressure that state to loosen concealed carry restrictions if only to decreased the amount of people forced to open carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonP Posted April 23, 2015 at 04:11 PM Share Posted April 23, 2015 at 04:11 PM Wow, trashing the judges in public that may still be involved in the final decision. I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't sound like a good strategy to me. But the attitude goes to the idea that the grabbers see control as a religious belief, like Sharia law, that can't be challenged by mere mortals without major consequences. Most of those types aren't too nuts about that whole "freedom of speech" thing either, I've noticed. Oh the brief filed by Nichols? In his open letter to a California newspaper, he states that those who carry concealed are either criminals or cowards. He asks the court to vacate Peruta because open carry is the only means of carry (concealed is not a protected right, open is). He also trashes Judges O'Scannlain and Callahan for the holding in Peruta. Really angry man, I don't know what his deal is but he wants it his way, we're all wrong, he's just right, you know how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted April 24, 2015 at 02:36 AM Share Posted April 24, 2015 at 02:36 AM Cali is such a goofy place that anything is possible. Scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted April 24, 2015 at 12:33 PM Share Posted April 24, 2015 at 12:33 PM Cali is such a goofy place that anything is possible. Scary. You're correct- anything can happen in the legal sense because California is the bastion of Outcome Based "Justice". That circuit is stacked with judges who come to a decision based on the results they want to see regardless of what the law says, and then they use their intellect to construct the most complex convoluted arguments to justify their decision. The result is a hodge podge of contradictory case law that lacks a contiguous logical foundation. Its scary for society to have that environment of legal instability where logic counts for nothing, laws count for nothing, but the political leanings of the judges you may be facing determine everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted April 24, 2015 at 04:02 PM Share Posted April 24, 2015 at 04:02 PM Case in point, CA9 just overturned Barry Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice on en banc. Vote was 10-1. Jury convicted him, panel affirmed conviction, court overturned on en banc. Don't they have better things to do than rehear a case involving lying to feds about steroid use? Oh, wait, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted May 4, 2015 at 02:03 AM Share Posted May 4, 2015 at 02:03 AM Case in point, CA9 just overturned Barry Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice on en banc. Vote was 10-1. Jury convicted him, panel affirmed conviction, court overturned on en banc. Don't they have better things to do than rehear a case involving lying to feds about steroid use? Oh, wait, no. That case always p***** me off. I could care less about baseball (except when I celebrate a Cubs loss) but the fact that Congress got involved in something like that is pathetic. They have better things to be doing than trying to deal with some guy injecting steroids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 6, 2015 at 03:19 PM Share Posted May 6, 2015 at 03:19 PM I have some briefs filed with CA9 for the en banc panel. The amicus filed on behalf of Governors Jindal, Abbott, Fallon, etc is hilarious, asking the court if it would be ok with a sheriff requiring "good cause" for free exercise, "good cause" for invoking Miranda, "good cause" for denying consent to an unlawful search, etc. As is the one filed on behalf of the states by Kopel and his co-counsel...eviscerating VPC's "concealed carry killer statistics." Will post when I get to a computer. There's also an order setting arguments. One brief also mocked the Brady stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted May 6, 2015 at 03:33 PM Share Posted May 6, 2015 at 03:33 PM ...As is the one filed on behalf of the states by Kopel and his co-counsel...eviscerating VPC's "concealed carry killer statistics." ... One brief also mocked the Brady stats. Well, if they adopt the Seventh CircuitEasterbrook's standards, they won't need actual facts, just "feelings". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade13 Posted May 7, 2015 at 03:37 AM Share Posted May 7, 2015 at 03:37 AM Ammoland has links for all the briefs here: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/05/important-briefs-filed-to-hold-victory-in-lawsuit-protecting-right-to-bear-arms-in-ca/#axzz3ZQ7SRKhk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted May 7, 2015 at 03:38 AM Share Posted May 7, 2015 at 03:38 AM As is the one filed on behalf of the states by Kopel and his co-counsel...eviscerating VPC's "concealed carry killer statistics." I have posted several rebuttals to useful idiots who post that, including this: The "killers" list also includes murders by means other than guns, and neglects to mention that while they can claim 722 "non self defense deaths" there are at least 106,705 homicides committed by non-permit holders, as well as 359 police officers killed by permitless people during the same time period that 17 were killed by permit holders. But please, use whatever "facts" you wish to keep spinning the hype machine. Will post when I get to a computer. There's also an order setting arguments. One brief also mocked the Brady stats. Eagerly awaiting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 11, 2015 at 06:40 PM Share Posted May 11, 2015 at 06:40 PM Ack, my plate has been full lately. The amici have attacked Gore's application of the good cause standard from every conceivable angle, including gay and lesbian pro-2A group ("Pink Pistols") filing an amicis in support of Peruta because they are more likely to be victims of violent crime. Another group out of Harlem filed an amicus in support of Peruta, outlining the racist roots of gun control. Several Governors as well as their respective states filed amici. Presented a litany of hypothetical questions such as "What if the Sheriff decides you don't have good cause to face his or her accuser in court?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted May 11, 2015 at 08:49 PM Share Posted May 11, 2015 at 08:49 PM Is Peruta turning into a circus where everybody and their neighbors dog have filed opinions with the judge, via amici? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted May 11, 2015 at 09:20 PM Share Posted May 11, 2015 at 09:20 PM Circus . . . California -- sounds about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted May 12, 2015 at 01:20 AM Share Posted May 12, 2015 at 01:20 AM I'm a bit confused about why the Attorney General of Illiniois would not join the Attorneys General of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, & Wisconsin? Could it be our Demi Moore look-alike Attorney General knows something the others don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:37 PM Share Posted May 19, 2015 at 04:37 PM I think they were waiting on Scullin's ruling in Wrenn before scheduling orals in this consolidated case. I could be wrong but...I dunno. CA9 functions like no other Circuit Court of Appeals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted May 23, 2015 at 02:13 PM Share Posted May 23, 2015 at 02:13 PM The state amici briefs will likely be filed by pro-gun AGs, Madigan obviously isn't one. Everyone is filing briefs because a lot is riding on it. If the case were picked up by SCOTUS, you'd REALLY see a lot of briefs-just look at the Heller and McDonald dockets at SCOTUS and count how many briefs were filed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted May 23, 2015 at 04:52 PM Share Posted May 23, 2015 at 04:52 PM I'm a bit confused about why the Attorney General of Illiniois would not join the Attorneys General of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, & Wisconsin? You almost had me there... Could it be our Demi Moore look-alike Attorney General knows something the others don't? You sir, insult Ms. Moore, who is only partly crazy but still worthy of intimacy. (gotta keep it G-rated) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted May 23, 2015 at 08:46 PM Share Posted May 23, 2015 at 08:46 PM Maybe it's because Ms. Madigan is currently occupied with fending off 1983 allegations? Once that came to light her credibility would be viewed as suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted May 26, 2015 at 01:18 PM Share Posted May 26, 2015 at 01:18 PM Is Peruta turning into a circus where everybody and their neighbors dog have filed opinions with the judge, via amici?"Woof woof bark growl woof bark bark bark woof bark growl growl? Woof woof woof woof!" And in response to comments above, remember that the 9th circuit is the most overruled by SCOTUS out of all the other federal circuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted May 26, 2015 at 05:43 PM Share Posted May 26, 2015 at 05:43 PM It would be awesome if SCOTUS took this case and wrote a summary judgment stating that open carry is the protected right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted June 16, 2015 at 02:33 PM Share Posted June 16, 2015 at 02:33 PM SCOTUS wouldn't grant, vacate, and remand a case which isn't nearly a carbon copy of another case decided by the Court. They issued GVR orders in several cases, citing the instructions in the Hobby Lobby opinion. But they're not going to GVR a gun-related case. Side note, arguments are today at 3:30 Pacific. The entire rehearing will be webcasted, also the court granted requests filed by C-SPAN and Fox News to record A/V of the proceedings for later broadcast. "Oral argument in this en banc case will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16, 2015, in Courtroom One of the James R. Browning Courthouse, located at 95 Seventh Street in San Francisco, California 94103." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted June 16, 2015 at 02:39 PM Share Posted June 16, 2015 at 02:39 PM Anyone happen to have a link to the webcast? ETA: I think it will be broadcast here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000007833 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted June 16, 2015 at 03:56 PM Share Posted June 16, 2015 at 03:56 PM I will be tuning in to watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.