143 replies to this topic

[ChicagoRonin70]

Hmm, this should be interesting to watch.

[skinnyb82]

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.

[skinnyb82]

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

[kwc]

That's consistent with Alan Gottlieb's predictions. Not very encouraging.

[skinnyb82]

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.

[kwc]

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?

[skinnyb82]

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.

[MrTriple]

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.

[chislinger]

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.

[KarlJ]

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

[Mr. Fife]

I missed it, is there a tape available?

[chislinger]

I missed it, is there a tape available?

You can watch it.

[Mr. Fife]

thanks!

[Mr. Fife]

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

[chislinger]

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.

[Mr. Fife]

Here we go!

[Mr. Fife]

It's like watching Max Headroom.

[skinnyb82]

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

[lockman]

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.

[skinnyb82]

Not to mention dangerous, as Gura pointed out but couldn't elaborate while he was being peppered with questions.

[Davey]

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.

[skinnyb82]

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).

[domin8]

Just checked. Still no movement on this. https://www.ca9.usco...k_id=0000000722

[skinnyb82]

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