McKay v. Hutchens (CA CCW) orals at CA9

press1280 · Oct 8, 2013

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000011343

3 judges, all Dem appointees. However, at least 1 judge really
GETS it and is roughing up the sheriff's attorney.

Hat tip to Al Norris posting this on another board.

Robert · Oct 8, 2013

Thanks

Robert · Oct 8, 2013

Which one of the judges sounds like he's about to die. I thought in one of his pauses he did..

Al Norris · Oct 8, 2013

That would be Judge Pregerson. Appointed in 1979 by Carter. He is 90 years old and is not on Senior Status.

press1280 · Oct 9, 2013

Al Norris said:
That would be Judge Pregerson. Appointed in 1979 by Carter. He is 90 years old and is not on Senior Status.

It's odd how old timers like him and and Judge Aldisert of the 3rd circuit are so ignorant of public carry and think everyone will get mad and shoot each other if they get permits.
Judge Tallman rebutted the sheriff's counsel on all of her talking points. The other 2 were pretty much looking for some way out, whether it was confining the right to the home, using intermediate scrutiny as rational basis as in Kachalsky, or point the finger at the state for not allowing OC statewide. If we do lose this one, I hope they would try to confine it to the home and split with Moore/Aguilar.
But since Peruta/Richards have already been heard by the 9th, doesn't that case necessarily control here?

ryan_j · Oct 9, 2013

press1280 said:
It's odd how old timers like him and and Judge Aldisert of the 3rd circuit are so ignorant of public carry and think everyone will get mad and shoot each other if they get permits.

You have to wonder if some of these folks were around when MLK was denied his gun permit. Back then Democrats pretty much ensured people of colour did not have the right to keep and bear arms.

jrumann59 · Oct 9, 2013

ryan_j said:
You have to wonder if some of these folks were around when MLK was denied his gun permit. Back then Democrats pretty much ensured people of colour did not have the right to keep and bear arms.

THey haven't changed much they just deny people of all colors to have guns. It accomplishes the original goal without looking racist. :innocent0

fightinbluhen51 · Oct 9, 2013

Al Norris said:
That would be Judge Pregerson. Appointed in 1979 by Carter. He is 90 years old and is not on Senior Status.

This is why we need a term limits amendment...

BeerHunter · Oct 9, 2013

ryan_j said:
You have to wonder if some of these folks were around when MLK was denied his gun permit. Back then Democrats pretty much ensured people of colour did not have the right to keep and bear arms.

jrumann59 said:
THey haven't changed much they just deny people of all colors to have guns. It accomplishes the original goal without looking racist.

True but with the implementation of SB281, MOM and the MD GA have pretty much pulled the wool over the eyes of the minorities that keep voting them in power, because those that live in the inner city of Baltimore or out in the rural areas without reliable personal transportation, cannot get to a LiveScan vendor to get fingerprinted or to a public range to "fire one round" to get the HQL. So yes, their party still has an agenda to keep all manner of folk from the RKBA, but especially minorities.

Shift · Oct 9, 2013

Judge sounds like he keeps falling asleep mid sentence

press1280 · Nov 15, 2013

"Flyonwall" at Calguns has posted this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Docket Text:
Filed order (HARRY PREGERSON, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) The central issues of this case are the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public and the standard of review for Second Amendment challenges. There are currently several pending cases in the Ninth Circuit concerning these very issues. Accordingly, submission of this case is vacated and proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the following cases:
United States v. Chovan, No.*11-50107*(submitted 2/15/12);
Peruta v. County of San Diego, No.*10-56971 12/6/12);
Richards v. Prieto, No.*11-16255*(submitted 12/6/12); and
Baker v. Kealoha, No.*12-16258*(submitted 12/6/12).

The panel retains jurisdiction over this petition for review. (submitted [8858927] (SM)

So-this case will be controlled by the others. Chovan is a prohibited persons case- oral arguments here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000008754

wolfwood · Nov 15, 2013

fightinbluhen51 said:
This is why we need a term limits amendment...

tell that to Judge Allan Kay. He is in his mid 80s and out of all the federal judges in the United States District Court of Hawaii he is by far the sharpest. He also refuses to allow anyone to touch his decisions other than to upload it on to ECF. He thinks having clerks research and draft opinion is a sign of weakness. I've had interaction with most of the federal judges in Hawaii and he is the only one that everyone has to concede is consistently the smartest guy in the room regardless of who is before him.

fightinbluhen51 · Nov 15, 2013

wolfwood said:
tell that to Judge Allan Kay. He is in his mid 80s and out of all the federal judges in the United States District Court of Hawaii he is by far the sharpest. He also refuses to allow anyone to touch his decisions other than to upload it on to ECF. He thinks having clerks research and draft opinion is a sign of weakness. I've had interaction with most of the federal judges in Hawaii and he is the only one that everyone has to concede is consistently the smartest guy in the room regardless of who is before him.

I admire that of such a distinguished man, however...

What we loose, would be far out stripped by what would be "checked" and "restrained." I mean no offense or ill feelings towards those whom faithfully execute their office, but this is certainly the outline, not the median.

Brooklyn · Nov 15, 2013

fightinbluhen51 said:
I admire that of such a distinguished man, however...

What we loose, would be far out stripped by what would be "checked" and "restrained." I mean no offense or ill feelings towards those whom faithfully execute their office, but this is certainly the outline, not the median.

Age is a poor metric. Find a better one. Any idea how much damage a term limited lame duck can do... ?

Kharn · Nov 15, 2013

To me, holding the case with a formal order means that the panel has no expectations for a quick resolution to the four cases. If they thought it would be just a few weeks, they could sit on the case.

esqappellate · Nov 15, 2013

Kharn said:
To me, holding the case with a formal order means that the panel has no expectations for a quick resolution to the four cases. If they thought it would be just a few weeks, they could sit on the case.

Naa, not quite. They suspended submission for decision, which is what they are supposed to do under the 9th Circuit's local internal operating rules where there is a previously submitted case on the same issue before a different panel. It is good that they are following their own rules. The circuit decided to do to that to min. the number of conflicting opinions and the need for en banc. This panel probably has no idea when the other cases will actually be decided.

fightinbluhen51 · Nov 17, 2013

Brooklyn said:
Age is a poor metric. Find a better one. Any idea how much damage a term limited lame duck can do... ?

And...I'm not referring to age, I'm referring to those in office for far to long, and far to comfortable. I know some have advocated for a term limit on federal judges without the chance for return.

Personally, I'd advocate for an appointment and a continuance in office vote by the state legislature for the circuits or district the judge operates in.

Do a good job? Remain in office. Are a stinker? See ya.

Seth · Nov 17, 2013

fightinbluhen51 said:
And...I'm not referring to age, I'm referring to those in office for far to long, and far to comfortable. I know some have advocated for a term limit on federal judges without the chance for return.

Personally, I'd advocate for an appointment and a continuance in office vote by the state legislature for the circuits or district the judge operates in.

Do a good job? Remain in office. Are a stinker? See ya.

And then we have political judges who cave to what is popular at the moment instead of adhering to the constitution. That's what legislators are for.

Back on topic, when should we expect a ruling? Does it really matter what the ruling is since it will be appealed anyways?

mxrider · Nov 17, 2013

Seth said:
Back on topic, when should we expect a ruling? Does it really matter what the ruling is since it will be appealed anyways?

Can't speak to the time frame at all, but I do believe it matters a lot. I agree that it will be appealed one way or the other, but going forward, having them rule in favor of the plaintiff would be a small step towards liberty.

press1280 · Nov 18, 2013

Seth said:
And then we have political judges who cave to what is popular at the moment instead of adhering to the constitution. That's what legislators are for.

Back on topic, when should we expect a ruling? Does it really matter what the ruling is since it will be appealed anyways?

The ruling will be based on what happens in Richards/Peruta/Baker. Those could be decided any time now.
It does matter what the ruling is, because SCOTUS has been refusing to take any 2A related cases. A win at CA9 is binding upon CA and HI.

McKay v. Hutchens (CA CCW) orals at CA9

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Having Fun Yet?

Having Fun Yet?

Spud Head

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

DILLIGAF

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Don't ReMember

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

I stand with John Locke.

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Active Member

Former MSI Treasurer

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics