Nordyke (California)

esqappellate · Jun 1, 2012

press1280 said:
With this hurdle out of the way, Peruta and Richards can move forward. I believe they've also been fully briefed so we should have orals being scheduled soon.

Talk about an anti-climatic decision. Basically, defendants give up and we hold them to it. As to other cases in the pipeline, the 9th moves with incredible slowness. We will have at least 4 decisions in hand before the 9th holds oral argument in Peruta....

Inigoes · Jun 1, 2012

esqappellate said:
Talk about an anti-climatic decision. Basically, defendants give up and we hold them to it.

At the end of the day, it's still a win, just not grandiose.

The decision is still significant in changing government's behavior to those involved...

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 1, 2012

If Alameda attempts to enforce an ammo ban at the gun show I think that puts a 2A claim back on the table. Ammo is traditionally sold at gun shows, and it's part and parcel of the exercise of the right.

esqappellate · Jun 1, 2012

Inigoes said:
At the end of the day, it's still a win, just not grandiose.

The decision is still significant in changing government's behavior to those involved...

12 years for this change? Wow. I hope they get hit with a *huge* fee award.

Inigoes · Jun 1, 2012

esqappellate said:
12 years for this change? Wow. I hope they get hit with a *huge* fee award.

So do I

press1280 · Jun 1, 2012

esqappellate said:
Talk about an anti-climatic decision. Basically, defendants give up and we hold them to it. As to other cases in the pipeline, the 9th moves with incredible slowness. We will have at least 4 decisions in hand before the 9th holds oral argument in Peruta....

I'd think the 9th would be a quicker circuit because they have 30+ judges or something?

randian · Jun 1, 2012

press1280 said:
I'd think the 9th would be a quicker circuit because they have 30+ judges or something?

Nah, they're busy taking government-paid vacations in Hawaii.

esqappellate · Jun 1, 2012

press1280 said:
I'd think the 9th would be a quicker circuit because they have 30+ judges or something?

It actually has the heaviest caseload in the country. California alone is huge.

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 2, 2012

Doesn't this reach the ammo restriction?

"As gun shows may now be held on county property with only the restrictions described in the majority opinion, see majority op. at 6168, I agree with the majority that Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim cannot succeed."

[emphasis mine]

6168:

Moreover, the County affirmatively asserts that Plaintiffs, when conducting a gun show, may offer firearms for sale with the requirement that, when a “firearm is not in the actual possession of the authorized participant,” the firearm must be “secured to prevent unauthorized use.” Id. The County represents that a sturdy cable attaching the fire- arm to a fixture, such as a table, would suffice—much as cell phones, cameras, and other attractive items routinely are dis- played for sale. The County further represents that buyers may physically inspect properly secured firearms.
[1] We hold the County to its interpretation of the ordi- nance, and its reading is a reasonable one.

There is not a word about an ammo restriction "described in the majority opinion".

[2] Should the County add new requirements or enforce the ordinance unequally, or should additional facts come to light, Plaintiffs or others similarly situated may, of course, bring a new Second Amendment challenge to the relevant laws or practices

Boxcab · Jun 2, 2012

Maestro Pistolero said:
There is not a word about an ammo restriction "described in the majority opinion".

For my clarity...

Did the county have an ammo restriction already or is the fear that they will no impose one and the a new case would be required to remove it?

Thanks for filling in the gaps in my knowledge.

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 2, 2012

'No ammo' is in the county ordininance and doesn't appear to b exempted for "events" as are secured firearms.

krucam · Jun 2, 2012

Maestro Pistolero said:
'No ammo' is in the county ordininance and doesn't appear to b exempted for "events" as are secured firearms.

Who cares? I mean, just order your ammo via the internet...oh yeah, this is California we're talking about. Fodder for another lawsuit.

Thanks for chiming in Maestro.

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 3, 2012

krucam said:
Who cares? I mean, just order your ammo via the internet...oh yeah, this is California we're talking about. Fodder for another lawsuit.

Thanks for chiming in Maestro.

Well it matters to the bottom line of a gun show. Trying to run a gun show without ammo sales is like trying to run a movie theatre without selling popcorn.

But the bigger question is what reasoning did the panel employ, after 12 years of litigation, to dismiss a 2A claim to sell guns AND ammo? If, as Ezell decided, firing range use gets "not quite strict scrutiny", how does an ammunition ban escape any level of scrutiny?

And finally, with no live 2A or 1A claims, how will Don Kilmer get paid for his 'win'?

krucam · Jun 4, 2012

Lyle Denniston at ScotusBlog comments on CA9's Nordyke VI ruling...

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/nordyke-gun-case-nears-end/

Patrick · Jun 4, 2012

esqappellate said:
Talk about an anti-climatic decision. Basically, defendants give up and we hold them to it. As to other cases in the pipeline, the 9th moves with incredible slowness. We will have at least 4 decisions in hand before the 9th holds oral argument in Peruta....

Normally you'd get another go-round of briefs aimed at each side getting their dissected views of "Whoever v Whatever Slowed This Case Down", but not sure it is needed here.

I bet the Defendants will manufacture a request for some anyway, and the Ninth will relent, as any court would.

I am beginning to think these CA-9 cases are all placeholders for when the law gets fixed elsewhere.

krucam · Jun 12, 2012

esqappellate said:
12 years for this change? Wow. I hope they get hit with a *huge* fee award.

Inigoes said:
So do I

Patrick said:
Normally you'd get another go-round of briefs aimed at each side getting their dissected views of "Whoever v Whatever Slowed This Case Down", but not sure it is needed here.

I bet the Defendants will manufacture a request for some anyway, and the Ninth will relent, as any court would.

I am beginning to think these CA-9 cases are all placeholders for when the law gets fixed elsewhere.

We really didn't think this 12 year old case was over yet, right?

CGF Attorney Don Kilmer emailed the County after the 6/1/12 ruling to clarify the understanding of the ruling. The email went unanswered. Ergo...

06/07/2012 266 Filed (ECF) Appellants Todd Baltes, Dennis Blair, Duane Darr, Daryl N. David, Jess B. Guy, William J. Jones, Jean Lee, Ann Sallie Nordyke, Russell Allen Nordyke and Tasiana Westyschyn Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion to Extend Appellate Deadlines, or in the Alternative to Modify the Court's Opinion to Include Instructions to the Trial Court.]. Date of service: 06/07/2012. [8205850] (DK)

06/12/2012 267 Filed (ECF) Appellants Todd Baltes, Dennis Blair, Duane Darr, Daryl N. David, Jess B. Guy, William J. Jones, Jean Lee, Ann Sallie Nordyke, Russell Allen Nordyke and Tasiana Westyschyn Motion to extend time to file petition for rehearing until 06/22/2012 at 11:59 pm. Date of service: 06/12/2012. [8210477] (DK)

266 highlights Plaintiff's concerns of the 14 day deadline to petition for rehearing with CA9, given the non-response from Defendants.

Energizer Bunny...

yellowfin · Jun 12, 2012

Dear God no. We have cases tied up because of stays that are the key to destroying the anti gun political complex in this country FOREVER and he did this... WHY?!??!

Maestro Pistolero · Jun 12, 2012

Dear God no. We have cases tied up because of stays that are the key to destroying the anti gun political complex in this country FOREVER and he did this... WHY?!??!

I don't see how the unresolved issues have the slightest promise of deciding scrutiny, or otherwise giving any guidance to the held cases. There are not even live 2A or other civil rights claims remaining.

On the other hand, the second en banc decision, after twelve years of litigation ended with what can only be described as a bum's rush.

The 9th panel left a few glaring omissions in it's ruling, which I'm certain will be further illuminated by Mr. Kilmer going forward. I don't think Mr Kilmer has a choice, unless he wants to flush a decade of billable hours without a fight.

jrosenberger · Jun 12, 2012

yellowfin said:
Dear God no. We have cases tied up because of stays that are the key to destroying the anti gun political complex in this country FOREVER and he did this... WHY?!??!

Because lawyers have a duty to their client, not to a movement.

esqappellate · Jun 12, 2012

jrosenberger said:
Because lawyers have a duty to their client, not to a movement.

There are also potentially huge sums in fees involved. The fees issue is really hard as the plaintiffs do not have the catalyst theory under 42 usc 1988, so they may have to litigate fees under a different theory, as the motion notes.

Nordyke (California)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

President, MSI

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

President, MSI

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Active Member

President, MSI

Active Member

MSI EM

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Pro 2A Gastronome

Active Member

Active Member

President, MSI

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics