...Apparently the 9th tried 15-member en bancs so it would be more than half the active judges, and switched back to 11-member panels due to logistical issues.
Too many judges in rehab at the same time?
...Apparently the 9th tried 15-member en bancs so it would be more than half the active judges, and switched back to 11-member panels due to logistical issues.
Could Clement keep all their names/voices straight, or would he stick with "Your Honor" for the entire argument?
Peruta should definitely ask for the whole court to hear his case. It would give O'Scannlain, Kozinski, etc, a chance to dissent from the denial of rehearing and call out every single fallacy in the opinion. Plus it could take a few months to write the dissents and get us closer to having a 9th Justice.
ETA: Apparently the 9th tried 15-member en bancs so it would be more than half the active judges, and switched back to 11-member panels due to logistical issues. Source
Where are all the gun using Lawyers that want to become judges? With all the lawyers in the country and cases going against the 2A in parts of the country, you would think that some would want to become "activist judges" that actually follow the Constitution for a change.
I'm not sure, probably Esq could speak to that.
My thought is that the law schools are taught by older people who grew up in a time of a "collective rights" 2A and may not be letting go so easily. The younger ones though seem to get it more than the older ones. From what I can see the Bush 43 nominees are much more likely to rule with us than Reagan nominees.
Where are all the gun using Lawyers that want to become judges? With all the lawyers in the country and cases going against the 2A in parts of the country, you would think that some would want to become "activist judges" that actually follow the Constitution for a change.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)
" For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "
"Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
"In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:"
"In Nunn v.State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid."
"Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.." (fifth and thirteenth amendment case)
The dream is over guys, there isn't a right to carry a concealed weapon...It should be obvious by now. The best case going at this point is the Norman v Florida open carry case. The Norman case will need to be appealed to the SCOTUS and most likely to be there before the Nichols case...It all comes down to Trumps nomination for number 9.
Yes the Defendants sought rehearing or en banc review. We filed the opposition. Right afterwards the Court stayed the petition pending Peruta.
Could we get reheard by the same panel? Presumably O'Scallon would rule in our favor regarding open carry. Then maybe we would get heard en banc. I wonder if the Ninth has the staminia for that That sort of seems like what may happen to my very inexperienced eyes.
The law is full of a bunch of humanities majors. People that did not have to study math, formal logic or empiricism have inherently suspect minds that are prone to being turned to liberal ideology. Remember an open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded
Since the state sought rehearing en banc, the most likely result in your case is a remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the en banc Peruta decision. Except that makes no sense at all, since your basic argument ithat the Open Carry ban is unconstitutional was not addressed by the en banc court and the panel decision has been vacated, when means they can't use that anymore. One thing for you to consider now is a filing with the court suggesting what they should do in your case. I expect that Peruta plaintiffs will seek cert. If they ask for a stay of mandate pending a cert petition (not automatic), that would be likely be granted and your case would remain in limbo until the mandate issues in Peruta. You may wish to touch base with Clement and see what their plans are.
Alternatively, you can ask to file supplemental briefs in Baker addressing the one issue expressly left open by the en banc court, viz., the ban on open carry and seek reargument on that issue. That's probably what I would do in your shoes. A 28j is limited to 350 words and that's not enough to make the argument. And if I recall, the district court in your case expressly ruled that the 2A doesn't apply at all outside the home, so your appeal from that issue with respect to open carry is still pending. The irony is that the anti gunners hate open carry even more than they hate concealed carry. If they had to allow it, they would enact concealed carry legislation, which probably would be modeled on NY's or NJ's (or MD's). So, the end game looks hard, but that's a future fight (and who knows how the law will look then). This is not for the faint at heart.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)
" For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "
"Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
"In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:"
"In Nunn v.State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid."
"Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.." (fifth and thirteenth amendment case)
The dream is over guys, there isn't a right to carry a concealed weapon...It should be obvious by now. The best case going at this point is the Norman v Florida open carry case. The Norman case will need to be appealed to the SCOTUS and most likely to be there before the Nichols case...It all comes down to Trumps nomination for number 9.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)
" For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. "
"Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
"In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:"
"In Nunn v.State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns. Ibid."
"Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897) " .....the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;.." (fifth and thirteenth amendment case)
The dream is over guys, there isn't a right to carry a concealed weapon...It should be obvious by now. The best case going at this point is the Norman v Florida open carry case. The Norman case will need to be appealed to the SCOTUS and most likely to be there before the Nichols case...It all comes down to Trumps nomination for number 9.
Since the state sought rehearing en banc, the most likely result in your case is a remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the en banc Peruta decision. Except that makes no sense at all, since your basic argument ithat the Open Carry ban is unconstitutional was not addressed by the en banc court and the panel decision has been vacated, when means they can't use that anymore. One thing for you to consider now is a filing with the court suggesting what they should do in your case. I expect that Peruta plaintiffs will seek cert. If they ask for a stay of mandate pending a cert petition (not automatic), that would be likely be granted and your case would remain in limbo until the mandate issues in Peruta. You may wish to touch base with Clement and see what their plans are.
Alternatively, you can ask to file supplemental briefs in Baker addressing the one issue expressly left open by the en banc court, viz., the ban on open carry and seek reargument on that issue. That's probably what I would do in your shoes. A 28j is limited to 350 words and that's not enough to make the argument. And if I recall, the district court in your case expressly ruled that the 2A doesn't apply at all outside the home, so your appeal from that issue with respect to open carry is still pending. The irony is that the anti gunners hate open carry even more than they hate concealed carry. If they had to allow it, they would enact concealed carry legislation, which probably would be modeled on NY's or NJ's (or MD's). So, the end game looks hard, but that's a future fight (and who knows how the law will look then). This is not for the faint at heart.
The problem is Nichols. He isn't an experienced SC litigator by any stretch of the imagination, and the SC seems to have preferred advocates who they listen to a bit more than others. Clement is definitely on the preferred list.I would suggest that the NICHOLS case is in a better position. Although NORMAN is closer to SCOTUS, NICHOLS is in the 9th CCA system and the lower courts are in a tight box if they try to rule that bans on OC are allowed while 9th CCA has already ruled that bans on CC are allowed. How does the lower court leave any meaning for the 2A once it has effectively outlawed OC and CC?
Hopefully number 9 AND number 8. Not wishing an early demise to anyone, but some are pretty long in the tooth. We need a clear majority....It all comes down to Trumps nomination for number 9
The problem is Nichols. He isn't an experienced SC litigator by any stretch of the imagination, and the SC seems to have preferred advocates who they listen to a bit more than others. Clement is definitely on the preferred list.