Rothery, et al. v. County of Sacramento Cert Petition

wolfwood · Jul 30, 2018

Gary Gorski has filed a cert petition in his carry case Rothery, et al. v. County of Sacramento. Here is a link to the Supreme Court docket.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-121.html

I personally like Gary. He served in the Army, rides a Harley and is a great rugby player. He also is a good attorney

This is a link to his website
http://www.lonewolflaw.com/Contact.html

He just filed his cert petition on Jul 26 2018

(Response due August 27, 2018)

This is really exciting there is a open Circuit split. Gary could get this.

Esq Appellate can you please take a look

krucam · Jul 30, 2018

I think a State as the Plaintiff having had their world undone would be better, any thoughts on such a case?
:innocent0

Yes, Mr Gorski has been talked about here, perhaps some of it unwarranted.

nedsurf · Jul 30, 2018

I always feel like a kid on Christmas morning when I see you post a new thread with a case cite!

press1280 · Jul 30, 2018

krucam said:
I think a State as the Plaintiff having had their world undone would be better, any thoughts on such a case?

Yes, Mr Gorski has been talked about here, perhaps some of it unwarranted.

Was he the guy rumored to have shown up to court in a tee shirt once?

Anyway, it's a pure CCW case so I'm not optimistic. I'd prefer an open carry or a general carry permits case where OC or CC is not specifically an issue.

But the timing here makes it so likely Young is still precedent and hasn't been en banced.

krucam · Jul 30, 2018

press1280 said:
Was he the guy rumored to have shown up to court in a tee shirt once?

Anyway, it's a pure CCW case so I'm not optimistic. I'd prefer an open carry or a general carry permits case where OC or CC is not specifically an issue.

But the timing here makes it so likely Young is still precedent and hasn't been en banced.

Jeans and a tee...

I didn't see Young mentioned in the Petition, Wrenn was. They can always get it into the Reply Brief...

I'm not feeling this one. Young with Hawaii petitioning would be as sure a bet for Cert as we have right now.

press1280 · Jul 30, 2018

krucam said:
Jeans and a tee...

I didn't see Young mentioned in the Petition, Wrenn was. They can always get it into the Reply Brief...

I'm not feeling this one. Young with Hawaii petitioning would be as sure a bet for Cert as we have right now.

Also I thought Sacramento went virtual shall issue after they were sued by SAF?

motorcoachdoug · Jul 31, 2018

So now we wait and see what SCOTUS will do. In the mean time Young vs Hawaii will go on as well in 9CA. Would not be surprised at all if Hawaii ask for a En Banc review of the ruling and 9CA reverses the decision by the appeals court.

press1280 · Aug 20, 2018

Both the CA AG and the sheriff have waived their response to the Petition.

press1280 · Sep 1, 2018

Rothery was distributed for the September 24th conference, but 2 days later a response was requested by SCOTUS, due October 1st. So this will NOT be at the Sept 24th conference, more likely late October at the earliest.

This does show *some* interest by the court, although it's a low bar. I don't recall SCOTUS NOT requesting a response in any non-pro se 2A petitions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-121.html

motorcoachdoug · Sep 1, 2018

What do the rest of our legal eagles think about this? Do you think SCOTUS will take the case? If they do take it then it will be very very interesting to see how this plays out. Of course 9CA has always had to be slapped own by SCOTUS about 90% of the time and they always seem to be the black sheep of the system as well.

wolfwood · Sep 1, 2018

Good for Gary he has really worked hard on this. I am leaning towards no because Sacramento has been issuing a lot recently. That said I really hope they do.

danb · Sep 1, 2018

press1280 said:
Rothery was distributed for the September 24th conference, but 2 days later a response was requested by SCOTUS, due October 1st. So this will NOT be at the Sept 24th conference, more likely late October at the earliest.

This does show *some* interest by the court, although it's a low bar. I don't recall SCOTUS NOT requesting a response in any non-pro se 2A petitions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-121.html

This seems like a super quick request for response... 2 days. Esp during the summer. Someone is definitely paying attention.

press1280 · Sep 1, 2018

danb said:
This seems like a super quick request for response... 2 days. Esp during the summer. Someone is definitely paying attention.

I don't know if that's the case or a justice was looking for a while now. I actually expected the request to come at the conference itself. Guess it means the justices do work even in the summer.

press1280 · Sep 1, 2018

motorcoachdoug said:
What do the rest of our legal eagles think about this? Do you think SCOTUS will take the case? If they do take it then it will be very very interesting to see how this plays out. Of course 9CA has always had to be slapped own by SCOTUS about 90% of the time and they always seem to be the black sheep of the system as well.

A lot may depend on the state/County responses. The county may claim they're in the clear because they're virtual shall issue.
I wonder if they'll try to claim no split (basically not mention Wrenn or Young) or why the petition should be denied.
IIRC, wasn't there an issue with the plaintiffs not being suitable (some defect)?

press1280 · Oct 2, 2018

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-121.html

CA and the Sacramento sheriff have given their response. According to them, the plaintiff already has a CCW and the sheriff's policy has radically changed since the case was originally filed 10 years ago.
The state admits there's a circuit split but this isn't the case to take.

For once I actually agree with them.

press1280 · Oct 10, 2018

Rothery's response has been filed: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...plyInSupportOfPetitionForWritOfCertiorari.pdf

I don't see this getting cert. This seems to have all kinds of "vehicle issues".

No (new) conference date has been set.

press1280 · Oct 17, 2018

Distributed for November 2nd conference.

wolfwood · Nov 5, 2018

18-121 ROTHERY, JAMES, ET AL. V. BLANAS, LOU, ET AL. Denied

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110518zor_o759.pdf

This case is dead. The next one up is Rogers out of New Jersey

press1280 · Nov 5, 2018

wolfwood said:
18-121 ROTHERY, JAMES, ET AL. V. BLANAS, LOU, ET AL. Denied

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110518zor_o759.pdf

This case is dead. The next one up is Rogers out of New Jersey

No surprise there.

motorcoachdoug · Nov 6, 2018

I am not surprised at all. To me this had to many problems with it as well. Now we wait for the Rogers out of NJ

Rothery, et al. v. County of Sacramento Cert Petition

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics