Teixeira v. County of Alameda (CA)

wolfwood · Jul 29, 2016

Filed order (DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and CARLOS T. BEA): Appellants are directed to file a response to the Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, filed with this court on July 21, 2016. The response shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this order. Parties who are registered for Appellate ECF must file the response electronically without submission of paper copies. Parties who are not registered Appellate ECF filers must file the original response plus 50 paper copies. [10064766] (AF) [Entered: 07/27/2016 09:21 AM]

Man they won't even give us one

press1280 · Jul 29, 2016

wolfwood said:
Filed order (DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and CARLOS T. BEA): Appellants are directed to file a response to the Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, filed with this court on July 21, 2016. The response shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this order. Parties who are registered for Appellate ECF must file the response electronically without submission of paper copies. Parties who are not registered Appellate ECF filers must file the original response plus 50 paper copies. [10064766] (AF) [Entered: 07/27/2016 09:21 AM]

Man they won't even give us one

So obviously athe least 1 judge wants to rehear. Not panicking....yet.

Elliotte · Aug 1, 2016

press1280 said:
So obviously athe least 1 judge wants to rehear. Not panicking....yet.

Wasn't there a dissent on the 3-judge panel? If so, there's at least one judge there.

wolfwood · Sep 20, 2016

response to the en banc vote filed now outside of possible amicus briefs we are waiting for the en banc vote

j_h_smith · Sep 21, 2016

Sounds good to me. A gun store is a vital part of the 2nd Amendment.

EL1227 · Sep 30, 2016

wolfwood said:
response to the en banc vote filed now outside of possible amicus briefs we are waiting for the en banc vote

j_h_smith said:
Sounds good to me. A gun store is a vital part of the 2nd Amendment.

It's also a vital part of commerce and has implications for gun stores in Fairfax County, VA where the local governments have attempted the same sort of actions ... per the email I just received from CalGuns who filed the amicus brief noted above.

Teixeira was originally filed to challenge a local policy that pushed all gun stores out of the county due to zoning restrictions, and the court’s pivotal ruling was made on Second Amendment grounds.

This can have a huge impact on gun owners nationwide - that’s why the county is appealing the ruling, and why FPC is getting involved and filing an Amicus Brief in the case.

If Plaintiffs prevail, it will set the precedent that local governments CANNOT zone gun stores and the Second Amendment rights of its residents out of its borders.

More 'Californication' ...

gamer_jim · Sep 30, 2016

Al Norris said:
A new case has been filed: Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al

Alameda? Isn't that where they keep the nuclear wessels?

wolfwood · Oct 4, 2016

Alan Gura filed an amicus brief.
It is very well written.

as did the Madison society

md_rick_o · Oct 4, 2016

I love how both point out that the Alameda side left out critical parts of the Jackson quotes.

md_rick_o · Oct 4, 2016

gamer_jim said:
Alameda? Isn't that where they keep the nuclear wessels?

YES. but not anymore. The Alameda naval facility was closed a good while back.

REDhed · Oct 4, 2016

As a popular 2nd Amendment lawyer says, "It don't have to make sense, it is the law." I had a ticket and was fined in IL because my unstrung, recurve, bow wasn't in a case. The officer explained that, if it were cased "there would be no accidental discharges."

That is a true story.

http://dustyoldthing.com/surviving-good-old-days/

wolfwood · Dec 27, 2016

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/12/27/13-17132.pdf
en banc it goes

press1280 · Dec 27, 2016

Of course. As rare as en banc is supposed to be it gets used for almost every 2A victory.

The Federal judiciary needs to be flushed.

DC-W · Dec 27, 2016

wolfwood said:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/12/27/13-17132.pdf
en banc it goes

Of course it does...

fightinbluhen51 · Dec 29, 2016

press1280 said:
Of course. As rare as en banc is supposed to be it gets used for almost every 2A victory.

The Federal judiciary needs to be flushed.

100 open seats...just saying. And typically, they get to appoint between 1/4th and 1/3rd of the judge ships.

Who knows...maybe congress will "deem" it necessary to alter the federal judiciary and pack the....awww hell, who am I kidding, the repubics are still in congress and still haven't found their marbles.

press1280 · Dec 29, 2016

fightinbluhen51 said:
100 open seats...just saying. And typically, they get to appoint between 1/4th and 1/3rd of the judge ships.

Who knows...maybe congress will "deem" it necessary to alter the federal judiciary and pack the....awww hell, who am I kidding, the repubics are still in congress and still haven't found their marbles.

Most of those seats are District Court seats, unfortunately, although Trump can certainly level the playing field as far as the appeals courts, and hopefully SCOTUS.

esqappellate · Jan 2, 2017

wolfwood said:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/12/27/13-17132.pdf
en banc it goes

Ugh

kcbrown · Jan 6, 2017

esqappellate said:
Ugh

What was it you were saying about the integrity and objectivity of judges, again?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

It's a Brave New World. You have now seen for yourself that judges are just as political as anyone else who wields power. We'd better get used to that, and fast. Fortunately, our side won the Presidential election, so we have the opportunity to adapt to this "new" paradigm and take advantage of it to the maximum degree possible.

That means, from this point forward, our legal strategy had better account for the political preferences of the judges that sit on the bench. And we should be willing to laugh out of the room any lawyer who claims that judges are objective and apolitical.

(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

wolfwood · Oct 10, 2017

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/10/13-17132.pdf

loss

yellowfin · Oct 10, 2017

kcbrown said:
What was it you were saying about the integrity and objectivity of judges, again?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

It's a Brave New World. You have now seen for yourself that judges are just as political as anyone else who wields power. We'd better get used to that, and fast. Fortunately, our side won the Presidential election, so we have the opportunity to adapt to this "new" paradigm and take advantage of it to the maximum degree possible.

That means, from this point forward, our legal strategy had better account for the political preferences of the judges that sit on the bench. And we should be willing to laugh out of the room any lawyer who claims that judges are objective and apolitical.

Even more to the point we need to start taking the law schools out of the hands of the communists. This is all downstream of the legal and academic culture. Judges are picked from what there is to be had.

Teixeira v. County of Alameda (CA)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Podcaster

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

"Quack Pot Call Honker"

Ultimate Member

President, MSI

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

Pro 2A Gastronome

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics