Haides
Ultimate Member
It's been so long I don't even remember where we are in this case anymore. We lost at district, won at the 4th on appeal, and are now waiting for the en banc decision, right?
It's been so long I don't even remember where we are in this case anymore. We lost at district, won at the 4th on appeal, and are now waiting for the en banc decision, right?
All I have to say is wow. I would love to live inside your brain for a few days
Intermediate. Also known as pixie dust cuz, viola, it always leads to the desired resultAnd did the court actually apply IS? Or was it actually rational Basis?
Or is that a state secret
Intermediate. Also known as pixie dust cuz, viola, it always leads to the desired result
Intermediate. Also known as pixie dust cuz, viola, it always leads to the desired result
And did the court actually apply IS? Or was it actually rational Basis?
Or is that a state secret
I just listened to the oral argument. Quite a few judges seem dead set against strict scrutiny on this. One can't even be sold the difference between military and civilian versions is auto v semi-auto.
We're in trouble then.
I just listened to the oral argument. Quite a few judges seem dead set against strict scrutiny on this. One can't even be sold the difference between military and civilian versions is auto v semi-auto.
Listening to the orals really doesn't convey the body language and other tells from actually being there. I still call it 60/40 for us.
Any idea on how long the en banc decision can take? Is there a time limit?
The time is whatever it takes. The 4th Circuit is pretty quick compared to other circuits (like the 9th). My *guess* is that we will have a decision well before the anniversary date of the argument (May). Folks need to understand that en banc is necessarily a very time consuming process compared to panel decisions, if only because the issue is important and every active judge on the entire court (as opposed to a 3 judge panel) has to decide the issue. That virtually guarantees dissents and concurring opinions (except in very rare cases). And since nothing is actually decided until the en banc decision is actually released, every judge is angling to persuade the other judges on an issue of importance, all in effort to get a majority opinion of the full court (or a max number of judges in a dissenting opinion). So draft opinions and dissents are constantly circulating. Remember, the judges all understand that if it is important enough to take en banc, it may be also important enough for cert. So the opinions are all being written with an eye toward the possibility of SCT review. Recall that the issue before the full court is the standard of review (strict scrutiny vs. intermediate scrutiny). That sort of issue is really prime for SCT review, especially since it doesn't necessarily (as least technically it doesn't) decide the actual outcome (recall that the panel remanded for application of strict scrutiny).
The time is whatever it takes. The 4th Circuit is pretty quick compared to other circuits (like the 9th). My *guess* is that we will have a decision well before the anniversary date of the argument (May). Folks need to understand that en banc is necessarily a very time consuming process compared to panel decisions, if only because the issue is important and every active judge on the entire court (as opposed to a 3 judge panel) has to decide the issue. That virtually guarantees dissents and concurring opinions (except in very rare cases). And since nothing is actually decided until the en banc decision is actually released, every judge is angling to persuade the other judges on an issue of importance, all in effort to get a majority opinion of the full court (or a max number of judges in a dissenting opinion). So draft opinions and dissents are constantly circulating. Remember, the judges all understand that if it is important enough to take en banc, it may be also important enough for cert. So the opinions are all being written with an eye toward the possibility of SCT review. Recall that the issue before the full court is the standard of review (strict scrutiny vs. intermediate scrutiny). That sort of issue is really prime for SCT review, especially since it doesn't necessarily (as least technically it doesn't) decide the actual outcome (recall that the panel remanded for application of strict scrutiny).
I also cant help but wonder if they are thinking the political claimant is changing from anti 2a in Wash DC to a very favorable position for 2A since Trump will become POTUS and he wants to appoint a very friendly SCJ as well.It might also change their thinking on how they rule and do they use intermediate security or strict security for the ruling.