Nordyke Gunshow Oral Argument Audio

[freonr22]

Nordyke UPDATED W/ some commentary Gunshow Oral Argument Audio

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000003933

Here is the audio from California Nordyke case just the oral arguments to start regarding gunshows, that may very well have National implications.

the county gets pounded!!!

The 9th Circuit Court oral arguments re: Alameda County California is just one of the Legal suits that will/may affect the nation.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

I'm only listening partly to this as I'm doing house chores........does the judge seem extremely hostile to the 2nd Amendment side?


.

 

[freonr22]

Judge "specifically Jerry Brown The state ag, says the supreme court of the us, should extend to the states Heller's core 2a holding The government cannot deny citizens the right to posses handguns in their homes. Are you in conflict w/ you own ag? Yes, yes the county does disagree". The 2a has not been held applicable to the states and the local govs, so if it hasnt been incorporated then the states and local govs do have the local authority, to regulate if under the common law doctorines,

 

[Fryerpower]

"They can have a gun show there as long as there are no guns."
"They could consumate the transaction to buy/sell a gun even without guns, therefore we are not restricting that access to guns."

If I wanted to buy a gun without holding it I would go to gunbroker.com...

-Jim

 

[Phatty]

Thanks for the link. I forgot that this was today.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

So for those who listened to this, how does it look for our side?

.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Listening to the Justices, it did appear that the County was treated with a bit more respect than Nordyke. If that sense can be applied to how the 9th rules, they'll hold with the lower court and hold cause for "incorporation" to be directly addressed by the supremes.

Woody

 

[2aHawaii]

I listened to it and it sounds like "our side" was well prepared and "their side" wasn't.

Does anyone know how long it usually takes to decide on these cases? I noticed that the Judges had mentioned about waiting until the SCOTUS cases had been decided.

 

[hirundo82]

According to the order they just issued, the 9th Circuit is going to delay considering Nordyke until SCOTUS decides (in their September 29 conference) whether to grant certiorari to the 2nd or 7th Circuit incorporation cases.

 

[spartywrx]

So I'm guessing that they won't do anything on this until after the supremes make a move. From their perspective it makes no sense in doing the extra work if the supremes are going to decide to take up the case in 5 days.

 

[Prosser]

How did they pick the en banc judging panel?

 

[spartywrx]

How did they pick the en banc judging panel?

Ever watch the lotto where they have all those little ping pong balls with numbers on them bouncing around in that clear apparatus?

That's exactly how they do it, only with judge names instead of numbers.












(I have no clue actually )

 

[freonr22]

Sykes was put on hold pending the outcome of Nordyke on incorporation.

Just speculating here, but let's say the Nordyke panel decides to wait until SCOTUS, presumably, grants cert. to those other circuit incorporation cases. SCOTUS hears them, presumably, early in their term and, presumably, publishes its opinion before 15 May. Let's further presume that we get incorporation.

So, Nordyke is no longer held up and can go forward. But Sykes can also immediately go forward since the only reason it was put on hold was to get an authoritative holding re the incorporation issue, and it doesn't get any better than SCOTUS. IOW, after SCOTUS incorporation, Sykes can go forward on its own w/o waiting for and regardless of the outcome in Nordyke.

So, under my hypothetical, could Sykes be decided -- at least as far as the MSJs -- before 4 July 2010? Is that likely? If not, why not?

ETA: Of course, the losing side will immediately appeal to the 9th. If so, will the court stay its holding pending the outcome of the appeal? Remember, CA is already "May Issue" and facts could be presented as to the extent of issuance across the entire state and how, presumably, they've had little or no problems w/CCW holders. (ETA: here I'm talking about people who got their CCWs by following the rules, not because they're celebrities, big time contributors or members of the sheriff's posse, or some other such nonsense.) Would that sway the court not to stay its holding?

If the holding is stayed, we may go the route of Nordyke w/appeals court panel after panel before we get Shall Issue.

Though I would share what Nordyke does/contributes for many things

 

[freonr22]

"(09-24) 14:43 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A divided federal appeals court wrestled Thursday with potentially the most important gun case in its history, a dispute over a firearms ban at the Alameda County Fairgrounds that has expanded into a constitutional battle over state and local authority to regulate gun possession.
"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/24/BA0119S7I5.DTL

So far, only the Chronicle has covered this story in the Bay Area.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Short silver-lining analysis from David Hardy: http://armsandthelaw.com/

UPDATE: by held onto I mean the Circuit will take no action, leaving it in a sort of limbo. It won't send it back to the lower court for action, nor give a final decision, which would mean it could move on to the Supreme Court. Judges do not like to be reversed , and here the exact issue is going before the Supreme Court, why take a position that might get crosswise with their ruling? If the Supreme Court grants review, the Circuit will hold onto it until the Supreme Court rules. If the Supreme Court denies review of the earlier Chicago cases, the 9th Circuit will proceed to rule.


This is nice in a way since it gives two shots at Supreme Court review, and IF the Chicago cases were refused, and the 9th then ruled for incorporation of the right to arms, there would be a second shot at Supreme Court consideration, now with a split among the circuits,



Posts above not mine, reposted for your enjoyment

 

[Cosmoline]

En banc is supposed to include every judge, but the 9th is too big so they randomly select a smaller group. That circuit should have been split up thirty years ago.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

... That circuit should have been split up thirty years ago.

I agree. It's a good way to isolate the leftists plaguing the left coast. No offense meant to any of our conservative friends on the west coast or to those that somehow made it on the court in that part of the country.

Woody

 

[ilbob]

.

So for those who listened to this, how does it look for our side?

.

Its an interesting listen. "Our" side did a very credible job with most of the questions. There was a couple of oops, but overall it was pretty darn good.

The other side did not seem well prepared and her responses to questions was not all that good, and really did not seem to even believe in her own case.

OTOH, my guess is all the judges had already decided how they would vote on incorporation well in advance of the oral arguments.

After thinking about it some, I am convinced they chose the best course - wait and see what SCOTUS does.

Despite my dislike of the resultant decision, I have issues with lower courts making decisions in opposition to SCOTUS decisions. IMO it is up to SCOTUS to correct their wrong headed thinking in this matter.

 

[legaleagle_45]

The members of the panel mentioned in the initial link were:

KOZINSKI, PREGERSON, REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN

First the bad news. Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion in Silveiria....

Now the good news. Both Kozinski and Pregerson wrote stinging dissents when the 9th Circ refused to hear Silveiria en banc asserting the 2nd was an individual right which would be incorporated upon the states.

That leaves O'Scannlain. He was appointed by Reagan and wrote the original opinion in Nordyke.

I don't know agout the other 7 judges on the panel. The two mentioned in the story, Tallman and Graber were both apointed by Clinton, but Tallman was a Republican and seems sympathetic...

 

[Yellowfin]

Something to note of course is that the LCAV donated legal representation for all of this. Every time we have to pony up big bucks for our legal fights, the bad guys get to play for free because that organization gives away millions of dollars worth of legal hours purely because their mission is to spite the 2nd Amendment at every opportunity. Anti gun lawyers donate their required pro bono (or maybe I should say pro bozo) hours to this.