TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:My question is, will the 9th Circuit now hear the case en banc? Or will the decision stand? What's the process? Do the plaintiff's have to file a petition for an en banc hearing?

I will stick my neck out and hazard a rather uncertain answer for you, Baldeagle. I say uncertain because I am not at all familiar with the rules of either the district court making the original decision nor those of the 9th Circuit, and these rules take much study and compliance. This action was one seeking a preliminary injunction, and the district court denied the plaintiff's' petition. It looks to me, in my ignorance of the rules at play here, that this will go back to the district court, and that it is not officially all over yet. On the other hand, given the action by SCOTUS, I would be surprised if the ultimate outcome in the district court, 9th Circuit and SCOTUS change.

Chas. perhaps could give you a real answer, given his much better chance of knowing what the NRA legal staff is thinking about now, the NRA being a party, but I would certainly understand if he felt it inappropriate to discuss the litigation strategy of the NRA, and I certainly have no intention of even asking him.

Jim

RoyGBiv wrote:

b322da wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:
...How is yesterdays decision to deny certiorari in this case NOT exactly the opposite of Heller?....

With respect, yesterday's "decision" was not a decision with respect to any issue before the Court in Heller.

Jim

Seems directly on point to me... and Justice Thomas.
In what specific way do you think it's not... ?

And here's the ordinance, FYI.... http://police.sanfranciscocode.org/45/4512/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was not a decision as to any issue in Heller because it was simply a denial of a writ of certiorari, which means they chose, as was the Court's right, to not decide the case, notwithstanding the comments of the eminent Justice Thomas, who with his infinite wisdom and judicial knowledge, would have heard the case, and reversed the circuit court. It was "bad." Just as Chas. noted in his earlier post, where I agreed with him. Recently he went further to note that a denial of the writ maintains the decision of the circuit court, which is why I also agreed with him earlier when he said that it was bad. With that I also agree. In short, it was a bad result, from this forum's general viewpoint, but it still did not affect Heller either explicitly or implicitly. While it was a "bad decision," all it decided was to make no decision.

And I am very familiar with the ordinance.

I will be the first to agree with anyone who might say that this is just lawyer-gobbledegook. It is -- and that is how many lawyers make a living. But without at least a limited understanding of lawyer-gobbledegook one simply cannot understand the true impact of words coming out of SCOTUS.

Did this writ denial set the stage for eventually impacting its opinion in Heller? Possibly. But possibly not. They will apparently at least let this one simmer a bit and take a look at what comes out of other circuits. I would not be surprised to see SCOTUS revisit this case someday. But maybe not. Only time will tell.

Jim

RoyGBiv wrote:
...How is yesterdays decision to deny certiorari in this case NOT exactly the opposite of Heller?....

With respect, yesterday's "decision" was not a decision with respect to any issue before the Court in Heller.

Jim

Beiruty wrote:All what it means, that the government can regulate firearms, or the supreme court does not want to re-consider existing regulation in question.

It means precisely what Chas. just said it means, and it is quite arguable whether this "undermines" Heller.

Jim