It finally dawned on me, that the briefs for the
en banc hearing were long overdue. So a little digging over at CalGuns.net today, produced what I needed.
As you (should) know, there was a call for an
en banc review of the Nordyke decision. Briefs were due on June 6th. The appellants (Nordyke) brief is
here(2MB PDF). The appellees (Alameda County) brief is
here (934KB PDF).
Here, Kilmer and Kates argue that while incorporation was the right call, the panels analysis was flawed in that the Gun Show did not impose any burden upon the county and that the fairgrounds are not a "sensitive" place. That if an
en banc hearing goes forward, that only the panels flawed analysis should be heard.
The County on the other hand, sees nothing flawed in the judgment, except the incorporation issue, which it holds as dicta. Therefore, if
en banc is granted, only the incorporation issue warrants a hearing. The court need not bother with the actual holdings of the panel.
I think the above two paragraphs provide a fair comparison of the opposing sides take on the original panel and what, if anything, the 9th Circuit should do.
Should the circuit Judges vote for an
en banc hearing, we would then have 60 days (I think) for briefs from the party's and their amici.
Here's where it gets dicey for me, as I have no idea on the proper procedures for the various courts that are now involved in 2A litigation.
Would the Supreme Court wait to grant or deny cert in the 7th Circuit and 2nd Circuit cases, while the 9th Circuit
en banc hearing was pending? Or would the 9th Circuit grant a stay on their hearing if cert was granted on the 7th and/or 2nd Circuits cases?
Can anyone tell us what might be the way this proceeds?