Nordyke - Cert filed at SCOTUS

Maybe the thought they could out last the plaintiffs in a war of (monetary) attrition. Maybe now they think they was wrong.
 
12 years of litigation and they just now say this? Holy Hanna, Batman!!
Click to expand...
There is significant evidence in the record that the county's position, since at least as far back as 2008, was that the gun shows could be held if the weapons were secured. They weren't shouting this from the rooftops by any means, but it IS in the record, including a discussion of cabling as the means to secure the guns.

See this thread for discussion and arguments, especially those presented by Calguns member 'fabiogetsgoosed'.

It's pretty clear to me that the county's culpability in this "misunderstanding" may be severely limited by the fact that they are on the record as saying that secured guns would be ok, and in at least one exchange, that secured means tethered with a cable.

The first 9th en banc panel also seems to have missed it altogether, or at least, they didn't understand that it was a significant shift in the county's previous position. (This can be heard in the 1st en banc oral argument recordings at about 56:00, IIRC)

It also seems obvious that at a minimum, the county allowed the mistaken impression to remain that they were sticking to their previous position of 'gun-less gun shows'. The plaintiffs may or may not have understood the county's new interpretation.

It's not over yet, but it promises to be a very strange end to a very long road.

Bottom line, they can have their gun shows, the scrutiny issue is unscathed, and hopefully the several cases being held for this somewhat bizzare outcome can finally move forward. I hope.

I can't figure out if this was an unintentional oversight by the plaintiffs, strategic 'ignorance' of the county's position, or just a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. It does seem to complicate things for Don Kilmer when it comes to getting fees.
 
Last edited:
Why is it....?

Similarly, a law does not substantially burden a constitutional right simply because it makes the right more expensive or more difficult to exercise
Click to expand...

Isn't voting one of our constutional rights?

Why is it that a law requiring ID (or worse, proof of citizenship, or actually being registered to vote) gets call an infringment, restriction, disenfranchising a segment of the population, etc... but this statement above is an actual court ruling when it comes to gun rights?

guess it depends on whose ox is being gored, I suppose...:confused:
 
Actually, voting is a "right", not a right.

The Fifteenth Amendment states:

AMENDMENT XV

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Click to expand...

Yet there are those who are denied that "right" based on various legal whimsy such as being dishonorably discharged from the military or being a felon. The term for this is "Criminal Disenfranchisement".

See HERE.

The Congress giveth, and the Congress taketh ay.
 
Yet there are those who are denied that "right" based on various legal whimsy such as being dishonorably discharged from the military or being a felon. The term for this is "Criminal Disenfranchisement".
Click to expand...
But you emphasized the wrong part. It says the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. . . ." So criminal disenfranchisement is okay under the Constitution.
 
It is intresting that Voteing is brought into the mix. It would seem that excesive fees and charges could be attacked in the manner that POLL TAXES were found unconstitional. Those places, like Washington DC who charge 100 of dollars, I don't remember what the final total was for our Reporters efforts, would be inviolation of the same logic/reasons which caused the demise of the Poll TAX.

Any of you legal egales care to comment. I would like to hear your thoughts.
 
KyJim said:
But you emphasized the wrong part. It says the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. . . ." So criminal disenfranchisement is okay under the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So what we have is a qualified right. How many more disqualifiers can be added by the congress? As many as they want.
 
It is intresting that Voteing is brought into the mix. It would seem that excesive fees and charges could be attacked in the manner that POLL TAXES were found unconstitional. Those places, like Washington DC who charge 100 of dollars, I don't remember what the final total was for our Reporters efforts, would be inviolation of the same logic/reasons which caused the demise of the Poll TAX.

Any of you legal egales care to comment. I would like to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...
I believe the poll taxes, like literacy tests, were specifically intended to, and had the effect of, keeping African-Americans from voting. Therefore, the poll taxes clearly abridged the right to vote based on race and/or previous condition of involuntary servitude.
 
Nordyke v. Alameda County. The "decision" is in. Care to Guess? Here's the entire order (my emphasis):

Filed April 4, 2012
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Harry Pregerson,
Stephen Reinhardt, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain,
Michael Daly Hawkins, Susan P. Graber, Ronald M. Gould,
Richard C. Tallman, Consuelo M. Callahan,
Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Order;
Concurrence by Judge M. Smith;
Dissent by Chief Judge Kozinski


ORDER​

The panel believes that the parties should attempt to settle this dispute by agreeing on the conditions for holding gun shows at the Alameda County fairgrounds, with the assistance of mediation. The case is referred to the Circuit Mediation Office for mediation, and its submission is deferred for 45 days or pending further order of the court.

The Circuit Mediator will contact the parties as soon as possible and shall provide a status report to the panel no later than 45 days following this order.
________________________________________

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, concurring:

I concur with the Court’s order sending this case to mediation. However, I would have attached a copy of a proposed disposition in this case so that the parties would know what they would face in the event mediation fails.
__________________________________________

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, with whom GOULD, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting:

The parties have not asked for mediation; they have said nothing that suggests mediation would be fruitful; when asked about it in court, they displayed obvious distaste for the idea. We overstep our authority by forcing the parties to spend time and money engaging in a mediation charade. Our job is to decide the case, and do so promptly. This delay serves no useful purpose; it only makes us look foolish. I want no part of it.
Click to expand...

There you have it. This is not even a punt.

Immediately after this, the Mediation Contact Order was filed (also attached). Mediation will begin with a teleconference on Apr. 13th.

In the meantime, all the CA9 cases that deal with the 2A, are still on hold, because there is no decision from the 9th.

The best that could happen would be for both sides to request Cert from the Supreme Court to exercise its supervisory authority.
 

Attachments

After 12 years, this panel's answer is to go and chat it out? So now a mediator is to accomplish what the entire en banc panel, and every other court since the beginning of this case, could not and would not decide.

What an embarrassment.
 
Martin's view is most interesting. But what would motivate this action, what would be achieved if mediation were successful, or not successful, and which judges would be in favor of this dodge? There must be powerful forces working behind the scenes to prompt such strange action.
 
Presumeably a mediated settlement (if one can be reached) cannot be cited as either legal precedent or (what's the legal term?) _____ authority. So it really IS a punt, of monumental proportions. In essence, it amounts to judicial nonfeasance.
 
I am at a bit of a loss. I've never heard of a Court of Appeals ordering mediation under these conditions (after 12 years of litigation and at this stage of appellate litigation ). . . I'll likely have more comments tomorrow, after I've slept on this and digested it.

With that said, here's what I find interesting:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said:
The panel believes that the parties should attempt to settle this dispute by agreeing on the conditions for holding gun shows at the Alameda County fairgrounds, with the assistance of mediation. The case is referred to the Circuit Mediation Office for mediation, and its submission is deferred for 45 days or pending further order of the court.
Click to expand...
Not "they should go to mediation to settle the dispute," but rather "by agreeing on the conditions for holding gun shows." My gut feeling is that the panel really, really wanted to find for the Defendants, but simply could not find a way to do it without being overturned. So they did the next best thing, which was to try to leave the Defendants some bargaining power at mediation. Aguila Blanca may also have a point. Perhaps the 9th is trying to avoid letting this lawsuit have any precedential power.
 
I'm very surprised they ordered mediation at this point. I'm also convinced it won't work unless the defendants make large concessions and also agree to pay large attorney fees. It's hard to see that happening.
 
I suppose the one glimmer of hope for optimism is that the order says, "The panel believes that the parties should attempt to settle this dispute by agreeing on the conditions for holding gun shows at the Alameda County fairgrounds, ..." This tells the defendants that there WILL be gun shows and that the mediation isn't over "if" but rather over "how."

Also, unless the 9th Circus is different from most of the world, mediation isn't binding (unlike some arbitrations). I suppose if the County remains overly obstructive the plaintiffs can simply decline to agree, and let the clock run out on the mediation period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top