Spats McGee
Administrator
Thanks, AB. I didn't know about those reports, either, and they look like a good read.
Woollard v. Sheridan: Cert Denied - see pg 14
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
You're quite welcome, Counselor. Enjoy the reading, I think it'll be interesting. And I hope these two reports get more play and more publicity, because WE paid for them and there have been (apparently) concerted efforts over the years to make them disappear. We can't allow that to happen.Spats McGee said:
And we should be grateful that, for once (actually, for twice), our government used our tax dollars to perform a non-partisan task in a non-partisan manner, and both times it seems they did it well. I confess that I have not re-read either for a very long time, but my recollection from when I first encountered them was that they were fairly exhaustively researched and the evidence set forth in both reports is difficult to refute. Taken together, they appear to me to offer a formidable argument in support of the 2nd Amendment as both an individual right, and a right to keep and bear arms essentially without restriction.
Which, of course, happens to be exactly what the 2nd Amendment says. What a coincidence.
I encourage anyone and everyone who sees this thread to both bookmark and download these two reports. As I've said, they have long since disappeared from the respective sites where I first found them. They are currently accessible on the Internet if you know they exist and go looking for them, but it very much seems to me that various entities have been trying hard to keep them from public knowledge. The fact that so few people even on this forum were aware of them suggests that the effort to keep the reports from the light of day has largely been successful.
It was commonly accepted that the Judge might rule sooner, rather than later. Those of us that thought this (myself included) were wrong.
There is nothing on PACER, as of 5 minutes before this post, to indicate that Judge Legg has ruled on the stay. AFAIK, the ruling to continue or lift the stay is still pending.
There is nothing on PACER, as of 5 minutes before this post, to indicate that Judge Legg has ruled on the stay. AFAIK, the ruling to continue or lift the stay is still pending.
SilverBulletZ06
New member
I really don't know why I keep reading these individually. I don't think I have seen a new shred of evidence or argument since Masciandaro.
The sad part is that in many cases the same old argument has been upheld. I'm interested more in the reply briefs and amicus to see what they say now that there has been a large positive ruling for the 2A.
The sad part is that in many cases the same old argument has been upheld. I'm interested more in the reply briefs and amicus to see what they say now that there has been a large positive ruling for the 2A.
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
Which is why they keep using the same old argument -- because it works. Moreover, it creates precedent, which means it will work on other similar cases in the future.
Until the Supreme Court steps in and cuts them off at the knees!
We all know, or should know, that Alan Gura has a busy month ahead of him. Enough so that he has requested a 2 week extension to file his response brief in Woollard.
This was almost immediately granted by the court (doc #51).
Additionally, attorneys for appellant amicus Legal Historians have filed forms to appear at the orals (doc #52).
So the current timeline is:
This was almost immediately granted by the court (doc #51).
Additionally, attorneys for appellant amicus Legal Historians have filed forms to appear at the orals (doc #52).
So the current timeline is:
Plaintiff Response Brief: 7/30/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 8/6/2012
MD Reply Brief: 8/22/2012
Optional, Amici for Appelles: 8/6/2012
MD Reply Brief: 8/22/2012
SilverBulletZ06
New member
Gura better chop off the legal historians at the kneecaps or get pro-2A historians on his side. I have a feeling that since the past few Pro-2A rulings have been based on historical precedent they are going to have very weighted words before the court.
The Stay Is Lifted!
For the criteria in granting a stay of judgment, pending an appeal, Judge Legg used the following:
Here are his reasonings:
a. Likelihood of Success
The State failed all 4 tests and the stay is lifted.
In a separate order, Judge Legg dissolved the stay to be effective 14 days from the Order. Why 14 days and not immediately?
This is a simple consideration to the State. They now have time to file for a stay with the 4th Circuit and for that circuit to makes its determination of granting a stay.
The reasonings of Judge Legg in dissolving the stay will be given great weight by the motions panel. Like his ruling, this memorandum of dissolving the stay was well written and I suspect that the State's Motion to Stay the Opinion will be denied.
For the criteria in granting a stay of judgment, pending an appeal, Judge Legg used the following:
Here are his reasonings:
a. Likelihood of Success
b. Irreparable Injury
c. Interest of Other Parties
d. and the Public
The State failed all 4 tests and the stay is lifted.
In a separate order, Judge Legg dissolved the stay to be effective 14 days from the Order. Why 14 days and not immediately?
This is a simple consideration to the State. They now have time to file for a stay with the 4th Circuit and for that circuit to makes its determination of granting a stay.
The reasonings of Judge Legg in dissolving the stay will be given great weight by the motions panel. Like his ruling, this memorandum of dissolving the stay was well written and I suspect that the State's Motion to Stay the Opinion will be denied.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
We need more judges like this one.
fawcettlee
New member
I'm flabbergasted!
One more hurdle cleared!!!
One more hurdle cleared!!!
Monday, the 30th, Alan Gura will file his response to MD's opening brief at the 4th. Monday, Aug. 13th, MD will file its reply brief.
Briefing will be complete at that time and we will await a date for oral arguments. A decision from that could come as soon as Dec.
However, there is another factor to all of this. That is a decision in Moore/Shepard from the 7th Circuit. This can and will affect how the 4th might rule, all other things being equal.
Why?
First, the 7th Circuit is listened to by the rest of the country. It is a prestigious circuit, in and of itself. Secondly, Judge Posner is always listened to. He sits in the center chair of the Moore/Shepard panel. I (and most others) believe he will write the decision. Thirdly, this decision will most likely come out within the next couple of weeks - the spring 2012 session ends on Aug. 8th and the 2012 fall session begins on Sept. 5th - sometime before the beginning of the fall session.
While the probable date of the Moore/Shepard is speculation, what is not speculation is that the decision will come out before orals are scheduled for Woollard. The 7th is known for being the "Rocket Docket" among the CCA.
While we shouldn't be drinking our own "Kool-Aid," should the decision be in our favor, that will greatly affect what the 4th will do in this case.
There is yet one more thing to consider.
Should Judge Wilkinson be assigned to the panel that hears Woollard, expect a few fireworks. There is no love lost between him, the Heller five and Alan Gura. Judge Wilkinson has already opined that he believes that the Heller decision was made up out of the whole cloth. He was careful to couch his disrespect in Masciandaro, but it is there, nonetheless.
Briefing will be complete at that time and we will await a date for oral arguments. A decision from that could come as soon as Dec.
However, there is another factor to all of this. That is a decision in Moore/Shepard from the 7th Circuit. This can and will affect how the 4th might rule, all other things being equal.
Why?
First, the 7th Circuit is listened to by the rest of the country. It is a prestigious circuit, in and of itself. Secondly, Judge Posner is always listened to. He sits in the center chair of the Moore/Shepard panel. I (and most others) believe he will write the decision. Thirdly, this decision will most likely come out within the next couple of weeks - the spring 2012 session ends on Aug. 8th and the 2012 fall session begins on Sept. 5th - sometime before the beginning of the fall session.
While the probable date of the Moore/Shepard is speculation, what is not speculation is that the decision will come out before orals are scheduled for Woollard. The 7th is known for being the "Rocket Docket" among the CCA.
While we shouldn't be drinking our own "Kool-Aid," should the decision be in our favor, that will greatly affect what the 4th will do in this case.
There is yet one more thing to consider.
Should Judge Wilkinson be assigned to the panel that hears Woollard, expect a few fireworks. There is no love lost between him, the Heller five and Alan Gura. Judge Wilkinson has already opined that he believes that the Heller decision was made up out of the whole cloth. He was careful to couch his disrespect in Masciandaro, but it is there, nonetheless.
There are two cases that may or may not reach a decision in the 9th Circuit.
The first is Peruta v. San Diego. The other case is Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGinness). These cases both challenge the discretionary issue of carry licenses ("good cause"). The Peruta challenge was dismissed on the defendants MSJ. The Judge cited that Unloaded Open Carry (UOC) was enough to satisfy the 2A. The Judge in Richards thereafter ruled much the same.
Now however, the law in CA has changed and UOC has been banned. That pretty much moots the opinions of the two Judges. It remains to be seen if the 9th will kick this back to the District Courts. The odds are 50/50 that they will.
Enos (the MCDV case) has just started briefing at the 9th.
The other CA cases are still at District Court.
In other words, I don't think it will have much if any effect. Not for a while, at any rate (hoping I'm wrong).
The first is Peruta v. San Diego. The other case is Richards v. Prieto (was Sykes v. McGinness). These cases both challenge the discretionary issue of carry licenses ("good cause"). The Peruta challenge was dismissed on the defendants MSJ. The Judge cited that Unloaded Open Carry (UOC) was enough to satisfy the 2A. The Judge in Richards thereafter ruled much the same.
Now however, the law in CA has changed and UOC has been banned. That pretty much moots the opinions of the two Judges. It remains to be seen if the 9th will kick this back to the District Courts. The odds are 50/50 that they will.
Enos (the MCDV case) has just started briefing at the 9th.
The other CA cases are still at District Court.
In other words, I don't think it will have much if any effect. Not for a while, at any rate (hoping I'm wrong).