Amazing -- the 9th Circuit Chief Judge Gets It

[FNG19]

Here is a fantastic article written in 1993 by Alex Kozinski, currently the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, concerning judicial activism and the use of courts as a social policy tool. Chief Judge Kozinski specifically calls out the Panel over its upholding of the California Assault Weapons Ban, and about the schizophrenic view the Panel (and, frankly, by extension, too many judges) had about the nature of our rights. It's a fascinating read and not very long. Though the topic is almost two decades old, his discourse concerning the proper role of the Courts is prescient given the Santomayor situation.

[Yellowfin]

Hopefully he'll keep the Nor**** case from going en banc and screwing things up for the people in CA.

[FNG19]

Hopefully he'll keep the Nor**** case from going en banc and screwing things up for the people in CA.

I'm not sure he can. The 9th circuit decided Nor**** in April (upheld Alameda County's restrictions but still Incorporated 2A). If SCOTUS doesn't hear it, it's over. I don't think SCOTUS will hear Nor**** as an Incorporation case, nor do I think it's a good candidate. There are, apparently, other cases that are in or have just passed the various Circuit courts that are prepping for SCOTUS that may be better candidates for Incorporation, particularly from the 2nd circuit (the "nunchuck" case that Santomayor blew) and the 7th whose details I don't recall at this point.

[press1280]

There's supposed to be a vote by the 9th circuit judges whether to rehear Nor**** en banc. If they do vote to hear it again, the Chief Justice Kozinski is supposed to be on that panel.
Also read Silveira v. Lockyer, Kozinski's dissent is very good.
The Chicago gun case from the 7th circuit filed for SCOTUS the day after the 7th's decision was handed down.
Maloney from the 2nd circuit has until the end of this month to file with SCOTUS, but I haven't heard anything. They may back out in order to let the Chicago case be the vehicle for incorporation.

[FNG19]

There's supposed to be a vote by the 9th circuit judges whether to rehear Nor**** en banc. If they do vote to hear it again, the Chief Justice Kozinski is supposed to be on that panel.

I stand corrected! I didn't realize that the Circuit can be petitioned to re-hear en banc. For some reason I thought that was something that came down from SCOTUS. Thanks for the info!

[Yellowfin]

I'm not sure he can. The 9th circuit decided Nor**** in April (upheld Alameda County's restrictions but still Incorporated 2A). If SCOTUS doesn't hear it, it's over. I don't think SCOTUS will hear Nor**** as an Incorporation case, nor do I think it's a good candidate. There are, apparently, other cases that are in or have just passed the various Circuit courts that are prepping for SCOTUS that may be better candidates for Incorporation, particularly from the 2nd circuit (the "nunchuck" case that Santomayor blew) and the 7th whose details I don't recall at this point.

The 2nd Circuit one would be a disaster because the people in that case don't like firearms. It was argued pro se which is a TERRIBLE idea when pursuing something of this magnitude. Lawyers on our side tried to talk to Maloney either to help or dissuade him from continuing and he ignored both. The law firm that has been now added as counsel is know to be anti gun, and I strongly suspect that Maloney himself is doing this for no other reason than to sabotage us. The two cases from the 7th are very strong, and Nor**** isn't bad at all given its circumstances as it's to overrule three very bad decisions in the 9th circuit: Hickman v. Block, Fresno Rifle and Pistol v. Van de Kaamp, and Silveira v. Lockyer. All Nor**** needs is to simply say affirmed on the incorporation bit which is almost completely inarguable as Mr. Kilmer has that nailed down airtight as did O' Scannlian in his ruling.