Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Nordyke goes en banc

  1. #1
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    The 9th Circuit Court has decided to take Nordyke en banc.

    This suspends the Nordyke 3 judge panel ruling from being used as precendent.

    It basically "unincorporates" the 2nd Amendment until the next decision is made by the full 9th Circuit Court.

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...0715763ebo.pdf

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    And, it can be delayed even further...

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/rules/FRAP/rules.htm

    9th Cir. R. 35-3

    In appropriate cases, the Court may order a rehearing by the full court following a hearing or rehearing en banc.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Damn it! Help us SCOTUS, you're our only hope.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Now tell me again who the H*** is the judge who asked for an en banc session? And for what?

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Damn it! Help us SCOTUS, you're our only hope.
    There is a more powerful body than our 9 member oligarchy, President or Federal Legislature....if it chooses to exercise its power.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    Now tell me again who the H*** is the judge who asked for an en banc session? And for what?
    The judge that initiated the vote gets to remain anonymous, and doesn't have to give any reason.

    Sorry, but we'll probably never know who or why.

    Well, let's put our celebration on hold... another hoop to jump through in the hopes of restoring our right to self defense.

    /sadface
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    If the original decision gets over turned and the 2nd does not get incorporated, and if SCOTUS does not take the issue in October, or if they do and the 2nd loses (God forbid), then we will have no other choice but to fight tooth and nail to amend the CA constitution with the exact same wording as the 2nd. When all else fails and you can no longer rely upon the judges then you just have to take it directly to the people. Personally, I think a state constitutional amendement would win.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    Personally, I think a state constitutional amendement would win.
    If that were the case, then why bother with incorporation?

    I don't know anything about the process to amend the CA constitution, but I'm guessing it would require getting the Democrat-controlled legislature to vote it in... which I doubt would work.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    What I don't understand is why this doesn't count as "incorporation":

    Code:
    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 
    ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
    SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the  United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the  supreme law of the land.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    flintlock tom wrote:
    What I don't understand is why this doesn't count as "incorporation":

    Code:
    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 
    ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
    SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the  United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the  supreme law of the land.
    Decades of infringing legislation and court rulings disregarding it...

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Shawn wrote:
    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Damn it! Help us SCOTUS, you're our only hope.
    There is a more powerful body than our 9 member oligarchy, President or Federal Legislature....if it chooses to exercise its power.
    Right now, practice has very little to do with theory.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    Personally, I think a state constitutional amendement would win.
    If that were the case, then why bother with incorporation?

    I don't know anything about the process to amend the CA constitution, but I'm guessing it would require getting the Democrat-controlled legislature to vote it in... which I doubt would work.
    The easiest way to do it would be with a referendum. In California, ballot proposals have a weight of law nearly equal to our state Constitution itself.

    Keep it short and sweet, like Prop 215. No specifics, just a declaration of right and a statement that the right is to be respected by the government.

    Once so instructed, the legislature can sort out the details, while keeping in compliance with the referendum, on pain of supreme court review.

  13. #13
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    coolusername2007 wrote:
    Personally, I think a state constitutional amendement would win.
    If that were the case, then why bother with incorporation?

    I don't know anything about the process to amend the CA constitution, but I'm guessing it would require getting the Democrat-controlled legislature to vote it in... which I doubt would work.
    I don't know, but that's the point. I suspect its because lawsuits are the primary avenue for recourse. Then over years of suits it just kind of perpetuates itself. Then one day someone says screw it let's do a constitutional amendment, something that I thoughtisvoted in by the people, not the legislature, just like the recent prop 8 vote - that vote changed the CA constitution.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    For it to be effective, it would have to be 1) more explicit than the 2A 2) include penalties for any government official who violates it. So something like...

    Parts (a) and (b) are added to Article I, Section I of the California Constitution, to read:

    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
    ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

    SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
    inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
    liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
    and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

    (a) To this end, all law-abiding adults of sound mental status shall not be in any way interfered from purchasing, possessing, or carrying firearms and/or any tool capable of being used in self-defense, in any manner whatsoever.
    (b) Any elected or unelected government official, agent, or employee who interferes is punishable by a fine of $500,000 or imprisonment in the state prison for five years and shall permanently be banned from government employment.


    The following Penal Codes are hereby null and void: 12031, 12025, 626.9, etc...

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    That would be great, but such a proposal seems unlikely to the point of impossibility until such a time as it would be practically redundant anyway. It's hardline, too controversial, not mainstream enough -- as much as I personally agree with the sentiment.

    Much better is to use the referendum system to pass a not-too-loaded short-and-sweet statement, something a plurality of California voters will agree on (think of how easy a plurality is to obtain...), which will later compel the legislature and the courts in a meaningful way.

    I maintain my reference to Prop 215. Easily passed, little more than a declaration of intent, yet it lead to real-world changes for those affected. Now, imagine what the RKBA community could do where those affected by 215 didn't manage to take what they had and run with it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    All the rallying cries of "Nordyke will be our saving grace" fell upon my deaf ears.

    The courts are NOT the way to get our 2A rights back. The Supreme Court has "given us" (oh thank you, our great benefactors) a neutered Second and, even if we can get Kalifornia to accept the national idea of 2A rights, we still aren't free.

    We need the people, which is why OC is so important. OCers get out and educate, they get out and inform, they get out and change opinions on gun owners.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
    The courts are NOT the way to get our 2A rights back. The Supreme Court has "given us" (oh thank you, our great benefactors) a neutered Second and, even if we can get Kalifornia to accept the national idea of 2A rights, we still aren't free.

    We need the people, which is why OC is so important. OCers get out and educate, they get out and inform, they get out and change opinions on gun owners.
    I'd like to give this sentiment the old +1.

  18. #18
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
    The courts are NOT the way to get our 2A rights back.

    The history of Bill Of Rights jurisprudence indicates otherwise.



    We need the people, which is why OC is so important. OCers get out and educate, they get out and inform, they get out and change opinions on gun owners.

    I agree, and this will be most effective in CAwhen we are dealing with a Right to carry and can then mirror the movements in WI, MI, OH and VA for example.

    We are like the pathfinders landing on Normandy (two years early :shock.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •