Nordyke Hearing Today

[tango-52]

Sounds like Alameda had a rough time of it. Here is a link to the audio:

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

[Karatediver]

Is there a transcript or just the recording?

[tango-52]

Just the recording so far. The hearing was this morning. Maybe it will be transcribed by tomorrow. That site seems to be getting a lot of traffic as I couldn't download the audio file or even play it. Maybe this evening it will slow down a bit.

[THE Gimper]

Who's the judge who, early on, asked, "Where is this all taking us? If we agree with you, will it result in more guns in California or fewer guns? Will it result in more restriction or less restriction?" That's a troubling (but not unexpected considering this court) question. It means that he's prepared to rule, not based on the law and the merits of the case, but rather on his own preference for or against guns. That's not his job as a judge.

[tango-52]

The good thing is that there are eleven judges on the panel and all we need is a simple majority finding for incorporation.

[tango-52]

HOLY CRAP! The 9th issued it's ruling already! They punted:

Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI): Submission is vacated pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Maloney
v. Rice, No. 08-1592, McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521, and National
Rifle Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1497. [7074146] (AF)

No incorporation until the Supreme Court says so. We are on hold until next June.

[sholling]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

Who's the judge who, early on, asked, "Where is this all taking us? If we agree with you, will it result in more guns in California or fewer guns? Will it result in more restriction or less restriction?" That's a troubling (but not unexpected considering this court) question. It means that he's prepared to rule, not based on the law and the merits of the case, but rather on his own preference for or against guns. That's not his job as a judge.

Exactly. He clearly telegraphed that he saw the role of the court as making political choices for the great unwashed rather than basing rulings on the law. The thought process didn't surprise me given the venue - but being this up front about it was shocking.

[tango-52]

Here is the ruling, courtesy of Gene Hoffman at Calguns:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Nor...2009-09-24.pdf

[Keith92555]

Originally Posted by sholling

Exactly. He clearly telegraphed that he saw the role of the court as making political choices for the great unwashed rather than basing rulings on the law. The thought process didn't surprise me given the venue - but being this up front about it was shocking.

Yeah, whatever happened to judges interpretting the law?? Talk about judicial activism. I pretty sure that this is what we are going to see out of Sotomayor, et al. This is just a shining example of how we have come 180 degrees from the country the Founding Fathers imagined. Can a brother get a revolution around here?

[EM2]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

Who's the judge who, early on, asked, "Where is this all taking us? If we agree with you, will it result in more guns in California or fewer guns? Will it result in more restriction or less restriction?" That's a troubling (but not unexpected considering this court) question. It means that he's prepared to rule, not based on the law and the merits of the case, but rather on his own preference for or against guns. That's not his job as a judge.

HOW ON EARTH DO THEY EXPECT US TO RESPECT THE LAW WHEN CLEARLY THEY DO NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This clearly is an outrage and should not be tolerated.

Originally Posted by Keith92555

Yeah, whatever happened to judges interpretting the law?? Talk about judicial activism. I pretty sure that this is what we are going to see out of Sotomayor, et al. This is just a shining example of how we have come 180 degrees from the country the Founding Fathers imagined. Can a brother get a revolution around here?

+1000000000000

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

Who's the judge who, early on, asked, "Where is this all taking us? If we agree with you, will it result in more guns in California or fewer guns? Will it result in more restriction or less restriction?" That's a troubling (but not unexpected considering this court) question. It means that he's prepared to rule, not based on the law and the merits of the case, but rather on his own preference for or against guns. That's not his job as a judge.

Imagine if this court was hearing a case like Brown v. Board of Education (which determined that segregation was inherently unequal, and a violation of the 14th Amendment) and this judge asked, "Where is all of this taking us? If we agree with you, will it result in black kids going to school with white kids? Will it result in blacks being allowed to eat in restaurants right next to whites?"

[derringer]

No big surprise, right?