Thanks for the update.

Now, I believe it is a waiting game. Not sure how long actually. I'll let Chris answer that when he has a chance.

Thanks for the update.

Now, I believe it is a waiting game. Not sure how long actually. I'll let Chris answer that when he has a chance.

Don't know. There is a looming case kind of I front of everyone else that could screw things up. Months I would say.
From there, win is a win, and a loss we assess and decide either to file for cert, or proceed on in the district court with discovery and everything else.

.

A post from another attorney, with significant experience at the 9th circuit posted this about our attorney, Richard Holcomb:

"That's what Kachalsky essentially held and I can't blame Cal and HI counsel for pushing it. That I what I would do as a counsel in their shoes. What I found intriguing is that the court was not buying, at least in their questions. Baker's counsel was actually helped on the PI point by counsel for the State. Judge Callahan gnawing at the PI abuse of discretion standard and it was *HI* counsel who articulated the right answer on that and that answer should be sufficient to put the PI issue to rest.

But Baker's counsel did not do a bad job at all. -- much better than most arguments I hear in the courts of appeals. He wasn't as smooth as Clement and Gura, to be sure, but few oral advocates are and smoothness doesn't really matter much in these arguments. What matters with a panel this smart (and all three are very smart judges) are your responses to the court's questions and the logical coherence of those responses in terms of your underlying legal theory. On that score, Baker counsel made no significant errors and had some very good points. His response that the discovery showed ZERO permits for civilians, for example, was very telling and had an impact. I learned more about the panel's mindset from the Baker argument than I did from Richards and Peruta arguments. I very much like Judge Callahan's statement of judicial philosophy about following SCT decisions. These are the things you look for, not the artistry of counsel's words."

See http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=1970730&postcount=83

What is a PI

What is a PI

It's a preliminary ruling that you can request to have while the case is on going.  Essentially, it would be like saying, "Look, while we hash this crap out - we should get issued a permit to carry."  The only problem is that there is a higher threshold we have to meet than other cases to have a Preliminary Injunction go through

I listened to the audio. I couldn't even believe the case that the defense was trying to raise :rolleyes: I agree where the attorney on the other forums said that Holcomb wasn't as smooth as the other two. But he was following two all stars. He did a rather good job.

I found it interesting how the three cases were strung together and then the judges would make reference to the previous case. Learn something new every day.

I listened to the audio. I couldn't even believe the case that the defense was trying to raise :rolleyes: I agree where the attorney on the other forums said that Holcomb wasn't as smooth as the other two. But he was following two all stars. He did a rather good job.

I found it interesting how the three cases were strung together and then the judges would make reference to the previous case. Learn something new every day.

Yeah. Paul clement is arguably, one of the best attorneys in the country - period. I mean no joke, probably like top 5 in the country. 

Alan Gura is also very good, and one of the best 2A attorneys in the country - so it is hard to compare. I'm proud of my friend, and I think he did good by me. 

Been following this for awhile, but have yet to post on it.  Just wanted to let you know I respect SO much what you guys have been doing for all of us, I'll be here keeping my fingers crossed!

listening to the states argument... reminds me of some kind of high school debate class...

Our cause could get an assist from the recent 7th Circuit Court opinion striking down Illinois' total prohibition on all forms of carry outside the home.  The ruling conforms to Heller and McDonald, and explicitly states that carrying outside the home is included in the right to bear arms.

If the IL Attorney General appeals, I predict SCOTUS will deny cert because it is in precise alignment with those earler SCOTUS opinions.  When the 7th Circuit opinion is affirmed, the fact that carrying outside the home is part of the 2A right will signal the end of may-issue everywhere.

Our cause could get an assist from the recent 7th Circuit Court opinion striking down Illinois' total prohibition on all forms of carry outside the home.  The ruling conforms to Heller and McDonald, and explicitly states that carrying outside the home is included in the right to bear arms.

If the IL Attorney General appeals, I predict SCOTUS will deny cert because it is in precise alignment with those earler SCOTUS opinions.  When the 7th Circuit opinion is affirmed, the fact that carrying outside the home is part of the 2A right will signal the end of may-issue everywhere.

I'm not as knowlegdable as some with the lawyer issues, but as far as I know, the decision in the 7th won't laterally affect the 9th. I think the tiering is vertical where decisions in the 9th will affect courts under that district and SCOTUS would affect everything below it.

That said, the favorable decision in the 7th is good news on its own.

I'm not as knowlegdable as some with the lawyer issues, but as far as I know, the decision in the 7th won't laterally affect the 9th. I think the tiering is vertical where decisions in the 9th will affect courts under that district and SCOTUS would affect everything below it.

That said, the favorable decision in the 7th is good news on its own.

It affects it greatly.  Because one way or another, either they agree (and we win) or they disagree and we are split circuits which aids a SCOTUS review.

It affects it greatly.  Because one way or another, either they agree (and we win) or they disagree and we are split circuits which aids a SCOTUS review.

Sure glad you're keeping us straight on all the legal jargon with this. For us layman (speaking for myself) it's very useful info.

Very good to know Chris.

Sure glad you're keeping us straight on all the legal jargon with this. For us layman (speaking for myself) it's very useful info.

No problem to break it down even further, what helps is when two different areas (circuits) have different opinions.  Overall, we want the constitution to kind of apply in the same way all the way across the land. For instance, we don't want freedom of speech to mean one thing in California and another thing in Florida.  If we get to that point (a circuit split) and their opinions differ it increases the chance that the Supreme Court will weigh in on the case to settle the differences.   We have to remember the Supreme Court only takes about 1% of the cases that people request it to hear, so we have to have a good controversy that will affect a lot of people.  The splits really, really help us.

If there is a split the Supreme Court wants to resolve, which of the 2 cases would it pick?  Just the one it wants to reverse or both?

If there is a split the Supreme Court wants to resolve, which of the 2 cases would it pick?  Just the one it wants to reverse or both?

Well there has to be an appeal before them.  The New York case is a likely target (with it being a denial).

Interested if there are any new updates or progress?

Interested if there are any new updates or progress?

We continue to wait.  Should be "two weeks."