McKay v. Hutchens (CA CCW) orals at CA9

[esqappellate]

The ruling will be based on what happens in Richards/Peruta/Baker. Those could be decided any time now.
It does matter what the ruling is, because SCOTUS has been refusing to take any 2A related cases. A win at CA9 is binding upon CA and HI.

If the 9th actually strikes down a statute, then that greatly enhances the odds of SCT review if the State is dumb enough to risk it. But note that all three can be decided as restricted to how the statute is being applied by particular sheriffs or chiefs. We could get a broad reading of the 2A but only in that limited context. The more limited, the less likely cert. And don't forget that the 9th might well grant en banc, like they did before only to punt.

 

[Kharn]

Chovan came back as a loss, no guns for domestic violence misdemeanors.

Here's the opinion: Opinion

 

[press1280]

I don't see this as anything that would harm Richards and the other CA9 cases. The concurrence would have been great as the majority opinion using either a textual or strict scrutiny standard of review. All in all neutral to slightly favorable IMO considering Chovan wasn't exactly a stand up guy.

 

[wolfwood]

If the 9th actually strikes down a statute, then that greatly enhances the odds of SCT review if the State is dumb enough to risk it. But note that all three can be decided as restricted to how the statute is being applied by particular sheriffs or chiefs. We could get a broad reading of the 2A but only in that limited context. The more limited, the less likely cert. And don't forget that the 9th might well grant en banc, like they did before only to punt.

Since I am on a PI in Baker would enjoining the statute for the pendancy of litigation be the same as overturning the statue?

 

[esqappellate]

Since I am on a PI in Baker would enjoining the statute for the pendancy of litigation be the same as overturning the statue?

Depends, but probably. They could hold that the statute is unconstitutional and hence that you are likely to prevail and, hence, are entitled to a PI.

 

[JC92]

Now that Peruta vs SD has been decided, is it possible that the 3 judges sitting on this case would refuse to follow precedent established in Peruta and rule to allow the prohibitions on CCW? In other words, could this case serve as a mini en-banc if 2 of these 3 judges are not supportive of the 2A.

 

[press1280]

Now that Peruta vs SD has been decided, is it possible that the 3 judges sitting on this case would refuse to follow precedent established in Peruta and rule to allow the prohibitions on CCW? In other words, could this case serve as a mini en-banc if 2 of these 3 judges are not supportive of the 2A.

Not likely considering the sheriff (Hutchens) has announced she's going shall-issue. This case will be mooted out.
But assuming she didn't-doing what you're suggesting would probably be a big no-no. This would be a 3 judge panel trying to overrule another 3 judge panel who just decided on the matter. It's not supposed to happen absent SCOTUS overruling the original 3 judge panel's finding.
I suppose it's possible but it's just wrong all the way and will trigger an en banc and or SCOTUS review if there's that much conflict.

 

[Al Norris]

The case, McKay v. Hutchens, is at the 9th circuit. It is however, stayed pending resolution of not just Peruta, but also U.S. v. Chovan, Richards v. Prieto and Baker v. Kealoha.

Peruta has been decided, as has Choven. Both parties in Richards have filed 28J letters in regards to both Choven and Peruta. Baker has not had filed anything since 11-25-2013.

In light of the fact that Sheriff Hutchens has changed her policy to accept self defense as good cause, I see this case being mooted out. Despite that, Plaintiffs will probably receive "Prevailing Party" status (through another round of litigation), and thus be allowed to attach costs.


McKay: 12-59049 docket at CA9
Richards: 11-16255 docket at CA9
Baker: 12-16258 docket at CA9

 

[press1280]

McKay has lost due to Peruta's en banc loss. They have asked for several extensions to file for cert with SCOTUS: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16a526.htm

Justice Kennedy granted the first extension but not the second. Cert petition is due today.