{"id":782,"date":"2003-02-20T11:01:04","date_gmt":"2003-02-20T19:01:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ogre.nu\/wp\/?p=782"},"modified":"2005-07-29T22:01:03","modified_gmt":"2005-07-30T06:01:03","slug":"new-ninth-circuit-gun-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/?p=782","title":{"rendered":"new Ninth Circuit gun case"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Though <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/ca9\/newopinions.nsf\/FCCA5E5E7F2EBF2088256CD1005B853B\/$file\/9917551.pdf?openelement#PAGE=20\"><i>Nordyke v King<\/i><\/a> follows the Ninth Circuit&#8217;s gross misreading of <i>US v Miller<\/i> (1939) in its <i>Hickman<\/i> ruling, it&#8217;s interesting because Gould&#8217;s concurrent opinion says:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p> I join the court&#8217;s opinion, and write to elaborate that <i>Hickman v. Block<\/i>, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), was wrongly decided, that the remarks in <i>Silveira v. Lockyer<\/i>, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), about the &#8220;collective rights&#8221; theory of the Second Amendment are not persuasive, and that we would be better advised to embrace an &#8220;individual rights&#8221; view of the Second Amendment .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.<\/p>\n<p>Our panel is bound by <i>Hickman<\/i>, and we cannot reach the merits of Nordyke&#8217;s challenge to Second Amendment. [<i>sic<\/i>] But the holding of <i>Hickman<\/i> can be discarded by our court en banc .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> As <a href=http:\/\/comedian.blogspot.com\/2003_02_16_comedian_archive.html#89353632>Comedian<\/a> points out, this judge was appointed by Clinton!<\/p>\n<p>This raises an interesting procedural point of which I was unaware: this panel could not challenge <i>Hickman<\/i> because it was only three judges, not the full Circuit Court of Appeal.  (How often does a Circuit sit en banc?)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Though Nordyke v King follows the Ninth Circuit&#8217;s gross misreading of US v Miller (1939) in its Hickman ruling, it&#8217;s interesting because Gould&#8217;s concurrent opinion says: I join the court&#8217;s opinion, and write to elaborate that Hickman v. Block, 81 &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/?p=782\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-constitution","category-weapons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/782","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/782\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bendwavy.org\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}