In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Oregon In The Court Of Appeals Of The State Of: Fill & Download for Free

In answer to the first part (“How is California able to restrict guns so much”), I give you the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:These are just the 18 Senior Circuit Judges of the 9th Circuit; there is a Chief Judge and 22 additional Circuit Judges on the official roster, making the “Full Court” 41 strong. In practice, 29 of those are actually serving at any one time.Why so many judges? Because this is their geographic jurisdiction:All the numbered darker-blue states and territories are Federal Judicial Districts under the Ninth Circuit. This territory comprises some 62 million people, more than almost any other two Circuits combined (the Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits each comprise just over 30 million people, so any two of those would beat the Ninth but not by much), and in fact the State of California, if it had its own Circuit, would still be the most populous Circuit in the nation at 39 million people, and would still be a frontrunner for hearing the most business. Common subject matter of the Circuit deals with everything from telecommunications, copyright and software to littoral property ownership to defendants’ and prisoners’ rights. And yes, they hear a lot of cases about California’s gun laws.Federal judges tend to move up through the ranks within their geographical jurisdiction, from local and county courts up through the State systems and from there into Federal Districts. As such, the Ninth Circuit is largely “home-grown”, and the largest population centers in the Ninth Circuit, other than Phoenix, AZ, are in very blue-leaning California (San Diego, LA and Bay Area) and Washington (Sea-Tac). That’s also where most of the Court’s business comes from, and so names of judges in those Districts tend to be heard more often than those in Idaho or Montana, making them more likely to be tapped for Circuit seats. So, guess which way most of the Ninth Circuit’s judges lean ideologically, especially on guns and the Second Amendment.The problem is further compounded by the sheer size of the judiciary for the Ninth Circuit. The typical path of a case through the Federal system is to start with the District Court and be heard by one judge out of a rotation, then up to a three-judge panel of the Circuit, and from there to an en banc hearing by all the judges of the Circuit, and from there to the Supreme Court. However, the Ninth Circuit, being up to three times as large population-wise, has up to three times the judges of any other Circuit, and it’s practically impossible to get all 29 active Circuit judges in the courtroom at the same time. So instead, by Congressional exception, the en banc hearings of the Ninth Circuit are heard by a subset of 11 of the 29 judges, who are assigned to each particular case by the full Circuit. That gives the Ninth Circuit more power than any other Circuit regarding exactly what mix of judges will hear a particular case en banc, allowing the Ninth Circuit to basically “pack” itself - putting in enough highly liberal Senior Judges to overrule any of the conservative-minded Senior Judges from the panel decision, who must also sit for the en banc case.This is exactly what happened in Peruta v. San Diego County, which was initially decided by a 3-judge panel headed by Judge Diarmund O’Scannlain, one of the more conservative judges on the Circuit. The panel ruled 2–1 in favor of the plaintiff Peruta that San Diego’s (and indeed California’s) “good cause” requirement for a carry permit was unconstitutional. Peruta was satisfied with the ruling and San Diego County declined to pursue it further, so in response, Kamala Harris, then Attorney General of California (now the junior Senator, backing up one of the leading names in American gun control legislation, Dianne Feinstein), petitioned the court for an en banc hearing. That hearing was initially denied on procedural grounds (Harris didn’t have standing herself and missed the deadline to submit a petition), but then a sua sponte (“of its own accord”) review was requested by a judge in the Circuit itself and approved by majority vote, triggering the en banc hearing. The en banc court overturned the earlier decision, holding that California was not infringing Peruta’s right to bear arms outside his own home because he could still carry openly (which the court held was the essence of the right, ignoring the fact that the only legal way to open carry in California at the time was to sling an unloaded rifle across your back, a mode of carry that has since also been criminalized in the state). Therefore, the court reasoned, the State could restrict concealed carry as it chose, as most other States have traditionally done.So, the Ninth Circuit in Peruta undertook, all by itself with no appeal by anyone with standing to have the case heard, to reverse its own panel decision based on a request by one judge on the Circuit based on pleading from the State AG with no standing to argue the case, and upheld by a majority vote among a court of very neoliberal judges, which then selected a very liberal subset of itself to ensure the author of the panel decision would have no power to defend his opinion among the “full court”.Sounds like politics in the judiciary to me. Liberals are worried about SCOTUS having a politically conservative majority able to obstruct liberal efforts to legislate various policy changes; the 9th Circuit has been doing the exact opposite for decades.You also ask why the Supreme Court doesn't intervene. That's a good question, with three answers.First is that it doesn't have to. The Supreme Court, unlike any other court in the nation, can decline to consider any appeal presented to it. That’s by practical necessity, and has been for over a century; about 8000 cases are petitioned to the Supreme Court in each annual session, the overwhelming majority of which are questions either that SCOTUS has already considered, that are too narrow or small in scope and application (or conversely are very broad and stand to call into question large swaths of legislation, regulation and case law), are on topics about which the Circuits are in general agreement, or are otherwise cases the Court feels would not be an economical use of time and effort for all involved. While the issue of gun carry is a critical one to those affected by regulations restricting it, the “right to carry” issue is one very narrow in applicability considering how many people currently carry even in more permissive states (about 5% nationwide have a carry permit; remove the people and permit holders from the most restrictive states and you can about double that), and simultaneously one with the potential to affect the majority of the country’s population living in jurisdictions that heavily restrict firearms. As such, it’s an issue SCOTUS has been treading very lightly around.Second is that the Ninth Circuit creates a unique set of problems for SCOTUS in its sheer size. Even if it did think the Circuit was totally off-base in fundamental legal thinking, the 9th Circuit has 29 judges issuing opinions, while the Supreme Court has 9 Justices which must all hear and decide any case they grant cert on. The Ninth Circuit hears and decides a rough average of 11,000 cases annually with a little over a year’s backlog, divided among nearly 30 judges. That’s more cases than are actually appealed to SCOTUS annually, and about a hundred times more cases than they hear. While SCOTUS does overturn about 79% of the cases it hears from the Ninth Circuit (not the most, but up there), it only hears a very small percentage of the cases “terminated” by the Ninth Circuit, which is up to ten times the caseload of some of the “quieter” circuits such as the First Circuit. Even if it were willing, SCOTUS simply doesn’t have the capacity to send a message to the Ninth Circuit by reversing in lock step every decision made by the Ninth Circuit, and by even sending a message of any kind, like a strongly worded rebuke of every word in a particularly biased decision with a recommendation to correct their craniorectal insertion, SCOTUS risks opening the floodgates on Ninth Circuit cert petitions as it will be seen as hostile to the 9th Circuit and open to challenges thereof. Besides, you don’t want to piss off a judge, even as a SCOTUS justice, unless you are certain that he’s not long for the job; who knows, he may end up on the bench at One First Street beside you one day.Third, technically, only one of those Justices and their clerks (currently Elena Kagan and staff) are responsible for receiving, summarizing and making recommendations on all petitions arising from that Circuit. Kagan participates in the “cert pool", in which the workload of incoming petitions is balanced among all clerks, but Kagan still writes internal responses that influence the recommendation to the Justices of whether to grant cert, and at the moment, the majority of Justices participating in the pool are considered liberal (as are their clerks) so the clerks’ and Justices' recommendations for the conference regarding gun cases, especially out of California (9th) or the Eastern Seaboard (1st-4th Cir), tend to be colored that way.This is something we haven’t heard much about in debating why the Court hasn’t heard a gun case since McDonald, especially Peruta, but it’s a valid point of consideration; the conference memo for Peruta was more likely than not to have been written by the clerk of a liberal Justice, with Kagan’s input as Circuit Justice, and the Circuit assignments are largely along ideological lines with only a couple major exceptions. The best chance for a gun case to get in front of a conservative justice for review and recommendation is Third Circuit, which includes very gun-unfriendly New Jersey; this Circuit is assigned to Justice Alito, who is among the more conservative voices and who doesn’t participate in the cert pool, so the memo coming from his office would be more likely than most to recommend cert. Even then, Roberts (and Kennedy) seem so far to have been hesitant to hear another probable 5–4 decision, because even if the majority go pro-2A on the case, it’s another 5–4 split decision from “the Roberts Court”.There are various proposals to reduce the size of the Ninth Circuit, either by shifting some states to the Eighth and Tenth Circuits (with the Fifth or Seventh Circuits possibly getting a state from the Eighth or Tenth, possibly prompting a full nationwide realignment), or by creating a Twelfth numbered geographical Circuit and assigning either California or all the other Ninth Circuit states to the new Circuit.The problem with a split is that Circuits tend to be drawn along State lines, with the DC Circuit and Federal Circuit being notable exceptions, and as I said, even if California were its own Twelfth Circuit it would still be the largest one in the country by a significant percentage of population (about 20%), and would still require about 21 judges to handle the caseload. A smaller Ninth Circuit or a new Twelfth Circuit excising California would also give California’s lawmakers more power than they already have, as it would no longer matter which court system you chose, both the State and Federal systems will let California do as it pleases and only the Supreme Court could say otherwise. So far, the Roberts Court has been hesitant to tell the Golden State it’s done wrong on just about anything, so while this might make people in Oregon or Nevada happier, those of any conservative mind in California are likely to continue the exodus we’ve seen from the state.TL;DR:California is able to restrict gun as much as it does because its court systems, up to and including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has the government’s back on this issue.The Supreme Court hasn’t intervened recently because until June of 2018, the four conservative Justices had to be fairly sure of Kennedy’s vote in their favor.Even with Kavanaugh on the bench, Chief Justice Roberts is unwilling to have “the Roberts Court” be seen as a tool to walk back various local laws in a series of 5–4 split decisions; that has made the Court hesitant to take up another 2A case given that its last landmark on the topic prior to Heller was in 1938 with U.S. v. Miller.

We have two separate jurisdictions that completely overlap—state and federal—each one maintains a system of trial and appellate courts. Comparing Federal & State CourtsThe Federal Courts hear all civil and criminal cases arising under United States Federal Law, which applies equally in all 50 states and any territories under control of the United States, such as American Samoa, Guam or Puerto Rico.Federal Courts have a trial level and two appellate levels. At the trial level, there are Magistrate Judges, District Court Judges and specialized administrative-law courts. Magistrate Judges are subordinate to District Court judges and hear lesser issues such as preliminary hearings, discovery disputes and they serve as settlement officers. Each federal case gets a judge and a magistrate assigned.There are 94 United States District Courts. For example, I’m admitted to practice in the Central and Southern Districts of California.Federal Judges are appointed under Articles I, III and IV of the United States Constitution. Article III judges are the most powerful, who serve for life.The full Article III trial courts include the various United States District Courts, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), Alien Terrorist Removal Court, Judical Panel on Multi-District Litigation, United States Court of International Trade. See, e.g. United States CourtsArticle I trial courts specialize in areas of the law where everyone profits from the fact that the judge is a specialist. These specialized judges generally serve for 15 year terms via appointment of the President:Bankruptcy Court, Tax Court, Immigration Court, Federal Claims Court, Court of International Trade, Military Courts-Marshal, Court of Military Commission Review, Board of Veterans Appeals, United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Trademark and Patent Trial Board, International Trade Commission, Federal Acquisition and Contracting Dispute Resolution, Social Security Administration and the trial courts of the District of Columbia.Article I judges also staff courts of appeal from various federal administrative decisions:Each armed service has a Court of Criminal Appeals—Army, Navy-Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Board of Immigration Appeals, Trademark Court of Appeal, Patent Court of Appeal, Military Contract Appeals, Postal Service Appeals, Civilian Contract Appeals, and Tennessee Valley Authority Appeals.You cannot fire a Federal District Court Judge—they can only be impeached and removed. This, of course, rarely if ever happens, the last time being the formerly Honorable Thomas Porteous. Thomas Porteous - BallotpediaLifetime appointment is, of course, a protection that allows a judge to fairly apply the law without fear of retribution. In California recently, a state court judge faultlessly applied the law in a sexual assault case but was recalled by the public who disagreed with the ultimate decision. An examination of his execution of the judicial function by the State’s Commission on Judicial Performance found no fault in his judging—the judge, a former prosecutor, had indeed followed the law, but the public didn’t like the result. Instead of changing the law, they disposed of a judge. https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2016/08/Persky_Explanatory_Statement_12-19-16.pdfArticle IV courts serve territories of the United States, with the exception of Puerto Rico, which has a full Article III District Court Judge.Trial courts determine facts.If you don’t like the way the law was used, you appeal to the next higher court.Generally in the federal system this is the United States Court of Appeal, which has thirteen various circuits. Hawaii and California are part of the Ninth Circuit and all appeals from the Hawaii District, California Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern Districts; Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Eastern & Western Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands comprise the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.Decisions of a Court of Appeal are binding on all District Courts within their jurisdiction. Anyone is entitled to be heard in the Courts of Appeal if they invoke the jurisdiction timely and in the proper manner following a trial court decision.As noted above—Article I courts have their own appellate courts often lumped under the “Federal District” designation.Finally, you have the United States Supreme Court—comprised of Nine Justices of which one is the Chief Justice. When one or more Federal Courts of Appeal disagree and write conflicting law, the Supreme Court may choose to hear the appeal. Only cases between states have the right to be heard in the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court chooses how and when it will exercise its power. Interestingly, there is nothing in the United States Constitution that explains what the Supreme Court does. Instead, you must read Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia an opinion written in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall that has established the process of judicial review. To understand the United States Supreme Court—start with Marbury.Each state of the United States of America is a sovereign government of its own. Accordingly, state law is the province of state trial and appellate courts. States can provide various adminstrative law courts as well.State trial courts usually consist of trial judges of two levels—a municipal or town level and a superior court that hears higher dollar value cases. In my experience in California the distinction is now meaningless—California combined its Municipal and Superior Courts in 1998 by Constitutional Amendment. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/tcunif.pdf This was a huge mistake in my opinion, but there is no going back now.States all have Courts of Appeal that hear appeals from trials—again, appellate courts do not revisit the facts, only the law. Of course, a wily lawyer can merely argue that the facts should have been thrown out but that the judge made a legal error in failing to do so or in admitting the facts. So, it’s all really fair game in the Court of Appeal, but in a different way. The Courts of Appeal work with the record of what happened in the trial court and they are very hesitant to second-guess a factual determination although they reserve to themselves the power to do so.The biggest win of my entire legal career followed a hearing in this Courtroom of the Fourth Appellate District of California. Note that there are three judges and no witness or jury box in a court of appeal—those are clerk’s and bailiff’s desks.The California Supreme Court gets more petitions for hearings than does the United States Supreme Court. They follow the same model as does the Federal system—you are heard only if the California Supreme Court feels that your case is necessarily decided in order to protect and develop the law.To understand why, for example, a death penalty appeal takes so long, one must appreciate that there must be a trial first in the state court followed by an appeal in the state appellate court. In California, at least, every death penalty is reviewed automatically at the Supreme Court level. Each appeal court has the right to send the issues back to the trial court to be retried and then they work themselves back up to the state supreme court level.When the state supreme court is done and an execution date is set, the lawyers then seek habeas corpus relief from the Federal Courts—beginning at the trial level and working their way up the Federal System. It takes many years of effort and review—as befits the irrevocable nature of the death penalty.Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995 was executed in June of 2001. His prosecution was exclusively federal. Since Mr. McVeigh was found guilty of murdering eighty-six people, including many children, because they worked for the federal government—I suspect the wheels of justice turned as fast as possible in his case.The latest execution, as of the date of this answer, was Carey D. Moore of Nebraska who was found guilty of murdering two cab drivers in 1979 and executed on August 18, 2018. Although convicted and sentenced to death in 1980, the sentence took 38 years to carry out. That puts the six years it took to execute Mr. McVeigh into a clearer context.The court system is vital to our way of life.It is costly, inefficient and misunderstood.California is busy dismantling their courts and the public just doesn’t care.The hardest thing I ever had to do as a lawyer was to explain to penurious clients that, in a civil case, justice is often impossible to achieve given the lack of courtrooms, lack of judges, and general lack of interest in the system by the public. You have to pay dearly for dispute resolution now—although civil cases have never come with state-appointed lawyers, at least the courtrooms were relatively available. But, not anymore. J. Brian Watkins' answer to As an attorney, what's the hardest thing you had to do?

Actually that is not what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded.This is what they stupidly concluded, the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to openly carry firearms for self-defense. Combined with a 2016 decision involving concealed firearms, the ruling means that the Second Amendment does not extend beyond the home for residents of the 9th Circuit, which includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.Sadly the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit are delusional. No where in the second amendment is there mention of where and how arms may be carried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is most definitely infringing upon the right of it citizens in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.This will undoubtedly end up in the United States Supreme Court. The good news is that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned Circuit Court in the country.