Real Player Only, please.
Oral argument analysis:
Charlie will lose on all issues except one. Before Charlie’s Angels get too carried away in celebration, remember that the one issue Charlie will prevail on is not having his state law claims dismissed with prejudice. In plain English, what that means is that Charlie will have the ability to assert his state law claims in State Court. But, before you pop the cork on the champagne, remember that this was merely a technical decision required of the Federal Judges. These same federal judges also have labeled his state claims as ‘futile’ because there is no 2nd Amend. Language in the Ca. Constitution. So rejoice, Charlie gets to bring a State case which will also be dismissed. That’s some victory, Charlie! I imagine that someone unsophisticated, like Thundar, will also see this as some kind of victory.
Now that I have dispensed with the results of the case, let us, as they say in figure skating, give a grade for technical performance. Suffice it to say that Charlie did not land any triple axels.
First, let me say that Charlie has always bragged about how brilliant he was in the framing of his case thru his Complaint. Yet it is precisely because his complaint was framed so poorly and narrowly that the State was able to use it against him. Young v. Hawaii may win, but Charlie’s case is a sure loser. You see, Charlie claims that there is a constitutional right to unfettered open carry outside the home. Now before you can have an ‘unfettered’ right to open carry you must have a fundamental right to just simply open carry, even if limited. So Judge Bybee asked him for his authority and he had none.
But even before we get to the argument, Mr Primetime Player was not even ready to speak when he got to the microphone. Even allowing for nerves, which the next Clarence Darrow should not have, the first words out of his mouth are the kind of disaster one only sees from complete amateurs. He states essentially that he wants to make an ‘opening statement’. Hehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehe!
No player, this is a federal appeals court and you don’t get to make opening statements. After introducing yourself you just immediately begin your argument until you are interrupted by a question, which usually takes no more than 10 sec.
Now, if you were properly prepared, you would have anticipated that early on they would ask you exactly where your open carry right derived from. You should have had an answer ready to that fundamental question. Instead the best you could stammer thru was that Heller and McDonald don’t preclude open carry outside the home. That is not a response to the question, player. Roe v Wade does not preclude open carry outside the home either.
A little frustrated, Judge Bybee then turns his attention to the issue of scrutiny. Again, a well prepared litigator would have anticipated some variation of the question asked. But our player was not prepared. The court wanted to engage in a historical analysis beginning with the Statute of Northampton. Our player’s response was that Northampton was not relevant. Now kiddies, if you learn nothing else about litigation today then please learn this; any issue that the judge in your case wants to discuss is, by definition, relevant. To tell the judge in your case that the issue that he wants to discuss is not relevant usually doesn’t get you the results you want.
If he had been prepared he could have responded with my unique argument, never before heard in an American courtroom. Rather than get bogged down in the intricacies of Northampton, he could have told the court that the historical analysis was used in the Scalia opinion to decide whether the core right applied to an individuals as opposed to a militia. Scalia did not use a ‘historical analysis’ to establish an acceptable mode of carry which is the issue before this Court and which this Court apparently is now entertaining on using in this fashion for the first time. Brilliant, if I must say so myself. Now, did our player come up with something like that? Noooooooooooooo!
Instead he gets bogged down in Northampton and concealable v. unconcealable guns etc.
Next Judge Bybee raises the issue of Wrenn v. Peruta and which one the court is bound by in terms of methodology in using a historical analysis v. scrutiny approach. If he had given my answer originally he may not have faced this dilemma. But since he is unprepared and can’t think quickly on his feet, he is stuck with Peruta.
I could go on but I will conclude by saying that real players don’t make opponents arguments in their argument in chief. Real players drive the direction of the argument and know how to pivot back when a judge strays from the important issues.
Conclusion, you are not and never have been ready for primetime, player.
And don’t bother with your retort; this is now for real players only.