Reckless lawyer a threat to 9th Circuit 2A Incorporation ruling?

[Pullo]

Nordyke may not be the final say of the 9th Circuit on 2A Incorporation after all.

Gary Gorsky, a full of gusto but little sense "pro" RKBA attorney, filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit CoA to a ruling against a couple guys being denied right-to-carry permits in California, of all places.(I guess there being no "shall-issue" law in Cali matters little to Mr. Gorski) The name on the case he is set to argue in the 9th is Mehl, in front of another 3 judge panel. If the panel rules against Gorsky's clients, the Court panel could potentially rule the 2A is NOT incorporated as part of its reasoning. Obviously, if 2 separate 9th Circuit panels come up with 2 different rulings re 2A incorporation, the issue must be taken up by the full 9th. It gets worse.

If incorporation gets an en blanc review by the 9th Circuit, Gorsky, not Alan Gura, will be arguing that case. :puke:

Here's a little background on Mr. Gorsky.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200309230925.asp

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL&hw=gorski&sn=001&sc=1000

When Alan Gura(the guy who argued Heller) and Gene Hoffman of Calguns tried to persuade Mr. Gorsky to join his case with some of their own litigation, it elicited http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/gorski/Sykes-Gura-NRA-interfering-once-again-with-Second-Amendment-litigation.pdf">this response from Gary Gorsky. Its clear his jealousy of Alan Gura is of epic proportion.

[bossy22]

1. ????

i dont get many of your points. first you start off with basically saying that this guy is an idiot because he is bringing a CCW denial suit and its idiotic to do so because CA isnt a shall-issue state. But if it was a shall-issue state this problem would probably never have existed- so this lawsuit would have never existed- making the entire point moot.

Your next point about how the case is going to be argued against another 3 judge panel by gorsky make sense. if it was alan gura instead of gorsky he would still be facing a different 3 judge panel who could "potentially" see incorporation in a different view (but highly unlikely, many times courts dont like to reverse themselves).

"If incorporation gets an en blanc review by the 9th Circuit, Gorsky, not Alan Gura, will be arguing that case."
first off, getting to an en banc review is extremely rare- so i doubt this case is going to make it there...also, dont put much stock into who's arguing the case. Many times with civil cases with regards to constitutional law, the decision is based on the briefs, not the oral arguement (the oral argument is often mostly for show)

don't get me wrong....i think Gura has done an excellent job...but he isnt some spectacular super star lawyer when it comes to the second amendment in my mind...i listened to his arguments at the supreme court...he was good, but nothing special. The reason he is where he is today (the man leading the second amendment charge) was because he happened to be at the right place at the right time (it also helps that he is a confident, intelligent lawyer). Basically Gura was given the cards and all he had to do was lay them on the table and he'd win the jackpot.

so in conclusion....i dont see what the fuss is all about

on edit

the guy in the letter sounds like a jerk, and i'll also be honest and tell you that i dont know all the facts in this case. I did just read the calguns forum topic on this and i can say that it sounds more like gene hoffman is just angry cause gorsky beat them to the punch. As i stated above, they are making arguements such as judges they will get- things that are not contingent on which lawyer is arguing the case

[Pullo]

3. Fair enough

I read Gorsky's email and, really, it just made me nervous.....especially after reading up on some of his previous work. However, its true that any future 2A case heard by the a panel of the the 9th could potentially rule differently visa vi incorporation. Although an unlikely event, Mr. Gorsky's email to Hoffman doesn't do much to reassure some of the concerns raised about him in the past.

Now, IANAL and don't pretend to be. Viewing from the peanut gallery though, I do question the tactic of trying to get CCW advanced in California via the courts, especially if it has the potential to jeopardize the 9th's incorporation ruling in Nordyke, but what do I know.

I also agree Gura's arguments in front of SCOTUS were hit and miss IMO. The guy has a good track record however, much better than Gorsky.

I guess its all part of living in the infancy of a post Heller world. There is no shortage of self-aggrandizing lawyers in this country, and the aftermath of Heller is likely to draw out several of them.

:shrug:

[jody]

2. Please explain the relevance of two articles written in 2002 & 2003 to Nordyke. n/t