touchoneoff
Member
Yeah, it's too bad when some of the country's most law abiding are constantly under attack from some of the most lawless...only in America.
Peruta is done
- Thread starter ladder13
- Start date
Yeah, it's too bad when some of the country's most law abiding are constantly under attack from some of the most lawless...only in America.
No, everywhere. Only in America do we have a means to defend ourselves from the lawless.
Climber
US Veteran
So, the 9th has ruled that the individual has the Right to carry a firearm in public for self defense. James Madison, the author of the 2A, knew this long ago along with several million other Americans.
Now, the people that are affected by this decision can now apply to their sheriff for his/her written permission to exercise this Right. To exercise this Right without a sheriff's written permission will probably be illegal. HUH?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to any and all concerned?
Now, the people that are affected by this decision can now apply to their sheriff for his/her written permission to exercise this Right. To exercise this Right without a sheriff's written permission will probably be illegal. HUH?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to any and all concerned?
bhayles
Member
Amen. Obviously, anti-2A folks are too stupid to understand their native tongue.
Fastbolt
Member
Guess it's not "done" ...
"On March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Peruta v. San Diego will be re-heard by an eleven-judge “en banc” panel."
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150326/california-the-battle-for-shall-issue-is-on
Won't be surprising to see this end up in the Supreme Court in the next couple of years.
Hurry up and wait.
"On March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Peruta v. San Diego will be re-heard by an eleven-judge “en banc” panel."
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150326/california-the-battle-for-shall-issue-is-on
Won't be surprising to see this end up in the Supreme Court in the next couple of years.
Hurry up and wait.
OP
Fastbolt
Member
If reading, understanding and applying the constitution & BOR was so easy and simplistic, they'd probably not have perceived the need for, and created, the Supreme Court, as well as the federal circuit courts.
FWIW, I also found this interesting ...
Sounds like they're going to try to clean things up at one hearing. Makes sense.
Lots riding on this case, obviously.
If and when this case eventually results in the "good cause" language being removed, expect to possibly see more use of the "up to a maximum of 24 hrs" community college training - PC 26165b - and/or the psychological evaluation option - PC 26190(3)(f)(1), for new applicants.
Unless, of course, those sections are ever successfully challenged, for whatever reasons, in the courts.
If someone wants to wade through all the involved sections ... CA Codes (pen:26150-26225)
FWIW, I also found this interesting ...
Sounds like they're going to try to clean things up at one hearing. Makes sense.
Lots riding on this case, obviously.
If and when this case eventually results in the "good cause" language being removed, expect to possibly see more use of the "up to a maximum of 24 hrs" community college training - PC 26165b - and/or the psychological evaluation option - PC 26190(3)(f)(1), for new applicants.
Unless, of course, those sections are ever successfully challenged, for whatever reasons, in the courts.
If someone wants to wade through all the involved sections ... CA Codes (pen:26150-26225)
OP
11 judge panel, I'd say the "fix" is in.
California concealed gun ruling to be reconsidered - San Jose Mercury News
"A majority of the 9th Circuit's 29 full-time judges had to vote in favor of rehearing the case with an 11-judge panel. In a separate order, the court also agreed to reconsider a related case out of Yolo County."
...........................................
"The ruling led to a tortured procedural battle because the San Diego County sheriff abandoned further appeals. And the 9th Circuit panel that struck down the law denied state Attorney General Kamala Harris' bid to intervene and try to defend the restrictions separately.
An unidentified 9th Circuit judge in December independently called for the court to vote on whether to rehear the case, according to a court filing."
California concealed gun ruling to be reconsidered - San Jose Mercury News
"A majority of the 9th Circuit's 29 full-time judges had to vote in favor of rehearing the case with an 11-judge panel. In a separate order, the court also agreed to reconsider a related case out of Yolo County."
...........................................
"The ruling led to a tortured procedural battle because the San Diego County sheriff abandoned further appeals. And the 9th Circuit panel that struck down the law denied state Attorney General Kamala Harris' bid to intervene and try to defend the restrictions separately.
An unidentified 9th Circuit judge in December independently called for the court to vote on whether to rehear the case, according to a court filing."
Last edited:
Fastbolt
Member
Well, I'd not be inclined to jump onto the conspiracy train just yet.
Something to bear in mind is that the 9th doesn't exactly have a long history of reversing 3-judge panel decisions. Quite the opposite, I've been told.
It's not yet the time for wailing and gnashing of teeth by either side in this case.
OP
Well, I'd not be inclined to jump onto the conspiracy train just yet.
Something to bear in mind is that the 9th doesn't exactly have a long history of reversing 3-judge panel decisions. Quite the opposite, I've been told.
It's not yet the time for wailing and gnashing of teeth by either side in this case.
Who picks the 11 judges, the Chief Justice? And he includes himself? Didn't he side originally with the state? There's one vote right there, now the good guys need 6 out of 10.
My tin foil hat is taking shape.
Last edited:
Dennis The B
US Veteran
I believe the justices names are drawn randomly.Who picks the 11 judges, the Chief Justice? And he includes himself? Didn't he side originally with the state? There's one vote right there, now the good guys need 6 out of 10.
My tin foil hat is taking shape.
The en banc court will still have to decide if the California AG has standing in an appeal where the AG's office wasn't in on the original case. If Peruta is overturned, and the court allowed standing by the California AG, it will probably be an appellate issue for the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court has a long history of who has standing in Federal Courts, and who does not. It would seem that the California AG might be able to file an amicus brief, but not have standing.
However, Fastbolt well notes that 3-justice panels are not often overturned in the 9th Circuit.
The chances were always high that this would see an en banc rehearing. Which is why I said it wasn't done way back when.
If it's upheld after the en banc rehearing, then the case might be done.
I think that Richards might be included as a way for the case to continue even if the 9CA denies intervenor status to the AG then the defendants in Richards can petition for cert if the case is upheld by the en banc panel.
I seem to remember that the original defendants in Peruta have declined to petition for cert. Which is why the CA AG has petitioned the 9CA to be allowed to intervene on the side of the defendants.
By including Richards, the 9CA can deny that petition and still allow the defendant in Richards to move forward in the event that the 3 judge panel decision is upheld.
Got that? I'm not sure I do, but that's my understanding.
No matter which way the en banc panel holds, there is still a clear circuit split on this issue. Which means it should be ripe for cert by SCOTUS. Which has denied cert in similar cases over the past few years.
If it's upheld after the en banc rehearing, then the case might be done.
I think that Richards might be included as a way for the case to continue even if the 9CA denies intervenor status to the AG then the defendants in Richards can petition for cert if the case is upheld by the en banc panel.
I seem to remember that the original defendants in Peruta have declined to petition for cert. Which is why the CA AG has petitioned the 9CA to be allowed to intervene on the side of the defendants.
By including Richards, the 9CA can deny that petition and still allow the defendant in Richards to move forward in the event that the 3 judge panel decision is upheld.
Got that? I'm not sure I do, but that's my understanding.
No matter which way the en banc panel holds, there is still a clear circuit split on this issue. Which means it should be ripe for cert by SCOTUS. Which has denied cert in similar cases over the past few years.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
So how is it going for you guys in California? Has it become easier to get a permit in some areas?
Rastoff
US Veteran
When the original decision was handed down by the 3 judge panel, things got a lot easier for many counties. Most notable is Orange county (OC).
The sheriff of OC actually set aside $2M to handle the influx of License To Carry (LTC but most still say CCW) applications. Until the en banc review was granted, they were accepting "personal protection" as the just cause required by law. Now, they've changed their policy. Now OC requires a more extensive just cause than just personal protection.
Even so, where they were just rejecting applications out of hand, they are at least accepting them now. They are also approving more than they ever have.
It's still CA, but things are better. You still can't get a license in LA county or San Diego county where the suit originated. Both of those counties are holding applications in abeyance until the decision is final.
We will see some serious crying from the left if the en banc review upholds the 3 judge reversal.
The sheriff of OC actually set aside $2M to handle the influx of License To Carry (LTC but most still say CCW) applications. Until the en banc review was granted, they were accepting "personal protection" as the just cause required by law. Now, they've changed their policy. Now OC requires a more extensive just cause than just personal protection.
Even so, where they were just rejecting applications out of hand, they are at least accepting them now. They are also approving more than they ever have.
It's still CA, but things are better. You still can't get a license in LA county or San Diego county where the suit originated. Both of those counties are holding applications in abeyance until the decision is final.
We will see some serious crying from the left if the en banc review upholds the 3 judge reversal.
I might be wrong, but I think that the dissenting judge in the Peruta decision is now the Chief Judge of the 9th CA. Which does not bode well for the en banc panel upholding the three judge panel's decision.
This one seems ripe to go to the USSC, but only they can decide that.
I'd expect another 2-3 years before this is finally decided, maybe more. The en banc panel can sit on this for as long as they desire, there is no way to push them into deciding the case.
This one seems ripe to go to the USSC, but only they can decide that.
I'd expect another 2-3 years before this is finally decided, maybe more. The en banc panel can sit on this for as long as they desire, there is no way to push them into deciding the case.
Rastoff
US Veteran
There is always a way to push for action. It just may not be wise to push this one.
Similar threads
- Locked
