The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

esqappellate · February 21, 2014, 11:20 AM

By the way, just a nit. Lane, BATF, and McCraw are up today in the Friday conference, not Drake. We will probably get an order on those cases on Monday. I have my fingers crossed but I am not betting the rent money on it. The Opp in Drake is not due until March 14 which means the case will probably not go to Friday conference until April 18. A petition for rehearing in Peruta is due Feb. 27, unless extended, which the 9th circuit will do for the asking, typically. A petition for rehearing will act to stay the mandate, so there is nothing much "final" yet about Peruta.

On the development of a split, there is no doubt that Peruta really does establish a split between the circuits on the constitutionality of "good cause" laws, a category that includes NY, NJ and MD, as well as SD's construction of the California good cause law. And it is quite correct that Moore did not involve a "good cause" law, as the Illinois statute was almost a complete ban. So Peruta goes further than Moore. It is also quite correct the both Moore and Peruta recognize that the core right is "self defense" -- not merely self defense in the home. On that legal point there is indeed a 3/2 split. But I have been doing SCT stuff for a long time (almost 40 years). The Court takes cases when it wants to, split or not. Not all splits are created equally. I had a case in which there was a 3/4 split that lasted 15 years before the court took cert on that very issue. What makes Peruta uniquely cert-worthy is that the 9th Circuit struck down a state (municipal) ordinance as unconstitutional, just as the DC. Circuit in Heller (then Parker), struck down the D.C. statute. Moore was equally cert-worthy, but Illinois declined to seek cert. Peruta has now joined Moore in this respect. It was easy to deny cert in the NY and MD cases, as the status quo was maintained. Drake may meet a similar fate for the same reason. The big hurdle now is for Peruta to get past en banc.

February 21, 2014, 11:20 AM	#145
esqappellate Member Join Date: October 16, 2012 Posts: 69	By the way, just a nit. Lane, BATF, and McCraw are up today in the Friday conference, not Drake. We will probably get an order on those cases on Monday. I have my fingers crossed but I am not betting the rent money on it. The Opp in Drake is not due until March 14 which means the case will probably not go to Friday conference until April 18. A petition for rehearing in Peruta is due Feb. 27, unless extended, which the 9th circuit will do for the asking, typically. A petition for rehearing will act to stay the mandate, so there is nothing much "final" yet about Peruta. On the development of a split, there is no doubt that Peruta really does establish a split between the circuits on the constitutionality of "good cause" laws, a category that includes NY, NJ and MD, as well as SD's construction of the California good cause law. And it is quite correct that Moore did not involve a "good cause" law, as the Illinois statute was almost a complete ban. So Peruta goes further than Moore. It is also quite correct the both Moore and Peruta recognize that the core right is "self defense" -- not merely self defense in the home. On that legal point there is indeed a 3/2 split. But I have been doing SCT stuff for a long time (almost 40 years). The Court takes cases when it wants to, split or not. Not all splits are created equally. I had a case in which there was a 3/4 split that lasted 15 years before the court took cert on that very issue. What makes Peruta uniquely cert-worthy is that the 9th Circuit struck down a state (municipal) ordinance as unconstitutional, just as the DC. Circuit in Heller (then Parker), struck down the D.C. statute. Moore was equally cert-worthy, but Illinois declined to seek cert. Peruta has now joined Moore in this respect. It was easy to deny cert in the NY and MD cases, as the status quo was maintained. Drake may meet a similar fate for the same reason. The big hurdle now is for Peruta to get past en banc.