The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 19, 2014, 11:44 AM   #351
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
I don't think there has been a formal filing on either Richards or Baker. Threats, but no paper.

IF today is the day the mandate is supposed to issue, which is in contention, there is not time to issue another stay based on a filing.


I dunno.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old November 20, 2014, 12:22 AM   #352
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
I believe when the AG was denied . That started a 14 day clock for her to appeal . The rules say THE LOSING PARTY has 14 day to ask for en-banc . The question seems to be , is the AG a losing party or nobody because she was denied intervening status .

Quote:
If the losing party does not file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, a judge may
call for an en banc vote sua sponte so long as it is within 7 days of the expiration of the party’s
time for filing a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. G.O. 5.4(c)(3). This means that the
sua sponte call must ordinarily be made within 21 days
This means there are two time lines to work off of and no one seems to know which is correct . If by being denied the AG is done in this case . Then the judges have/had 7 days to call for en-banc or to stop the clock so to have more time to get the en-banc vote together . The max the clock can be stopped is only 14 days

How ever if the AG can still appeal the denied intervention . Then that clock does not stop till the 26th and then the judges still have 7 more days from the 26th to either call for en-banc or stop the clock .

Also : I'm not sure Gore's 14 day clock ever started . Yes he put in writing he was done with the case and would not appeal the ruling . How ever does his clock still need to run out or as soon as he stated he would not appeal the judges 7 day clock starts ??? ?

So this could be done tomorrow or could drag on into the first part of Dec

All that being said . Someone on calguns forum just posted that they called the 9th circuit and a clerk informed them the mandate will be handed down on Fri . Now thats a clerk so who knows how accurate that is .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; November 20, 2014 at 12:34 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old November 20, 2014, 11:08 AM   #353
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
Three calls by different people, three different answers with a trend toward issuing the mandate tomorrow.

It also appears that motions for en banc have been filed in Richards and Baker. Any stay that arises from those cases will relate only to those venues, it is said, The rest of the 9th's jurisdiction will have to deal with Peruta as ruling law, exposing bastions like Lost Angles to lawsuits they cannot win if they don't comply. The Legislature may try to pass something new to save their fellow travelers.

And in other news, the Israelis and Russians are both seeing increases in violent crime at the citizen level. Both have announced that among other responses, easing the rules for citizens to carry are going to be made. How about them apples?
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old November 20, 2014, 11:56 AM   #354
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrySchell
Gore is said to have started processing "self defense" applications in SD.
Does anyone know if this is true? I don't see anything definitive on Calguns. Did Peruta's application get processed?
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us
My AmazonSmile benefits SAF
I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12.
2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old November 20, 2014, 01:03 PM   #355
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
Motorhead...I should have retracted the comment. Gore is not taking any such action until he gets an order from the local court, which needs the mandate from the 9CA PANEL.

He made an announcement subsequent to the rumor. Pardon me for not correcting things.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old November 27, 2014, 01:34 AM   #356
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
Harris files for en banc reconsideration on the denial of her intervention. See http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old November 27, 2014, 11:25 AM   #357
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,295
It's a high powered and very expensive WAAAAH!!!!
armoredman is offline  
Old November 28, 2014, 08:47 AM   #358
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
Quote:
It's a high powered and very expensive WAAAAH!!!!
And we know California can afford the expense, don't we.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy
CowTowner is offline  
Old November 30, 2014, 11:13 PM   #359
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
Can anyone explain the logic to me?

Quoting from the order:

Quote:
Intervention, both of right and by permission, can occur
only “[o]n timely motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)–(b).
Timeliness is determined with reference to three factors:
“(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks
to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the
reason for and length of the delay.” United States v. Alisal
Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Cal.
Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Commercial Realty
Projects, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Does this mean that if the other judges deem that Kamala Harris loses on the timeliness issue, then her petition will be denied - meaning 28 U.S.C. § 2403 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 will not be considered because - well because she was too late?

Or is it the case that if she prevails either on her argument for timeliness or in her argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 provides a basis for her intervention, then she will get an en banc hearing on her motion to intervene?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 1, 2014, 12:31 AM   #360
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
My understanding of it is she has asked for en-banc review of her denial to intervene and not the complete decision .That's it at this point , well and not to hand down the mandate which they can do at any time . So what the court must do is determine if they will except or deny that request . As for timeliness . I can see the court saying she did not ask to be apart of the case in a timely manner . How ever I can see them also saying until Gore/San Diego dropped the ball and said they would no longer appeal the case . The AG had no reason to be apart of the case . Gore had been fighting the case tooth and nail from the start . Why would the AG think he was going to just up and quit . I'm sure to her surprise he did just that and as soon as she found out the AG ask to intervene with in the time expected for such an appeal . Maybe it's the independent in me but I see a good argument for both .

Quote:
Or is it the case that if she prevails either on her argument for timeliness or in her argument that 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 provides a basis for her intervention, then she will get an en banc hearing on her motion to intervene?
The interesting part of this case is that NO law or statute was attacked or reversed . Only how one person applies it . No laws have changed do to this case so she has no reason to intervene . That makes two good reasons she should be denied . That all being said . It really does not seem like the 9th really cares about the rules or precedent . They tend to see it how they want to see it .

I'm not sure if that helps but there is no real cut and dry answer . It will come down to how the judges interpret what they read . Who knows how the most over turned court in the land will do that
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; December 1, 2014 at 12:40 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old December 1, 2014, 09:43 PM   #361
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
Quote:
How ever I can see them also saying until Gore/San Diego dropped the ball and said they would no longer appeal the case . The AG had no reason to be apart of the case .
I believe the rule says

Quote:
A party seeking to intervene must act as soon as he knows or has reason to know that his interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation.
But I'm quoting from the order not Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.

That sentence - "A party seeking to intervene must act as soon as he knows or has reason to know that his interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation" doesn't mean they can choose not to act until one party litigates poorly. How is it that everyone knew what was at stake, except for Kamala Harris?

But anyway, really what I am wondering is if the issue of examining 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 is predicated first on establishing timeliness - meaning, if the court finds that Kamala Harris' petition was not filed in a timely manner then the issue of 28 U.S.C. § 2403 / Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 will not even be considered.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 2, 2014, 12:31 AM   #362
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
I was under the impression that the order denied the motion both procedurally (timeliness) and substantively (that the constitutionality of a state statue is not in issue and therefore the AG has no interest in the litigation sufficient to warrant allowing her intervention). So at this point, she has three barriers to success: 1. she must get the panel to reconsider or the Circuit to grant en banc; 2. if en banc review is granted, the she must show she was timely, and
3. That she has a protectable interest in the litigation, contrary to the express holding of the majority in the Peruta decision. If and when she gets all three, then and only then will the panel hear her petition for en banc review, after which there will be an opportunity for a justice to request en banc and the Circuit to vote on that request. Meanwhile, Sheriff Prieto's application for en banc review remains stayed pending the ultimate finality of Peruta at the circuit level.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old December 2, 2014, 01:16 AM   #363
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
Sheriff Prieto's application for en banc review remains stayed pending the ultimate finality of Peruta at the circuit level.
Yes and really Richards is just riding the coat tails of Peruta . If the AG fails here . Then Peruta will be remanded down and it would seem that Richards would then have to follow Peruta's precedent . I mean how many time has a court ruled on something , it become final then just a month or two later reverse it self in another case ? That can't be to common

The other thing that can and likely happen is while waiting for the Peruta decision . The 9th moves forward with Richards . Then over turn Richards , vacating or mooting Peruta .

Or is that possible ? The fact Richards is waiting on Peruta . Can they move forward with Richards if Peruta is not final? Not sure on the rules for that type of thing .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old December 3, 2014, 03:18 PM   #364
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Plaintiff-Appellants are directed to file a response

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...12-03-2014.pdf
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old December 3, 2014, 08:05 PM   #365
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
A judge of the Court made a sua sponte call for a vote on whether
this case should be reheard en banc


http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...2-03-2014B.pdf
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old December 3, 2014, 08:38 PM   #366
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
Well I guess I will never know now if Harris had to prove timeliness first and foremost.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 12:23 AM   #367
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
File deadline

This order was filed on Dec 03. Add 21 days and you get Dec 25. So do they have 20 days or 22 days?
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 12:34 AM   #368
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
21+3=24th
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 12:46 AM   #369
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
I guess I need to go back to grade school.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 05:41 PM   #370
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
Both the responses about intervention and rehearing are due within 21 days of the order, so the documents will be in hand just before Christmas.

I understand the judges have either 14 or 21 days to make up their minds about what to do. One opinion on another blog was that EACH decision could consume 14-21 days.

I guess that the intervention decision will have to come first, for without that, there is nobody to argue Gore's position unless Harris is allowed to. Unless they have a draft pick, TBA, on tap.

So they string out a decision to decide on Harris 14-21 days after December 24. Then they decide about Harris. That will take another 14-21 days (?). If she loses, it would appear a rehearing of Peruta is off the table, as would be an appeal to SCOTUS. If they decide to let Harris intervene, the 9th's reputation for judicial buffoonery will be enhanced and...

Then they string out a decision to rehear Peruta 14-21 days. If rehearing is denied, Harris will spend money CA doesn't have and go to SCOTUS for cert. I dunno, we find out in the middle of 2015 or a little later if cert is granted or denied?

If rehearing is approved, the decision can be unpublished immediately after and it will take another couple of years to finally decide.

Delay is victory for the statists. They bleed their enemy further and get to keep their scheme running. All that matters is winning or delaying. Either works.

Sigh.

Methinks the judge who called for sua sponte en banc is pretty sure Harris will be approved to intervene. There is this smell in the air.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old December 4, 2014, 06:45 PM   #371
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
That sounds about right . I have another thought on the en-banc and why a judge called for it . Now this is just a thought so here it goes . The judge called for it knowing San Diego has no representation , Gore has already put in writing he will no longer appeal the case . Remember Richards was put on hold pending the out come of this case . Richards has already asked for en-banc and all sides are represented in that case .

My thinking is the court will say something like Peruta is inadequately represented for en- banc therefore we shall put Peruta on hold and continue with Richards because there is representation on both sides . That's the way they get around letting the AG intervene . You know they want to let her in but also know letting her intervene is a leap .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old December 6, 2014, 09:44 PM   #372
Dreaming100Straight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2013
Posts: 1,235
Given the recent civil unrest over race relations, I would expect those on the 9th in agreement with Thomas will be aghast at the thought of the citizenry having a right to carry concealed weapons. Whether it be intellectually dishonest or not, I expect the court will vote to hear the appeal en banc, even if the state is not permitted to participate as a party. California/Harris will be allowed to take part as amici.
Dreaming100Straight is offline  
Old December 25, 2014, 10:35 AM   #373
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
All the briefs are in . If anyones interested in some light reading , here you go
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old December 27, 2014, 11:43 PM   #374
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
From the Firearms Policy Coalition amicus brief by Benbrook, this is pretty solid:

Quote:
The California Attorney General’s office has long taken the position that plaintiffs who sue over a county’s policy for issuing concealed carry permits lack standing to sue the Attorney General because it “has no role in CCW license decisions.” Answering Br. of Appellee Atty. Gen. of the State of Cal. at 3, Mehl v. Blanas, No. 08-15773 (9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2008), Dkt. Entry 6675648. In Mehl, the Attorney General argued—in a brief filed in this Court, concerning a constitutional challenge to the Sacramento County sheriff’s handling of CCW license applications—that plaintiffs “lack[ed] standing as to the Attorney General because their alleged injuries are not traceable to any action or authority of the Attorney General.”
But what is maddening is that logical arguments don't matter when it comes to result-oriented jurisprudence.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 01:52 AM   #375
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
Well, logic mattered to the Peruta panel. It remains to be seen whether the sua sponte en banc request gets any traction. The sua sponte en banc request is problematic in a number of ways. We have yet to see whether the atty. Gen. is granted intervenor status for one thing.

For another thing, when the case was first started five years ago she argued vehemently (and successfully) that since no law was implicated and since she had no authority to grant or deny licenses that no one should have standing to sue the state. The AG argued that only sherrifs and police has the discretion to grant or deny permits therefore only they could be named as defendants.

But Sheriff Gore has bowed out, declining to continue the fight, leaving no one to argue the other side.

Then there is the sound reasoning of the Peruta ruling itself. The judicial and logical contortions required to unravel this Heller/McDonald/Moore-based ruling would be quite a grotesque spectacle indeed.

Even the most overturned circuit court of appeals in the land doesn't want that egg on their face. Not when they could simply punt it to the Supreme Court using less eyebrow raising means. Judges on the ninth circuit who may be keen to undo Peruta are in quite a pickle, as they must check their brains, reputations, and judicial integrity at the courthouse door to accomplish it.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12764 seconds with 9 queries